JimBrennan'sCommentaries

Governor Cuomo’s declaration of a state emergency after the Harlem subway derailment in June offered hope to suffering transit riders because it was an acknowledgement there was a crisis and the Governor was taking responsibility for addressing it.

An emergency declaration  in New York law requires an affected agency to develop plans to deal with whatever disaster the Governor has declared. After a review, new MTA Chair Joseph Lhota proposed to spend an additional $450 million in maintenance programming and $380 million in capital investments to reduce delays and breakdowns. The Governor and Lhota also are seeking half the new money from New York City, reigniting public rancor between the Governor and Mayor DeBlasio and raising anew the question of responsibility for the transit system between the State and the City.

Both the State and the City have billions of dollars in reserve funds available now and can afford to make the contributions. Whether DeBlasio makes a decision to contribute to the plan or not, an understanding of who is paying for the transit system is essential.

The basic facts are that the City and its suburbs already pay virtually all of the MTA’s costs, either directly or indirectly.

The budget adopted by the MTA for 2017 reports that 57%, more than $4.5 billion, of New York City Transit’s costs(excluding debt service) are paid by the fares from riders of the subway and bus systems. The next largest amount, about $3.5 billion, came from a group of dedicated taxes which, although imposed by the State, are levied within the 12-county MTA region, and not in the rest of the State.

These dedicated taxes include a payroll tax, a corporate profits surcharge, a sliver of the sales tax, the New York City real estate transfer tax, and others. The New York City government directly contributes $362 million to New York City Transit, including a required match of a corresponding State subsidy, as well as reimbursements for paratransit, students, and the elderly. New York City Transit also receives a cross-subsidy from excess cash available from the tolls of the Bridge and Tunnel system of $287 million.

The State’s General Fund provides about $356 million, including a contribution to compensate for a cut in 2011 of an unpopular payroll tax enacted within the region during the recession. While these funds derive from the general taxes of the State, a Rockefeller Institute study in 2011 reported that New York City and its suburbs were paying 72% of the State’s tax revenue in 2009, and that study did not reflect the fact that most economic growth in the State has occurred downstate since then.

The bottom line is that all this means that only about 1% of New York City Transit’s operating funds come from outside the MTA region.

All these resources together don’t just fund the operating budget, they also pay for the debt service on the tens of billions of dollars the MTA borrowed to pay for the capital programs of prior years as well as the ongoing borrowing for the new one. About $1.3 billion a year goes to pay interest on debt associated with New York City Transit from these flows of funds, with another $250 million a year covering New York City Transit-related debt from Bridge and Tunnel toll surpluses.

The New York City government also pays substantial subsidies to other parts of the MTA system. It provides $460 million a year to MTA Bus, the express bus system taken over by the MTA during the Bloomberg administration;$58 million for the Staten Island Railway; and $98 million for station maintenance for Long Island Railroad and MetroNorth facilities located within the City.

New York City also pays the cost of the New York Transit Police, more than 3,000 police officers who patrol the subways and other mass transit facilities. The Police Department budget is $10 billion a year, meaning the 10% of the police force committed to safety in mass transit costs the City roughly $1 billion a year. This large level of support is barely reflected at all in the MTA or New York City Transit budgets. Embedded within the State and City budgets are also payments for interest on bonds issued by State and City government for the benefit of mass transit, with $301 million paid by the City and $180 million paid by the State, according to a 2015 report by the New York City Comptroller.

Commuter rail system support is comparable to New York City Transit. Fares, excess cash from Bridge and Tunnel tolls, and dedicated taxes collected from the suburban counties around the City pay for the costs of Metro-North and the Long Island Railroad. The commuter rail systems receive more generous subsidies from Bridge and Tunnel tolls than New York City Transit, about $400 million a year compared to $287 million a year. Long Island Railroad fares contribute only 47% of the costs of that system, compared to 57% for New York City Transit and 59% for MetroNorth. Money from the General Fund of the State provides just a very small portion of the commuter rail budget, just like New York City Transit. The MTA Police patrol the commuter rail system, but their costs are included within the commuter rail system budgets.

