PUC explains their role, clarifies speculations and sets the record straight

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) held a session with Love FM today to define its legal boundaries in the ongoing saga of the BTL-Smart acquisition. The core message from the regulator was simple: they cannot act on what does not officially exist. While negotiations are happening in boardrooms and being protested in the streets, the PUC maintains that its role is not triggered until an official application or a formal expression of interest is filed with them.  Speculation has been rife that an application for the buyout had already been submitted and was being reviewed behind closed doors. To clear the air, the Commission’s Legal Counsel, Stacy Grinage, confirmed that while paperwork was submitted last month, it was not the “acquisition application” the public has been waiting for. According to Grinage, the PUC is currently restricted from discussing active matters, but she clarified the nature of the documents currently on their desk.

Stacy Grinage, Internal Legal Counsel, PUC: “In response to that, I wouldn’t agree that it is delayed because as we said we have been, Mr. Teck who has been on the forefront of this exercise, we have been undertaking the study and the research and putting together the data for this for quite some time. But just to clarify that this is not a reaction to that. This is a separate parallel PUC proceedings that is occurring and it just so happens that at this time that is happening and that public discourse is happening in relation to that as well.”

Sheena Garnett, Communications Affairs Manager, PUC:  “And Renee, I’d also like to add a little bit to what Ms. Stacy said. It’s necessary to understand the PUC and the function of the PUC. The PUC acts as for lack of a, so that you can understand the PUC we are the regulator for the utilities. So we act as the courts for the utilities, at least in the initial step, right? And so when we make our decisions or decisions, we make decisions and we issue orders and those can be considered quasi-judicial in that respect. So for example, when a matter is in the courts, right? Do you, is it a standard process for the judge that is reviewing that case to come and talk and say what is being presented in front of them? The PUC then acts in that regard then. So when a case or a submission is in front of us we are the ones that will make the decision on it. And so therefore we cannot speak on a live and active submission because we don’t want to be caught with any idea or any inclination of bias because then that will lead the decision in another direction. So we have to remain unbiased.”

The perceived lack of communication from the regulator has led to accusations that the PUC is being sidelined or is intentionally avoiding the issue. Sheena Garnett, the PUC’s PR Director, addressed these concerns head-on. She explained that the commission is not silent, but is instead bound by strict protocols. Rather than reacting to political noise, the PUC has been doing its required due diligence.  As a matter of fact, she noted that the recently released market analysis on the telecom sector was not due to this recent proposed acquisition, but that it was in the making for several years now.  

Stacy Grinage, Internal Legal Counsel, PUC: “And although the media you may suggest that certain things are out there we at the PUC did not receive any formal applications by any of our licensees that would have prompted what you may be suggesting. So the matter in relation to the acquisition it came before the PUC I think in January and it came as a purchase of shares. And that is under consideration. We can’t speak, we can’t publicly discuss it.”

With the PUC now on the record stating that an acquisition request has not reached their desk, the focus remains on the government’s next move