Two consumer groups say that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is stubbornly refusing to deal with the "unlawfulness and irrelevance" of GT&T's application for increased rates and they are urging that new information from the phone company be properly verified.

In a response, the PUC said the issues raised by the Guyana Consumers' Association (GCA) and the Consumers' Advisory Bureau (CAB) had been ventilated before at PUC hearings and it would make no public comment on them at the moment.

However, the PUC pointed out that the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T) document on temporary phone rates which the consumer organisations are now objecting to had been copied to their legal representative and at the following PUC hearing after certain inquiries, counsel for the consumers had indicated that he had no further questions to ask.

Since only temporary rates are being considered at the moment for GT&T, the PUC said that it is of the view that the "parties concerned have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the matter".

It also criticised the issue of public statements by interested groups on the proceedings before it which it charged are "calculated to misinform the public and intimidate the PUC".

In their press statement issued on January 24, the GCA and the CAB stated that the GT&T letter to the PUC offering what the phone company described as concessions to facilitate an early temporary rate order ignored the fact that GT&T's application was not in compliance with the requirements of the PUC Act and further, the information provided was irrelevant.

According to the release, these issues were raised in January 1998 in connection with GT&T's December 1997 application for rate increases but were completely ignored by the PUC.

Following that the consumers had appealed the order fixing temporary rates. That appeal has not yet been heard, the GCA/CAB release stated, and has since been overtaken by the issuing of permanent rates by the PUC on December 19, 2001.

The consumer bodies said the decision on temporary rates by the PUC with respect to the December 31, 2001 GT&T rate filing was astonishing since it did not address any of the issues and objections raised by the groups in their testimony.

The groups argue that the regulatory body could not lawfully approve rates, even of a temporary nature, on the basis of an unlawful application and irrelevant information.

Calling on GT&T to justify the new figures set out in the one- page letter to the PUC, the consumer groups opined that the commission was duty bound to verify that the figures are at least justifiable.

The consumer groups further called into question GT&T's revaluation of its assets on the advice of the international accounting firm Arthur Andersen. This, they said, was totally at odds with the PUC Act which stipulates the original cost basis for valuing assets. "Neither the PUC, nor GT&T, nor Arthur Andersen can change the statutory basis of the valuation", the two groups said.

They added that the PUC seems to have overlooked the need to call a fresh hearing to assess the new information provided by GT&T.