Doering, Otto C., III

Jones, Bob F.

English

Research Papers in Economics

POLICY EDUCATION  ON NON-TRADITIONAL
SUBJECTS:  A  PROGRAM  ON PUBLIC UTILITY
REGULATION
Otto Doering and Bob Jones
Purdue University
Increasingly we find that important public policy issues are outside
of our traditional fields of competence  in the land-grant  system. Yet,
we  are  increasingly  under pressure  to  look  at these issues  and deal
with them as educators. Part of the reason for this is that our clientele
has broadened  considerably in recent years,  and our traditional  rural
and agricultural clientele is more integrated into the rest of the nation
and affected more and more by new outside forces.
The  basic problem we  have  been forced  to face  is, how  do  we  deal
with educational program  needs where our competence  in the subject
matter  area may just not be there? Our recent experience  in dealing
with one such area may prove helpful to others facing similar circum-
stances.  In this case,  the issue  involved is  a most  important one, but
it is not covered  by the specific  expertise  of the policy educator  or the
department  level  colleagues of the policy educator.
The  first  thing  we  have  often  found  is that  we  are  not  quite  as
ignorant of some  of the new subject matter areas we have taken on as
we initially thought we were. In addition, our public  policy education
methodology  of defining  issues  and presenting  alternative  solutions
and their consequences  does in fact provide  a very valuable format to
follow which  makes the preparation  of an educational program much
easier than  it would be otherwise.  The methodology gives us a struc-
ture not only for the program  but also for the task of assembling the
appropriate information  in a coherent package.
In this  case  we  were  convinced  that public utility  regulation,  the
rules  of the game  under which the public  sets rates and determines
the activities of the regulated monopolies,  was fast becoming a critical
policy issue in the state of Indiana. Further,  it was not unlikely that
citizens would march on the statehouse if electric  and  gas rates con-
tinued  to increase  at their recent  pace while  the public  understood
little or  nothing  about the process  of public  regulation  or  the  basic
economics of the utility industries involved.
Until recently, the public has not needed to be knowledgeable about
157public utilities.  Electric  rates declined constantly  in real terms from
the end of the Second World War until the early  1970s. There was no
need for the average consumer to be concerned with the nature of the
electric industry  or the process  through which electric  rates were set.
By doing nothing, rates declined. What more could be asked? A variety
of factors  led to increasing real electric and  gas rates starting in the
mid-to early 1970s,  and all of a sudden utility consumers of all classes
became  concerned  and forced their political representatives  to become
concerned.  However, the knowledge base of those now concerned about
utilities is very limited.
One  of the  major  concerns  about  policy  education  is  finding  the
teachable moment for such education.  Ideally, the education will occur
when people are  interested  in the issue, but have  not yet committed
themselves  to  a  course  of action.  With  this  issue  there  were  mixed
signals.  Specific  groups,  like  the  consumer's  action  coalition  and the
electric industry, had firm beliefs and plans of action.  However,  much
of the  public  and  a  number  of their  legislative  and  other  political
representatives  had not yet really defined the issues  and didn't know
which questions  were the important  ones  to ask.  Thus, while a small
portion of the potential  audience  was firmly committed to  specific  al-
ternatives,  the bulk of the affected  public  didn't even  know what the
alternatives  might be.
Public  policy  education  is  supposed  to  help  the  audience  begin  to
separate facts from values and to verify the critical  facts surrounding
the issues, the alternatives and their consequences.  Much of the notion
that the land-grant  system is an appropriate purveyor of such educa-
tion  stems from  the  belief that the  research  base  of the  land-grant
institution provides  a resource  for the determination  of critical facts.
This  causes  some  difficulty  when  the  policy  educators  happen  to  be
removed  in training  and in discipline  from where the facts  reside  for
an issue.
In retrospect,  we did several things correctly to get ourselves geared
up to be  able to handle the facts of the electric  and gas industry  and
their regulation.  Early  in our preparation,  we went to the  committed
groups (the utilities, the consumer groups, etc.) and described to them
the kind of educational  program  we  were  planning  to carry  out.  We
then asked each group what they thought the critical issues were, and