Governor Cuomo has said that the State was adding a historic level of funding to the current MTA 2015-19 capital plan. There is but a scintilla of truth to that pronouncement. That is because, of the $8.3 billion claimed to be committed, sources for $7 billion of the contribution have yet to be identified, and the State law providing the support says that the State does not have to come up with the $7 billion until the MTA exhausts all its own resources first, with a deadline of 2025 for the State’s $7 billion to be found.

Even when the State finally comes up with the money, it will likely come from within the MTA region, either some form of congestion pricing or a diversion of some current tax receipts from the region. The City’s promised $2.5 billion contribution to the plan, part of a deal with the State, is to be paid on a schedule concurrent with the State’s schedule, and the City’s own budget does not forecast the City’s contribution being paid until after 2019.

If the Mayor wants the public to understand why the City won’t contribute further funds to the MTA, he needs to clearly explain that the City’s residents and businesses already cover the costs.

 

 

 

New York’s mass transit riders are experiencing a serious and rapid decline in service.  The negatives are palpable and documentable; ever-worsening delays are aggravating and angering the millions of New Yorkers who need the subways, buses, and commuter rail systems to move them around. A State Comptroller’s audit found on-time weekday performance for the subway system had declined from 80% in 2013 to 74% in 2014; the MTA’s investor disclosure documents show OTP declined to 70% in 2015, to 67% in 2016, and the MTA website shows OTP through March 2017 at 63%. Increases in equipment failures are real too. The subway mean distance between failure improved dramatically with the capital program reinvestments of the 80s and 90s, from its low point of 7,000 miles in 1981 to a peak of 178,000 miles in 2005, but since 2011 has declined from 172,00 mdbf to 112,000 in 2016, another rapid deterioration.

Explanations for these serious problems include difficulties in loading and unloading passengers as the trains and platforms become more and more crowded, delays due to emergencies like sick passengers and police actions, the aging of the subway car fleet, and capital and maintenance work being conducted on the rights-of-way even as the trains are running.

The overcrowding is palpable and documentable too; ridership increased 58% between 1996 and 2016. Employment in New York City grew by more than 630,000 between the end of the recession in 2009 and the end of 2016, and is continuing to grow. New York City’s economy is successful, but its infrastructure is choking. The MTA announced a 6-point improvement plan in May, including adding EMS and other personnel directly placed at major stations to address emergencies more rapidly, accelerating subway car replacements, especially on the 8^th Avenue Line, and increased track maintenance. These improvements sound hopeful but will take time. In part they are just about adding resources to the operations and maintenance budget.

Governor Cuomo nominated Joe Llhota, the former MTA Chair and Giuliani Deputy Mayor, to the Chair and President position on June 21, and the New York State Senate confirmed him in one day. The Governor is also seeking governance changes. Cuomo has asked the legislature to give him more seats on the MTA board to create an outright appointed majority of the seats for the Governor, as if he did not already have effective control. He is also proposing separating the Board Chair from the President to strengthen executive leadership. The former Chair and President, the widely respected Thomas Prendergast, retired several months ago, and the Llhota appointment brings in someone of stature and competence. More than a decade ago,then Governor Pataki and the Legislature had combined the Board Chair and President positions for that same purpose, stronger leadership. While Llhota may be a positive choice, the notion that Governor Cuomo has not been in charge is ridiculous.

In a June 8 blog,” Cuomo Gave MTA Chump Change…”, I discussed how the Governor had allocated less than 5% to the MTA of a $9.9 billion windfall to the State from financial settlements with Wall Street Badguys due to pre-recession wrongdoing. Only $278 million is left unallocated; in addition, $1 billion is authorized for cash to the Javits Convention Center Expansion. I pointed out that the hotel industry and the giant “ New City “  being developed in Hudson Yards offered  ready- made alternatives for financing Javits, and the money might better be spent to help the straphangers.

Extra cash for critical operations, maintenance, and capital work won’t provide miraculous relief, but ought to help. Even getting these funds assumes Cuomo will step up to the plate and the record is pretty bad so far. In the current $29.5 billion capital plan the State has committed $1.3 billion in identified resources, with an I.O.U. written in State law that the State will provide another $7 billion by 2025 or whenever the MTA runs out of current resources, meaning many years before the State has to come up with more money. This year Cuomo even reduced the State’s commitment in replacement funds to the MTA, authorized when the MTA lost revenue when its dedicated payroll tax was cut in 2011, by $67 million.

