If not, you are in good company. But every time you get out your checkbook to pay your gas or electric bill, you should say a little prayer of thanks for this committee and curse the legislators who are out to kill it.

House Bill 320 would deep-six both the Committee of Consumer Services and the Division of Public Utilities, both now part of the Department of Commerce. It would replace them with an Office of Ratepayer Advocate under the attorney general.

This would completely remake who represents the customer in utility regulation in Utah. Yet the bill was only made public Thursday, less than two weeks before the Legislature adjourns. Such a far-reaching reorganization should not be sprung on the public and lawmakers without extensive study and during the crush of business at session's end.

That alone raises red flags.

The Committee of Consumer Services watches out for homeowners and small businesses when big utilities - such as Utah Power, Questar Gas and Qwest - ask the Public Service Commission for permission to raise their prices. Most Utahns have a big stake in the committee and its work, even if they don't know it.

Since these utilities are regulated monopolies, market competition doesn't hold their prices in check. That's the PSC's job. It has to balance the business needs of the utilities against the needs of the consumer. The committee is a little klatch of green-eyeshade guys who pore over reams of spreadsheets and force the utilities to defend their pleas for more money from small customers' wallets. The Division of Public Utilities, by contrast, prepares information, audits and policy recommendations for the PSC.

For years, some legislators have claimed that the committee is unnecessary and duplicative, that it is too close to the PSC and, by implication, has too much influence.

Some of us suspect that these lawmakers are fronting for the big utilities and for big businesses, which, because of their size, can cut deals with the utilities that a homeowner can't. Part of the rate-making process is allocating how costs are shared by different groups of consumers.

The scheme in HB 320, sponsored by Rep. James R. Gowans, D-Tooele, strikes us as bureaucratic and far less straightforward than the existing committee. The Ratepayer Advocate would hire four other advocates, each to represent a class of consumers: residential, commercial, industrial and “others”. Each class advocate would be advised by a committee of five consumers from his class. It looks like this would water down the voice of homeowners and small business.

Besides, the Committee of Consumer Services has a remarkably good record for protecting the interests of the little guy. Why is that a problem?