We thank Beresford Hay for his critique of the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) published in the February 28 edition of The Gleaner. Over the years, we have debated with Hay on several issues, including that of collection agencies charging utility customers a fee to pay their bills at their many outlets. While not intending to belabour the discourse, it is important to restate the OUR's position.

Our press release dated May 12, 2006 (available on our website at www.our.org.jm), quotes our then director general, J. Paul Morgan, as follows: "Utility companies must ensure that their customers continue to have reasonable choice in bill-payment options so as not to be forced to pay transaction fees."

Collection agencies

The collection agencies are still paid fees by the utility companies. However, they (the collection agencies) have argued that these payments are not sufficient to make their investments worthwhile, so they are forced to charge the customer also. For those customers who find it convenient to use these agencies, so be it. They pay for the convenience, and why should the OUR remove this element of choice?

On the other hand, I am not willing to pay for that convenience, so my utility bills will be paid at the premises of the utility companies or online, where I do not have to pay a transaction fee. However, for my neighbour, who also pays for her subscriber-television service, it suits her to go to one location and pay all her bills, including utility bills, and she is willing to pay for that convenience. Would it be fair for the OUR to deny her, if it could, that convenience?

Following on that argument, it has been posited that the utility companies should absorb whatever charges the collection agencies implement. But this would mean that these private, unregulated collection agencies could continuously increase their transaction fees while all utility customers, including those who do not use their services, subsidise their operations.

Wherever you go in the world, regulated utilities have to be reimbursed their legitimate business expenses. If the approved rates do not recognise these expenses, the regulator would be intentionally jeopardising the financial viability of the entities and acting contrary to statute.

With regard to Hay's lobby for amendments to the statute to re-define the OUR's role, I would urge caution. International best practices see the utility regulator servicing complaints that have already been investigated by the companies, thereby acting as an appellate body. This is what the OUR does through its Consumer and Public Affairs Division, specifically, the Consumer Relations Unit.

Our highly trained staff members analyse each of the 5,000 contacts, on average, that we receive each year and issue decisions that are subject to appeal to me - as director of consumer and public affairs - as well as to the office comprising the director general and deputy directors general. We have at our disposal an cadre of excellent engineers, financial analysts and lawyers, with many years of experience in their respective fields, as well as in regulatory affairs.

Advice

I should also note that, as the director of consumer and public affairs, I am required to advise the members of the office on consumer affairs. A large part of this advice is gleaned from the consumers themselves and from analyses of trends in their arena.

Traditionally, (albeit the OUR is merely 12 years old) our directors general have been engineers, with a background in utility management, among other skills. The incumbent is not an engineer, but is an internationally respected economist and financial analyst, with a vast skills set. His profile can be viewed on the OUR website.

I would encourage all stakeholders, including customers/consumers, to review the OUR Act, which is also available on our website, and having viewed our objectives, to make their assessment of the OUR's achievements.

I am, etc.,

DAVID GEDDES

Director, Consumer & Public Affairs

Office of Utilities Regulation