When Cuomo became Governor in 2011, both the State and the MTA were emerging from the financial crises that had confronted them during the recession. The 2010-14 MTA capital program, originally conceived at $32 billion, had been proposed in 2009 at $28 billion but scaled back to $26 billion that fall, with only two years of identified funding. As a last resort the MTA indicated it could borrow heavily.In July 2011 the MTA, lacking large commitments from outside parties, scaled the capital program back further, to $24 billion, and would borrow $14.8 billion to provide the resources. The State would contribute a meager $770 million. The huge borrowing would assure continued substantial fare hikes as the interest on the debts would be paid.

Fortunately economic growth, improved ridership, and low interest rates allowed the transit system’s finances to stabilize for several years and fare and toll hikes dropped from 7 ½% every two years to 4%. By 2014 the review process had begun for the new 2015-19 capital program, which once again was proposed at $32 billion, the same amount as had originally been contemplated for the 2010-14 program. Transit advocates proposed a new Round II version of Congestion pricing, imposing tolls on the East River bridges and below 60^th street in Manhattan, but lowering tolls on other City bridges, as a way to fund the capital program, but Governor Cuomo never supported it. Instead,his appointee to the MTA Capital Program Review Board vetoed the MTA’s $32 billion plan in October 2014. It was 17 months before a plan would finally be adopted. Legislation submitted by my office to divert a tiny fraction of existing revenues from the personal income tax within the region to fund a large portion of the plan drew no response from the Governor, even after Senate Republicans latched onto my proposal by linking funding for roads and bridges within their districts.

The recession was a financial catastrophe for the MTA, and was a factor in funding setbacks. Hurricane Sandy proved a physical catastrophe, causing major setbacks while repairs were made and are continuing, along with diverting much managerial attention.  New York City’s substantial employment growth is a good thing but is straining the mass transit system. On the political front, Governor Cuomo has been a catastrophe for this huge State agency.

 

 

 

The State of New York received nearly $9.9 billion between 2014 and 2017 in legal settlements from 33 different financial institutions related to pre-recession wrongdoing.The money was a spectacular windfall for the State.

Governor Cuomo first began proposing uses for the funds in the 2015-16 budget, modifying the proposals over time and as new money arrived. The State used the money for budget relief, to seed new economic development initiatives, help hospitals, and pay cash for infrastructure rather than borrow money, saving taxpayers years of interest costs. It also helped the State from constraining its capital program because of debt restrictions in State laws.

Less than 5% of the $9.6 billion designated so far, only $415 million, has been given to the MTA. Most of those funds were for a Metro-North East Bronx connection to Penn Station – a project that cannot be completed for at least a decade because the MTA has to finish the Long Island Railroad connection to Grand Central Station beforehand(East Side Access Project). As of the adopted 2017-18 budget, only $278 million was left undesignated of the windfall.

The biggest single use of the windfall was for the new Tappan Zee bridge- which got $1.985 billion out of the @$4 billion cost. Since interest on any funds borrowed to pay for the new bridge would get reflected in rises in Thruway Authority tolls, using cash to build the bridge would partially solve the political unpopularity for Governor Cuomo of big toll hikes, especially for nearby drivers from Rockland,Orange,and Westchester counties.

Upstate New York received major assistance. Projects included a $1.67 billion Upstate economic development initiative, $500 million for broadband upgrades,$370 million for upstate hospitals,$250 million for downtown revitalizations in economically declining communities, $400 million for Phase II of the Buffalo Billion Project, $220 million for an Albany Life Sciences Project, and other miscellaneous projects. No one disputes the need to help upstate New York, although Comptroller DiNapoli pointed out recently that the Empire State Development Corporation(the State’s economic development agency) keeps neglecting to comply with legally required reports on the effectiveness of their expenditures.

About $850 million was set aside to cover a refund to the Federal government over disputes on Medicaid charges, and $700 million was provided for budget relief. A Javits Center expansion is slated for $1 billion, and $640 million is allocated for the homeless and affordable housing, most of which would likely be spent in New York City. It does seem reasonable to think the subway and bus riders at least ought to get priority over Javits Center Convention-goers. The booming hotel industry and the booming Hudson Yards real estate developments seem like a ready source to tap to pay for the Convention Center, rather than utterly shortchange the beleaguered transit system.

