FERUP Expects To Emerge As Strong Voice in Policy Debates

Unlike NARUC, FERUP doesn’t charge state commissioners to participate, said Fla. PSC Comr. Charles Davidson (R), co-chmn. with Cal. PUC Comr. Susan Kennedy (D). He said NARUC collects about $675,000 per year in membership fees, and Fla. alone contributes about $25,000. FERUP may seek federal, state or nonprofit grants, Davidson said, noting that “that will be something for the executive committee to discuss. Like with NARUC, we won’t accept funds from companies.” Kennedy said the group would also accept money from industry associations that “don’t take any positions before the [state] commissions because their membership is diverse… They aren’t supported by a particular company.” Others FERUP will accept contributions from include consumer groups, policy think tanks and academic groups -- “the same kinds of associations that support NARUC,” Davidson said.

FERUP’s emergence surprised some industry observers. While historically, some state commissioners have always taken positions different from NARUC’s, this is the first formal parallel organization. “It was necessary for convenience to communicate with each others, have a website, host forums,” Kennedy said: “All that is for convenience.” NARUC Gen. Counsel Brad Ramsay said “it’s not unusual or surprising” that some state commissioners disagree with NARUC’s established positions, but he said “having a summit is something I haven’t seen before.”

Kennedy and Davidson said FERUP was created not to oppose NARUC but to launch debates and find solutions. Kennedy said she, like others at FERUP, was still a NARUC member and didn’t plan to leave it. FERUP is a “group of like-minded commissioners,” Kennedy said: “It’s like a discussion group.” She said the idea was for the organization to address controversial issues and come up with solutions -- almost impossible for a large group like NARUC. “A large organization tends to avoid controversial issues,” because “you can’t get a consensus through a big organization like NARUC,” she said. She said there were groups and committees within NARUC, “but they are pretty large. A smaller group allows for closer discussions… Even we all don’t agree with each other. We want to spur the debate.”

Ramsay told us FERUP creation “doesn’t change what NARUC does.” He said he had always pointed out when commissioners disagreed with NARUC’s position, and how, when lobbying the FCC, “I always tell people when there are dissents, so my lobbying won’t change,” he said. He added that FERUP’s statement of policy (www.ferup.com) was “very consistent” with NARUC’s.

VoIP jurisdiction has emerged as a major area of disagreement between the organizations. While NARUC has been arguing against preemption of state oversight, FERUP has strongly spoken in favor of federal jurisdiction. “The borderless nature of IP-enabled services and the need to avoid a patchwork of 50 different state policies argue strongly for regulation at the national level, with a rational mechanism to ensure that the legitimate concerns of states are addressed,” FERUP told the FCC in comments on IP-enabled services. The filing was signed by Davidson and Kennedy, as well as Colo. PUC Chmn. Gregory Sopkin, Me. PUC Chmn. Thomas Welch, Conn. Dept. of Public Utility Control Vice-Chmn. Jack Goldberg, Fla. PSC Comr. Rudolph Bradley, Ark. PSC Comr. Randy Bynum, N.D. PSC Comr. Kevin Cramer and Mo. PSC Comr. Connie Murray.

Davidson said FERUP is “modeled in a fashion similar to NARUC. We operate like we do when we spend time at NARUC meetings, participate in NARUC energy and telecom calls or work on NARUC task force such as the TRIP task force.” Consumer Federation of America Research Dir. Mark Cooper expressed concern that state commissioners did their FERUP-related work on their PUC time. But Kennedy said all the issues she and other FERUP members worked on were in front of their commissions anyway and had to be addressed. “As long as it’s commission business,” this is “part of our work,” she said.

FERUP members don’t represent their commissions, Kennedy and Davidson said. “We are all speaking as individual commissioners,” Davidson said. Kennedy said: “I am an independent vote on the commission, so I represent myself.” She said she didn’t know whether other commissioners on the Cal. PUC supported her involvement in FERUP, saying: “I haven’t asked.” Cooper called FERUP a “private club” and said state commissioners couldn’t spend their work time on FERUP issues. Kennedy disagreed: “We are allowed to associate with each other… It’s all about doing our everyday jobs.”

Looking into the future, Kennedy said FERUP would focus on VoIP jurisdiction, intercarrier compensation, consumer protection and rewriting the 1996 Telecom Act. “I hope we'll have white papers to file on those issues with the FCC,” she said. In the long run, Kennedy said she expected the group to address issues besides telecom, “but we are not close to it yet.” Davidson said he expected the group to add members over time. But Kennedy said: “I would measure the growth at the number of issues we discuss and solutions we put out.”