Phony outrage from the PSC

BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA - Shocking, isn't it, how shocked politicians can be when they are caught behaving like politicians. We hope, though, that members of the Public Service Commission spare us the outrage when the curtain is pulled away from how the commission routinely does business: in casual, private meetings, one-on-one with the officials of the companies the commission regulates.

The same company officials, we might note, who approve the campaign contributions for PSC members when they run for office.

The phony-baloney show of outrage was triggered by a statement made by Wayne Leonard, the president of Entergy. Entergy Louisiana is in bankruptcy because of hurricanes Katrina and Rita; Leonard wanted to reassure the people who ride herd on Entergy's stock price and bond offerings.

He said the company had three very solid votes for rate relief out of five Public Service Commission members.

Unfortunately, Entergy's proposal had not yet been formally made to the PSC. Oops.

It's as if Leonard questioned the propriety of the parentage of the PSC members. To a man, they fell over themselves to huff and puff about this, raking one of Leonards executives who appeared before them with broadsides about the suggestion that their votes were locked up by the utility company.

We don't want anybody in this room or around this country or around this state to think that just because Entergy wants it, Entergy gets it, said Commissioner Jay Blossman of Mandeville, in a typical comment.

What's the reality of this situation? Routinely, PSC members meet individually for briefings at one time, fancy lunches from regulated companies and others interested in the decisions of the regulators. Nowadays, the lunches or other benefits are required to be accounted for and reported. But the briefings are from one side of an argument what the lawyers would call ex-parte, without other parties to the dispute being present.

The PSC members want no one to believe that they're promising their votes on proposals. Their defense for ex-parte meetings: The briefings are for information only, and it's up to the PSC members to find out about the other side of disputes before the commission.

Admittedly, PSC business is often complex. It involves not only federal and state energy regulations but extremely complex financial calculations, including those of the bondholders on Wall Street, the people Leonard was trying to reassure about the PSC's attitude.

Members have to educate themselves if they are to be effective in their jobs.

At election time, though, PSC members want the public to believe that they are the tribunes of the little guy, sticking up for the ordinary ratepayer.

What Leonard did wrong was to state in public what company officials believed in good faith they had, a firm or as firm as these things can be belief that a PSC majority would back the utility's position.

Given the influence wielded by utilities over the PSC, and a tradition of back-scratching among PSC members, its staff and regulated companies, few people ought to doubt that that Leonard's initial assessment was correct at least before he talked about it in public.

We don't know what effect Leonard's indiscretion will have, but can we ask PSC members to avoid all the shouting?