Overall the money was welcome- notwithstanding the fact that the size of the State’s capital budget is immense- $13.8 billion this year and $67 billion planned over the next five years. Big public authorities like the MTA don’t even tap the State’s capital budget for the overwhelming proportion of their own capital budget. Their main source of funds is money borrowed secured by their own revenues, or Federal grants.

In 2016, after a 17-month delay in the statutory approval process, where Governor Cuomo called the MTA 5-year Capital Plan bloated and forced a reduction from $32 billion to $29.5 billion, the Governor and the Legislature finally ok’d a new capital plan. The State provides $8.3 billion- a $1 billion borrowing by the State on behalf of the MTA, and $250 million for the MetroNorth-Bronx-Penn Station connector from the windfall. The remaining $7 billion is just an IOU written in State law that the State will provide the funds after the MTA has exhausted all its other resources, an event unlike to occur until after 2020. There is no identified source for this $7 billion.

 

Sources: NY State Comptroller Enacted Budget Reports:2015-17

:NY State Division of the Budget Enacted Budget 2017-18

 

 

On Election Day this November voters will be asked the question: ” Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same? ” New York’s existing Constitution requires this question be submitted to the voters of the State every twenty years. If New Yorkers vote yes, delegates to a convention would be selected in 2018, the convention would begin meeting in April 2019, and proposals for amending the Constitution could be on the ballot by November 2019. The Constitution provides that 3 delegates are elected from each Senate district (there are 63 so that would be 189), and 15 delegates are elected at-large statewide. Existing laws controlling election to State office govern the process of nominating and electing the delegates. A limited agenda is not permitted, meaning all kinds of sweeping changes could be submitted to the voters.

In 1997 voters decisively rejected the question of holding a constitutional convention 63%-37%, as did the voters in 1977 and 1957. In 1997, many liberal groups and labor unions were fearful of the risk of bad outcomes from convention proposals and urged a “No ” vote. Part of their concern results from the structure of delegate selection, since the voters would be voting for 3 delegates on separate partisan (Democrat-Republican) slates, and the Republican party had controlled the redistricting process for Senate districts in the 1990s.

The political status quo is similar today to what it was then. The Senate districts were gerrymandered by the Republican majority in 2012 to help elect Republicans and the convention delegate election structure could produce a conservative majority. A conservative majority could place proposals like re-instituting the death penalty, abortion restrictions, elimination of pension protections for public employees, or other anti-labor proposals, on the ballot for 2019. 2019 could also be a very low-turnout year, since there is neither a Presidential election nor state elections for Governor and the legislature on the ballot. Under those circumstances a very low turnout could produce very unrepresentative results.

Good government groups like the Citizens Union (www.citizensunion.org/) and the League of Women Voters (www.lwvny.org/) support a Constitutional Convention, arguing that ethics laws, anti-corruption measures, and voter participation laws, should be strengthened as part of an overall effort to improve democracy in New York.  They argue that voters should not be scared off by fear of bad outcomes.

The Legislature could reform the delegate selection process itself, by creating a nonpartisan convention, creating public financing for delegate election, or limiting voters to voting for only one delegate per district rather than three, to eliminate partisan slate voting. But in previous cycles, both Governors and legislatures have created special Preparatory Commissions for a Convention that made similar recommendations, and the Legislature never acted upon them. In this cycle the State Bar Association (www.nysba.org/) recommended creating a Preparatory Commission at the end of 2015, and Governor Cuomo submitted such a proposal with his budget in 2016. The Legislature did not act, and this year the Governor did not resubmit the proposal.

The Legislature has a separate power to place Constitutional amendments on the ballot, as long as the proposal is voted two times by successively elected Houses of the Legislature for placement on the ballot. In fact, a Pension Forfeiture proposal is on the ballot this November that allows the pensions of officials convicted of corruption to be removed or modified. The Legislature can also propose a Constitutional Convention at anytime, as it did in 1965 when it put that question to the voters. The people voted yes to create the convention, delegates were elected in 1966, the convention met in 1967,and the proposals it submitted to the voters were defeated that year.

There are a number of thoughtful reports on the question of a convention, in addition to what is cited above.  They include a 1997 NYC Bar Association Task Force Report (Report of the Task Force on the NYS Constitutional Convention) (www.nycbar.org), the New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse (http://www.newyorkconcon.info/), and the report of the Benjamin Center at SUNY New Paltz (www.newpaltz.edu/benjamincenter/contact.html) to name a few.

Many good government reforms,like public financing of elections or abolition of the llc loophole,and most social, racial, and economic justice advancement, can be passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor without changing the State Constitution. Those idealistic goals would be better pursued by defeating Republican party control of the State Senate than through a Constitutional Convention process that could backfire on progressives.

 

 

The New York State budget approved this April provided the lowest funding increase for public schools in the last five years, about 4.1%          State Public School Aid Increases:

	FY ‘14	FY ‘15	FY ‘16	FY ‘17	FY ‘18
State	4.9	5.4	6.0	6.1	4.1
NYC	4.6	5.25	5.79	5.73	3.95

The budget was prudent given the risks posed by the Trump administration, but revenue losses from recently enacted tax cuts are actually squeezing the State’s revenue base. Although a higher rate for multimillionaires (taxpayers making more than $2.1 million/yr), was renewed, that money  was essential just to preserve the funding necessary to meet basic public needs. There were certainly positives in the State budget, like the new middle-class college tuition benefit, but this improvement is not costly and is being phased in. Many big State projects are really in the Capital budget and are long-term in nature. They are being funded by the $9 ½ billion the State received in litigation with the financial industry related to the recession, or are being paid for with borrowed funds. These programs are funding priorities like housing, economic development, and infrastructure. The operating budget has more limitations.

Tax cuts enacted in 2014,2015, and 2016 will drain the State of $2 ½ billion a year by 2018 and more in later years. The Republican Senate pushed a new “ middle-class tax cut “ in the State budget negotiations in 2016, and it was agreed to by Cuomo and the Assembly. The revenue loss is small this year but grows to $1.07 billion in 2018 and $1.5 billion in 2019. The top rates are cut from 6.85 to 6% or 5.5% and spread out through 2025, by which time the revenue reductions are estimated at $4.2 billion a year. “ Middle-class “ includes married  taxpayers filing jointly at $300,000 a year and down.

Revenue losses from other recent tax cuts are also still growing. In 2014 New York reduced its corporate income tax, the estate tax, and abolished the State corporate income tax for manufacturers. Those reductions have been ongoing, and grow by $180 million this year and another $180 million next year (FY-18-19). The tax breaks for manufacturers cost $300 million a year but took effect  by 2015. Another homeowner property tax break was enacted in 2015, a new “STAR rebate” valued at $450 million a year. The money goes out as checks only to homeowners outside New York City. In 2018  incremental revenue losses from the tax cuts will drain $1.25 billion from the State’s treasury compared just to 2017. That is the main reason spending is moderating.

The  income tax cut in 2016 was actually “ middle-class” income tax cut number two of the Cuomo administration.  The first one took place in December 2011, when Cuomo called the legislature back to a special session concerned about a growing deficit while revenue from the recession-related income tax increases on the wealthy were expiring. Cuomo cut a deal with the Republicans to enact a partial cut in the unpopular MTA payroll tax and an income tax cut for middle-class taxpayers, in exchange for keeping the recession-based high rate for the super-wealthy(taxpayers over $2 million a year).  While a high rate for the super-wealthy preserved some revenue, the higher rates enacted during the recession started at $300,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. As a result, taxpayers between $300,000 and $2 million had their income tax rates drop in 2012 back to the pre-recession rates. Taxpayers below those incomes had their rates drop further. Revenue losses from the drop back to the old rates for these “ mid-level but not super- wealthy “ taxpayers were $2 billion a year, and the new “middle-class “ rate drop reduced revenue by another $690 million.

Tax cuts in New York have a rationale : improving the business environment, or just providing relief to burdened ordinary people. The problem is striking a balance between revenue losses, meeting basic public needs and addressing income inequality. To its credit, the State Assembly has recognized the need to reclaim some revenue to assure adequate resources for the future. It has passed an increase in the rates for taxpayers who make over $1 million a year,  but the Republican-controlled Senate won’t touch that proposal . In fact, the Democrats were lucky to get the extension on the $2.1 million plus group this year.

