redshirttiger t1_iu26cv1 wrote
Public utilities are monopolies by necessity. It would be stupid to have multiple companies compete to build pipelines, data lines, and power lines to your house.
The difference between a free market monopoly (ie Google for search) and a public utility (ie Eversource) is regulations and oversight by a public utility commission (a function of CT govt) which allows the utility to pass through operating costs and collect a rate of return on capital invested to build new infrastructure.
One issue is with the type of oversight. There is no incentive to reduce operating costs because they are passed through to us. There is a perverse incentive to build as much as possible and for it to cost as much as possible so that they can collect an annual investment return on a bigger base of assets.
So don't be furious at the utility, be furious at the ineffective regulation. That being said, utility regulation is no different here than anywhere else. Plenty of places in the US have cheap utility bills.
The main difference relative to other regions of the US is that infrastructure cost in the northeast is more expensive (labor, permitting, regulatory compliance, etc) and natural gas (which drives power prices) is far more expensive, especially in the winter. The Northeast, particularly NY has essentially banned any new pipeline build which causes gas to be constrained in the winter when home heating demand is heaviest. The justification is the anti-fracking movement, NIMBYism, and lack of open space and right of ways to build this infrastructure. Same goes for power transmission lines that could import cheap hydro power from Quebec or other cheap power sources.
So for your high utility bills, blame NIMBYism, environmentalists, and other opposition to cheap power and natural gas. And if you believe we shouldn't build more gas pipelines, wind farms off the Cape (because they're an eyesore), transmission lines to bring in cheap power or reach remote solar/wind, etc., then don't blame yourself, but just recognize that's the price we all pay to make the world a less carbon intensive place and to not have power and gas lines buried in our backyards.
Oh and I forgot to mention natural gas is just expensive across the US now because European gas is through the roof (again, underinvestment coupled with loss of Russian gas), driving our gas higher since we can export some of it via LNG. It's hard to get companies to invest in more gas wells because ESG pressure to reduce gas consumption makes it a dubious long term investment.
silasmoeckel t1_iu2anwm wrote
Great sumerary except for data lines. This is the one case where muni's can do it right. One fiber per home muni networks are a good split. Muni's do what they are good at taking care of a passive fiber network and providing the interconnect point. Providers get out of the last mile business. A piece of fiber made in the 60's can carry modern signals this is not expected to change. That single fiber can carry multiple data providers simultaneously using what amounts of prisms to break out and combine different colors of light.
redshirttiger t1_iu2bta4 wrote
Agreed, good point. One fiber run but free choice of data providers. Muni/coop or investor owned utility owning the actual fiber doesn't matter too much, as long as you have a choice in data provider. Sort of like you have a choice of power provider but Eversource owns the power lines so you pay them for transmission and distribution.
silasmoeckel t1_iu2ghb6 wrote
Yup 2 or 20 cable TV providers phone internet etc does not matter just colors of light on glass.
Reasonable comparison but unlike power distribution there is no per unit cost a fiber doing 10mbs cost the same as one doing 100gbs each to 20 providers.
[deleted] t1_iu3xl8o wrote
[deleted]
silasmoeckel t1_iu43jx9 wrote
When talking about just the optics part not at all. CWDM is entirely passive and does not care whats going over a given channel. Getting CWDM optics for 10mbs might be a bit hard but thats just because it's outdated.
Yes higher up it's very different but the entire point is thats not part of the muni's job. They just need to build/maintain the optical last mile, just glass and prisms no actual networking kit nothing that needs power even. That's within their capabilities anything more will probably crater badly at some point. This is also not how typical fiber to the home is deployed but thats a bit of the point of it.
[deleted] t1_iu45bpd wrote
[deleted]
silasmoeckel t1_iu49s3n wrote
Yes but why do you think thats at all a limiting factor? At least 1 strand per building/apartment/house/etc to start thats 16 channels on typical CDWM kit so 8 providers. Even if they break up everything thats 3-4 providers (TV, Internet, Phone, and alarm). