THE Jamaica Public Service Company (JPSCo) has said that it is unnecessary for utility companies to be subjected to the proposed Access to Information legislation because utilities are already bound to provide the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) with information to which the public has access.

In addition to the power of the OUR to request information from utilities, the JPSCo is bound by the terms of its licence to provide the OUR with information.

Condition 8 of the licence stipulates, inter alia: “The licensee shall, at the request of the Office (of Utilities Regulation), provide at the licensee’s expense, with a copy (in such format as the Office may specify) of any book, record or accounts as the Office may reasonably require.”

This obligation, JPSCo argues, already results in costs and it is, therefore, reluctant to incur any further expense.

“…It may not be reasonable to place on the utility companies an obligation to employ additional manpower and financial resources to satisfy the requirements under the Information Act,” JPSCo stated in a written submission to legislators reviewing the Bill this week.

Consequently, the power company has asked the lawmakers to exclude all utility companies from the jurisdiction of the proposed Access to Information Act and bring the OUR itself under the act.

Specifically, the JPSCo, which has made it clear that it supports the intent of the act, is suggesting an amendment to Section 5 (6) of the Bill to state that the Act shall not apply to anybody or organisation which provides utility services that are regulated by the OUR.

While legislators accepted the proposed amendment for further deliberation, they did not agree with the company’s arguments for exclusion from the legislation.

“To ask us to exclude you from the Act… cannot work,” Colin Campbell, committee chairman, told Glenford Watson, legal officer for JPSCo.

“When you do that for companies regulated by the OUR, what do you do for companies regulated by the Broadcasting Commission or companies regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority or companies regulated by any other regulator? Are they going to plead a similar case?” Campbell inquired.

“I think we would be opening a can of worms.”

Replied Watson: “The information we are required to pass over to the OUR is because of the licensing provision. We are not certain those other entities have the same extensive requirements.”

“Very similar,” responded Canute Brown, another committee member.