Sources include reports from the NY State Division of the Budget, the State Comptroller, the NY State Assembly and the NY State Senate. For further info you may contact me at jimbrennanbrooklyn@gmail.com

The adopted State budget includes a $2.5 billion appropriation for new affordable housing, with $1 billion for supportive housing. The new money should help New York City substantially with its housing crisis. The budget also resurrected the real estate developer property tax break known as 421-A, renamed ” Affordable NY “. How the two came together is a lesson in hardball New York politics.

In the spring of 2015 Mayor DeBlasio had negotiated a deal with the Real Estate Board of New York on a new 421-A program, which was expiring along with the rent regulation laws in June 2015. The tax break had long been criticized as overly generous to the real estate industry while producing little affordable housing, but it had powerful backers in Albany. As the construction unions sought a union-wage mandate to be added to the bill, Governor Cuomo attacked the new legislation, derailing it. The legislative session ended in June 2015 with the tax break unresolved. A law was passed extending 421-A until January 2016, allowing the Real Estate Board and the unions to come to terms. If they were unsuccessful, 421-A would expire. In fact, the parties could not agree and the law expired.

That same January Governor Cuomo put $2 billion for affordable housiing in his new budget for April 1,2016. But it didn’t quite get approved. Instead, the funds became entangled in a post-budget Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) that would have to be ok’d by Cuomo, Heastie, and Flanagan before being released. REBNY and the unions, still bent on winning the profitable tax break, continued their 421-A talks as the year dragged on, with the MOU on the sidelines. In November 2016 they finalized a deal but it still would require legislative approval. At this point there was no way the State Senate Republicans would let the money get released until REBNY and the unions got what they wanted.

Cuomo then put the 421-A deal and the money(with $500 million added) into the 2017 proposed budget. By then evidence that the 421-A tax break was unnecessary to spur affordable housing production was flowing in. A City Housing Department report for 2016 (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/housing/action/housing.page?) showed a record pace of affordable housing production with no 421-A. And the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers reported there was no drop-off in housing starts in 2016 in NYC compared to the average of 2012-14( 2015 was an anomaly because developers knew the tax break might expire)(https://anhd.org/policy-reports/).

But hardball politics prevailed. Both the tax break and the money were approved together. The Governor’s budget press release highlighted both and claimed the 421-A break would produce 2500 affordable units a year( failing to mention many of the units were for people of middle-income, that overall most units were market rate anyway and that the tax breaks would extend for decades). The Assembly website highlighted only the new funding.

 

 

 

 

Last August the New York State Public Service Commission ordered the State’s utilities to buy electricity at higher rates from four nuclear power plants in the Lake Ontario region of upstate New York whose owners had threatened to close them. The order takes effect on April 1 and requires a $482 million annual rate increase, about 2% of the State’s electric bills. The order imposes a 10% increase every two years(subject to revision) through 2027 with the purchase requirement ending in 2029.  The plants are big employers and many jobs would be lost if the plants closed. To replace the lost output would require nearby fossil-fuel power plants to increase their output, contributing to global warming.

Exelon and Entergy, the plant owners, blamed low natural gas prices for causing them to lose money on the price of their power. The Public Service Commission did a case review of the costs of the plants( and their profitability) but kept the review confidential by requiring participants in the case to sign agreements not to disclose what they learned. The Commission also did an analysis based on the avoided cost of burning coal to come up with a price the owners should be paid  to avoid the shutdown.

The Commission then required every utility to buy its proportionate share of the State’s total electric load, no matter how much of the output of the four nukes actually got transmitted and sold into each region’s service territory. That meant that the downstate electric customers in New York City and its suburbs would have to pay about 60% of the price hike. The Commission published no information on how much of the nuke output was used in different parts of the state, justifying the allocation by saying there was a statewide environmental benefit to avoiding burning more fossil fuels. That was true but the obvious real economic beneficiaries were the local workers who kept their jobs, the local residents who would lose the plant’s property taxes, and the plant owners who kept their profits.

Con Ed’s customers will pay an extra $190 million a year for the nuke bailout,on top of a $360 million rate increase the Commission just gave the company in January. The ordinary rate hike is stiff but at least it correlates with investments Con Ed is making in its service territory. The Public Service Commission’s members are appointed by Governor Cuomo with the consent of the State Senate. The State Assembly conducted a hearing on the nuclear bailout a few weeks ago but the Public Service Commission failed to appear to testify and then its Chairperson left to take a job in Australia.