also  got their description of the  facts (as they saw them) surrounding
these  issues.  Second,  we  paid the  admission  fees  and  attended  two
excellent  conferences  dealing with the regulation of natural  gas and
the state of electric utilities in the Midwest.  Third, we called in some
of our chips with the engineering school and drew upon their expertise
in specific engineering  related areas, and, fourth,  we read everything
we could lay our hands on that seemed relevant.
As partial  compensation  for  our insecurity  about the  subject  area
we  spent the time  and resources  to  get  absolutely first class  visuals
158for  our  presentation.  This  was  a  very wise  decision.  It boosted  our
morale,  and the  clarity  of our visuals  overcame  some  of the  initial
fuzziness  of our own  presentation.  We  were  also  dealing with  audi-
ences that included industrial representatives  and others who just don't
put up with the confused and messy visuals that extension economists
sometimes  inflict upon their rural and farm  audiences.  The outward
appearance  of our presentation  was as polished  as possible.
Our audiences  were modest in size - 30 to  60 people per meeting.
One of the interesting things to us was that the local employees of the
major utilities attended our meetings en masse. They told us that they
wanted to  see if their home  office  had been telling them the "truth"
about  the  issues  involving  their utilities.  Overall  our  audiences  in-
cluded  some  farm  representation,  some  rural  representation,  much
suburban representation,  strong utility representation,  some state leg-
islators and some industrial  and small business representation.
Would  we  go  out  and  do  it  again?  We  probably  would.  We  have
always  done a  certain  amount  of policy  education  where  the  subject
matter was not totally familiar to  us.  Our work  in public utilities  is
about as far as we have gone from the familiar,  and we did have  some
background  because  of earlier  work  in  energy  policy.  However,  the
state regulatory  aspects  and the background  of the electric  industry
were  brand new.
If you plan to push into new areas and take the risk that is involved,
certain  facts need to be recognized  when gearing  up to take on  such
an issue:
1. The time involved in planning  and executing a public policy  ed-
ucation  program in an unfamiliar  subject matter area  is tremendous.
2.  Given that the investment will be great for such a program, you
had better be  sure you  are convinced that this is a critical  issue.
3.  As you  prepare,  be sure  to visit with all interested  parties  that
might be involved in the issue  and get as much help as possible  from
them  in  identifying  the  issues  and defining  their  impression  of the
facts.  In our traditional  areas of concern,  we  tend to know where  all
the bodies are hidden,  and are  aware of who has done what to whom.
This is critically important  information for giving an educational pro-
gram that is viewed as "straight" by as wide a spectrum of opinion as
possible.
4.  Be prepared  to attend  and pay the registration  fee  for  any con-
ferences  or  seminars  of  high quality  dealing  with the  subject.  The
investment in time and  money is worth it.
5.  Put together as professional  a program as  possible.  The new au-
diences  are  likely  to  be  less  forgiving  of amateur  presentations  in
comparison with a familiar audience that has been unable to read your
visuals for decades.
1596.  If your program  is  successful  be prepared  for the recognition  of
expertise in a new area and all the commitments that this may bring.
This last point  is important because  it may result in new responsi-
bilities being thrust upon you.  In  our case  we  have now  been called
upon to serve  as technical  staff to  our governor's  commission  consid-
ering reform of utility regulation and also serve as a technical resource
to a joint industry and utility group attempting to come to agreement
on reforms before measures are thrust upon them through the political
process.
By now  you  should  recognize that  most of what we have  said  can
also  be applied to programs  we undertake  in areas where we believe
that we  have  background  and familiarity.  It is just  that we are  not
subject  to the same pressure  of raw panic as when we  are convinced
we  are  well-grounded  in a  subject  - even though  we might  not  be.
The more thorough  approach to unfamiliar  issues should probably be
followed for those with which we are more  familiar.
If we  are  going  to  provide  education  that  meets  critical  needs  for
our clientele,  it is important that we be  willing to do  the homework
necessary to undertake  public policy education even if we are not pre-
viously  well-grounded  in  the  subject  matter  area  for  an  important
issue.
160

POLICY EDUCATION ON NON-TRADITIONAL SUBJECTS: A PROGRAM ON PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics