Probable conflicted interests drive utility rate hikes

Citizen consumers should have expected outrage and action by Connecticut government and the Fourth Estate over the latest utility rate hikes and “bill adjustments” foisted upon families and businesses by the state’s electric-utility supply companies, but instead we received gratuitous “explanations” or rationales by both of these protectors-of-society sectors.

We didn’t even get an “I feel your pain!”

Why is that? Could it be that both sectors are themselves part of the problem — too connected to the lucrative flow of money from share-ownership in these “safe-investment,” “controlled” monopolies?!

In the wake of the aforementioned scandalous profiteering and consumer abuse by Connecticut’s state-coddled “public” electric-utility companies (et al.), UI-Avangrid and Eversource, it is long past due for Connecticut to take a big-picture look at, and perform a forward-looking, big-picture analysis of all of the state’s “public” utilities in regard to indications for drastic policy changes by government. (“Public” is a misnomer for these privately held, monopolistic, statute-skirting state-sanctioned corporations.) Drastic changes are obviously necessary in order to mitigate the past, present, and future destructive economic and socioeconomic effects of utility company corporate profiteering on Connecticut businesses and families.

In this regard, the whole concept of state-sanctioned, private ownership, for-profit, monopolistic control of the basic necessities of life must be considered.

Considering electric energy first. Is it possible for any Connecticut family to function effectively without access to electric power? Of course not! Electricity is a necessary aspect of virtually every aspect of modern, urban life, e.g., food-storage, cooking, heating, bathing, communication, spatial navigation, personal safety…. And it will soon be necessary for transportation for most families. Indeed, electricity in the modern world is as necessary as water.

And, speaking of water, can an urban family exist without connection to the “public” water supply? Not unless they have access to a miracle well that isn’t accessible in any way by the polluted ground water of essentially all urbanized land areas.

And what of the “public” supplies of natural gas that so many households depend upon as the main energy source for cooking, heating, and bathing? Well, the “gas company” is almost always a division of the “electric company” — per UI-Avangrid and Eversource (the latter also being the “water company” for Aquarian customers…).

And, shouldn’t we speak of the communications suppliers — phone, internet, cable television? While these might not be as monopolistic as the other suppliers of modern-life essentials, they are nonetheless suppliers of modern-life essentials, and, especially in regard to internet providers, they are, to a large degree, monopolistic, with only two suppliers of “reliable” services in most areas of Connecticut (and only one supplier in some…). Now how about trying to communicate in a timely way for business or most other modern-urban-life situations without access to a cellphone. It can’t be done. Modern work life, school life, family life, and social life all require access to mobile communications.

So where does this leave families and state government with respect to considerations regarding public utility policy? Will more regulation work?

More regulation for cellular and cable TV providers can probably effectively protect consumers. But much more than just “more regulation” is indicated in the case of internet services. State mandates for affordable internet service in all urban and rural areas are indicated in regard to the latter. In the case of life-sustaining essentials, state ownership — true public ownership of electric-energy generation and supply, natural-gas supply, and water resources — is the only logical way for the government to proceed toward a rational, sustainable future.

Our necessary long-term thinking and planning, given economic and environmental considerations, must be in terms of the creation of a non-grid-dependent, energy-self-sufficient populace, via scale-sized usage of alternative energy equipment at the household level and all other levels of usage. This should have been a governmental goal since the nearly coincident realization and prognostication about fossil fuel-driven climate change and the first energy (oil) crisis. (The far-sighted, brilliant nuclear engineer and author President Jimmy Carter tried to do just that, but was thwarted by Big Oil and their first president, Ronald Reagan, over 40 years ago.)

The rationale for the above policies is not complicated and has precedent. The policy rationale is that years of economy-hobbling public-utility regulation and deregulation have left Connecticut with a real, shrinking economy. (Our manufacturing and other high-value business sectors that are highly-dependent on electric energy have been fleeing the state), as well as real, shrinking family income and a shrinking population. Regulation does not work — especially when attempted in a political environment controlled by the “investor class,” that reaps large financial rewards from investments in the “no-lose,” highly-lucrative, public-utility investment sector. [(The media needs to do its due diligence and research the amount of money invested in Connecticut public utilities by the Connecticut GA membership, Governor/Governor’s Office, and DEEP/PURA officials/staff — as the Connecticut Post (Ken Dixon) did when investigating the Governor’s income recently (albeit without mention of specific investments/public-utility investments…)].

Truly, it makes no economic, social, or moral sense for profit-focused entities to be given control over resources describable as “the basic necessities of life” which are not freely accessible to the people otherwise, in a rationally fair, naturally competitive economic arena.

Some notable examples of successful public ownership of necessary resources are: Germany, where water is nationalized, as is a major portion of electric power generation and distribution in the pursuit of full nationalization, including renewable energy and natural gas; Sweden, where electricity generation and distribution is fully nationalized; Netherlands, where water, electricity and natural gas are fully nationalized; Canada, where electricity generation and distribution is fully owned by the provincial government in the Province of Quebec, and where the rail transportation system for the entire country is owned and controlled by the Canadian government.

There are many other countries with varying degrees of public ownership of all utility sectors, including rail transportation. There is abundant evidence that Connecticut should consider state ownership of essential utilities (water, electricity, natural gas, Internet access) and much stronger control over those utilities that might be considered very important but perhaps not absolutely essential.

And we certainly don’t want an energy future where corporations will own and control the sun, the wind, and the seas. (Recall the recent Vineyard Wind /Avangrid giant wind-turbine blade breakage off the shore of Nantucket that closed miles of Nantucket beaches — during the height of vacation season — because of dangerous fiberglass debris washing ashore.)

It’s well beyond time for Connecticut government — the people of Connecticut — to take back control of our future, starting with full ownership and control of our essential utilities.

Jeff Kohut lives in Bridgeport.