| Printed Page 2590, Feb. 24 | Printed Page 2610, Feb. 24 |

Mr. Rowell, is there any other information that you think would be important for the committee to consider as it would relate to potential conflicts of interest that may have developed since we last screened you a year ago?
A. Not that I can think of. I've tried to be very careful not to put myself in a position that would create the impression of a conflict or a conflict.
Q. Mr. Rowell, when you were elected, you were one of the first persons to be elected in some while to the commissions. There had been a series of reelections of the commission. Have you felt that you were part of a team out there? Have you felt like that you're a lone ranger or how has your service been?
A. Well, it's been a learning process, but I've been very warmly received. All of them have been very cordial and certainly had no major conflicts, although I've expressed some different views on a number of issues and I've written minority opinions in one case on an order and a statements of -- on another, but certainly there is nothing that hasn't been an honest difference of views and how we approach a subject.

I didn't mean to suggest that we didn't do a good job, but, certainly, if we didn't have the quality staff we have then the commission itself would not have done nearly as good a job as it has done.
Q. So I'm -- I should not infer anything further into that statement?
A. No. Please don't.
Q. Okay. Then going back to your other comment you made that you said you had often had some different viewpoints.
A. Occasionally. I didn't say not often.
Q. Occasional. Would you elaborate on that, please, sir?
A. Well, there are a couple of areas in particular that I have expressed some concern. One is in the area of how we handle discounts in transportation that are less than truckload lots and it's almost a response to a hearing that showed that there was discriminatory pricing and cross subsidization that I attempted with the support of the staff to set the method that we would allow discounts through -- routinely up to 20 percent off the published rate and beyond 20 percent, it would be handled differently in that you would have to justify the rate you were asking beyond that 20 percent allowed discount.

I've lost on a couple of votes, but we do have staff now looking into it with other states and how that might be handled administratively. So it's an area where I feel what we note is discriminatory pricing and cost subsidization, we ought to take steps to alleviate that and discounting in this respect is not across the board. It's where you give discounts to a particular named shipper. That's one area.

There is areas in personnel that I would like to see some changes in terms of how the commission deals with personal matters. There is areas in which switched access charges not different as much as trying to get the commission to a level of understanding -- that's a bad way of saying it. It sounds like I know more than they do. But to understand the importance of getting switched access charges down to deal with a new infrastructure or the new highway we're talking about because that's the propagating getting on and off the system. And.

I put a statement in the minutes that I disagreed with the current policy and that I would not vote for any discounts over 20 percent until that discount was justified in the rate application. And I have a standing motion on all discounts exceeding 20 percent that I vote no, so I do that not to be arbitrary and not to be ugly and I think that -- but simply to keep that before the commission that here's an area that needs to be addressed.
Q. So your position there has been consistently not a position to the rest of the commission on that issue?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Jackson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR JACKSON:
Q. Mr. Rowell, welcome back before this committee.
A. Thank you.
Q. It seems like it was just yesterday that you were here last year. Let me follow up with a question that Representative Wilkes asked and it is concerning your statement. I also took note when Mr. Couick asked you to rate it, I think -- as Mr. Wilkes said, you said the staff was outstanding, but the commission was good. And my question that I wrote down was

One of the things that I did as well as other new commissioners is have an administrative briefing on the agenda before the full commission meeting, so that we understand fully each issue before us and what's taking place. The commission as a whole has not wanted to take the time to do that because for them it was routine.

With new commissioners coming on as we will have after this election, I think that could be a standard part of our procedure in the future to have a posted meeting that's administrative in nature, that we discuss the issues, get more input, frame the questions before us. Not to vote, not to state a position, but simply to be sure we understand the issues before we come back later and vote.

Often times something will come up where we might ask for staff what would be the implication if we did this and did that and the other, well, the staff needs time to research and bring it back to us. So I think a fuller discussion of some of the issues, just so we all know, we understand where we are would be helpful.

Again, the commission that was there and is there is experienced and knows what they're doing, and I didn't suggest they didn't, but from a new person's standpoint, I'd like to be sure that I understand each question that I vote on.
Q. One follow up, when you say fuller discussion of the issues, are you implying less reliance on the staff?
A. I think you need to be at a point where you can jog the staff or ask the questions that you need to ask or be sure that you understood the questions fully.

Let me give you an example, we hear water and sewer matters in panels of three. And traditionally, the chairman of that panel is the person from whose district that issue comes from, so I have chaired one panel on a sewer and water issue.

