Logic can prove a tricky concept. Working ‘in the public interest’ can be a slippery slope. Putting them together, as the state Public Utility Regulatory Authority tried to do last week in assessing CL&P’s culpability for two 2011 storm-related blackouts, can be a recipe for trouble.
Let’s start with the obvious: The storm-response efforts were not CL&P’s finest hours. Leaving millions of customers without power for days was just inexcusable. Certainly there were mitigating factors. But the administrative bungling and public miscommunication were all on CL&P.
Something needs to change to keep that from happening again. The folks at PURA want to apply a stick, perhaps a baseball bat. Let’s fine the rascals and whittle on their guaranteed return. That’ll show ’em.
And it will. But the company will have fewer resources with which to meet future needs — both those of customers and those of shareholders, many of whom are the same people. That seems counterproductive.
We think a better approach might involve using both a stick and a carrot. Let’s set an expected level of service. Intelligent minds can differ on what that level is but let’s say, for sake of argument, power should not be out longer than 12 hours for any customer unless there is a state-certified disaster. There would also be a standard for disaster response, perhaps 72 hours. If the utility fails to perform to that level, we use the stick — fines and state intervention to correct deficiencies.
But let’s also set an ‘excellent’ level of performance as an aspirational target. The company would get a reward if, say, the average outage in 2013 is under an hour. That’s a tough bar but one being achieved today in Germany. And, given recent experience, we think every ratepayer would be glad to kick in an annual $5 tip for that kind of exceptional service.
This business of regulating public utilities is a minefield. If electricity is really a necessary public service — and few would dispute it is — why is a private, for-profit entity doing the work? We’re not advocating seizing CL&P and running it as a state agency, but there is a logical and public interest argument that leads down that road.
There’s no doubt the public has a different relationship with a utility than with the seller of any other consumer product. There is no alternative provider; no chance to shop for price or service; no chance to say ‘no’.
So it seems the public deserves a better seat at the table than PURA oversight can provide. Rather than take an economic swipe at CL&P, how about investing some of the state’s pension funds in CL&P’s parent Northeast Utilities and flexing the state’s muscle in the boardroom?
Now that appeals to our sense of logic and the public interest.
Speaking of logic and public interest, what in the world was Attorney General George Jepsen thinking when he took part in a picket line at a Newington nursing home?
There’s mounting evidence that HealthBridge is off base in locking out workers in a contract dispute. That’s not the point.
This is the state’s top lawyer taking sides in a dispute involving a company that may well show up before his office in some official capacity. At least maintain the appearance of impartiality.
To be fair, Jepsen was just following in the footsteps of Governor Malloy who walked the same line a few days earlier and Jepsen’s predecessor, Richard Blumenthal, who made a career out of such pandering.
But Jepsen came into office promising to be different and in many ways, he has been. This time, however, he showed himself to be just another hopeless politician. Shame on you, Mr. Attorney General.
