FEDS: Keep Utility in Default Supplier Role!

The local distribution utility should remain the default provider of electricity, a federal agency has said.

Specifically, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) told the District of Columbia PSC, in an investigation concerning the structure of Standard Offer Service, that, "GSA believes that SOS should continue to be fulfilled by PEPCO."

"Contrary to RESA's position, GSA does not believe that PEPCO as service provider of SOS and electric distribution impedes the development of competitive markets," GSA said.

Although, as GSA notes in its comments, it is a large consumer of electricity as the manager of federal properties, wading into retail electric market policies is clearly outside of the defined scope of the federal agency, which was originally, as noted on the GSA.gov website, to administer supplies and provide workplaces for federal employees. More broadly, the GSA is a representative of the people of the United States, and its actions should reflect its servitude to the people. The people, through their elected representatives, did not create the GSA for it to opine on preferred retail market policies, and the GSA should not presume to speak for the people on this matter (although the GSA's comments were billed solely as its own, as a public servant, any comments are implicitly those of the people who have empowered it, and therefore, GSA must refrain from representing any views outside of its specific delegated authority).

While Matters understands a certain nexus between retail policy (and thus cost) and GSA's ultimate mission of procuring services for federal agencies at the lowest cost, taking substantive positions on a preferred retail market policy is not within its enumerated powers. Moreover, given the egregious taxpayer waste at the agency, if GSA is seeking to save taxpayer money (as would be its defense for wading into a retail electric market debate), it can get better bang for the buck by reducing waste and abuse internal to the agency.

Given recent and high-profile sequester-related budget cuts, GSA's devotion of time and resources to a retail market debate over which it has no authority (GSA's comments were dated March 18, authored by GSA's Senior Assistant General Counsel in the GSA Office of General Counsel) seems like just the type of mission creep and wasted resources that should be on the chopping block, instead of more essential federal services, such as security and food safety inspections.