Following the hearing which was rather extensive and you get a lot of information that gives you ranges to deal to with and the implications of

So a more openness, a fuller discussion from perspective would help me understand that I recall all the facts and that I understand all the questions that are involved and the issues that are before us.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Kennedy.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE KENNEDY:
Q. Mr. Rowell, let me ask you this question. How much time, your time, is put into being a commissioner during a week?
A. Mr. Kennedy, it's hard to give the total hours. It's perceived to be full time, but clearly, I try to arrange my schedule to be here Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the days that the hearings are scheduled normally and when the commission meets. I try to be available in the district to do reading of pretrial testimony and briefs and materials on all the different issues.

I do that for two reasons. One is I think I can read and study better in my home district than I can here when there is -- there is really no -- and I'm closer to serving the constituency. The other is the fact that it saves five or six thousand dollars a year in travel costs which is money to be used to send a staff person to a seminar somewhere to help them in training, so I do it from the economy standpoint and from a convenience standpoint.

But to answer your questions, there is a fair amount of time during the week that you are free to do what you deem appropriate to better yourself to prepare for the next issue before you.
Q. And this is basically across the board with other commissioners also?
A. Yes, sir. Most -- some of the commissioners who live closer than I do come to the office every day for some period of the day. Of course, in my case, there's a fair amount of travel time involved that would --

It was a meeting that was put on by the water companies, water companies that operate for profit. We have very few of those in South Carolina. In some states, they're fairly common, but the theme of the commission was how to provide better customer service. I attended the meetings and attended seminars.

We also had meetings of our committee, we discussed issues like the Reenactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the impact cost of that to the consumer, both municipal as well as privately owned companies that are regulated, so it was, I thought, a learning process. It was really an attractive area and it also happens that it was about a hour from my grandson, so my wife was instrumental in having me take that trip as well.
Q. So it -- when -- this actually was a donation to you or a gift to you from the National Association of Water Companies?
A. The water companies invited the water committee of a NARU --
Q. I see.
A. -- and said that they would pay the registration fee. I paid motel and transportation and meals. They were not covered under registration.
Q. So the registration fee is five twenty-five?
A. The registration fee was included among the figures that's shown. I'm not sure just what the total was.
Q. Who actually asked you? Who actually issued the invitation? Was it the association itself or a particular company?
A. The executive director of the National Association of Water Companies.

As I understand your comments earlier, I'm led to believe that you possibly have had to vote on some issues or were put into a position to vote on some issues that you did not feel fully informed about and maybe some of the other commissioners as well.
A. I didn't mean to give that impression. What I did was I have gone to the staff and been over the issues ahead of time, so that I was informed when it came before us, so, no, I felt that I knew what I was voting on when it came up.

But sometimes it seemed like I was the only one debating the issue as the commission was voting on it and I would just like to feel like that either if there is a point, I'm missing that the commission would convince me that I'm on the wrong side or have missed the point or listen to my argument.

But, no, I've gone out of my way to be informed on what's coming before us. The point I mean on the hearings is where we -- where it was a long period of time that it is delayed before the filings of the briefs and finally getting back to it. But I didn't mean to give the impression, I wasn't going to feel comfortable with the issues.
Q. Well, are there other commissioners meeting when you're not present?
A. No.

I've read it. I've got an idea and I'm willing to say well, here's what I think or here's what I believe, what's your opinion. So sometimes there has been a lack of dialogue, I think, before the vote is taken which has been a little frustrating to me.
Q. Then I go back to my original question one more time, who is running the show, the staff or the commission?
A. The staff presents the information to the commission upon issues that are not related to hearings. If there is a hearing and it is something that has a range for discussion like a rate that may be at one end or the other end, the staff may anticipate that we ask certain questions, they may come in with their answers. Well, if you do here and here, here's what the impact is.

And so they may give us information not influencing us, but except for saying here is other to consider. And then from that, we do have discussions and vote on them. I would like to be ahead of that and suggest in our preliminary discussion that here is the area we'd like the staff to bring to us.

The commission is making the decision, but the staff is very supportive in getting information to us.
Q. Well, since the staff serves such an obviously important position as they do in many state agencies, you mentioned the dispute that you might have had with the other commissioners over a personnel issue, was this concerning a staff member?
A. I should -- I appreciate you coming out. I need to clarify that. As you it relates to people that are hired within the office, we depend very heavily on the staff and department heads to interview and recommend and that's helped in our Affirmative Action.

| Printed Page 2590, Feb. 24 | Printed Page 2610, Feb. 24 |