PUCO reappointments:
Strickland bows to utilities,
abdicates leadership

Gov. Strickland's promise to reappoint three Taft Public Utilities Commissioners is a remarkable abdication of leadership. He could do more to Turn-Around Ohio by installing new leadership at the PUCO than all his campaign promises put together. It's just that important to Ohio family budgets and to Ohio's business climate. Instead he has decided to let Ohio utilities proceed unregulated by either the market or the government.

At the same time, his pre-emptive decision violates the whole purpose of Ohio's sunshine law. It cuts the public out of the process as thoroughly and cynically as the illegal meetings identified by Attorney General Dann.

The three sitting commissioners include PUCO Chair Alan Schriber (1983-1989, 1999-2007) and Ronda Hartman Fergus (1995-2007), whose regulatory policy has been to cater to a handful of utility companies at the expense of all other Ohio industrial, commercial, and residential customers. The third, Valerie Lemmie, was just appointed by Gov. Taft last April.

The numbers tell the story. The most recent national survey of electricity costs makes Ohio seem average. It ranks 28th in rates for residential consumers, 20th for commercial consumers, and 28th for industrial consumers, according to the 2005 U.S. Energy Information Administration study.

These rankings are misleading, however, for two reasons.

First, Ohio rates vary widely by region, reaching 11 and 12 cents/KWH in the north for residential and commercial customers and 9 to 13 cents/KWH for industrial customers, according to the February 2007 Ohio Utility Rate Survey. These rates would put Ohio in the top ten worst states in all three categories.

Second, central and southern Ohio utility rates are catching up rapidly. In February, Bill Callahan compiled the evidence in two charts:





What is most notable about these rate increases is that there is no policy basis for them. None of the reasons which business or residential customers could accept as legitimate apply -- not real costs, not reasonable profit.

Why is Strickland reappointing these three?

His press secretary, Keith Dailey, gave the Columbus Dispatch two arguments:

First, "The governor believes that just because he has the ability to take advantage of this situation, it doesn't mean he must." While there's no legal obligation, of course, he did spend all of 2006 promising Ohio voters that he would be a leader. They voted for him with that in mind. Doesn't that create some kind of obligation on his part?

Second, Dailey said that the governor would not change commissioners to gain partisan advantage. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. He is supposed to be putting a new Administration in place to pursue new policies. That means some people need to be replaced. There was no hesitation in replacing Taft's cabinet officers, no suggestion that Strickland was gaining partisan advantage thereby. This should be no different.

Unless Strickland can produce a more plausible reason for his decision, voters will have to conclude that he approves of what's been going on at the PUCO. If so, he owes everyone an explanation why.

Background on Strickland PUCO appointments