Questions still remain in OUR ruling on JPS

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I AM responding to the article published in The Gleaner on August 26, 2020, titled ‘JPS cleared of wrongdoing in relation to reports of excessive billing’.

The report states that the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) concluded from the evidence presented that the new meters installed by the Jamaica Public Service (JPS) between January 2017 and June last year are not necessarily the driver for excessive electricity consumption.

The term “are not necessarily” allows the OUR and the JPS to appear correct without giving any evidence whatsoever to prove the validity of their point. The report is obviously vague and does not address what wrongdoings were specifically complained about as the term “are not necessarily” also means “possibly, but not certainly” could be the driver for excessive electricity consumption. If that were the basis, then the JPS could not be correctly said to have been cleared of wrongdoing.

LACK OF FINDINGS

This does not address the consumers’ complaints as after the dramatic fall in the price of crude oil, the relief in our billing was not seen. The bills increased beyond our wildest dreams while other economies had the opposite experience.

The Gleaner story did not include any transparency and methodology of the investigation, only a bland statement of no wrongdoing. Where were the findings published?

Let us not forget that the OUR is funded through regulatory fees, which the regulated entities JPS and the National Water Commission are mandated to pay and that the regulatory fees are ultimately recovered from utility consumers through their respective tariffs. Can the OUR properly and independently investigate the companies that pay its salaries and bills? Which independent experts participated in the investigation, and how extensive was the review?

The distressed paying utility consumers deserve a better explanation.

DR JENNIFER MAMBY ALEXANDER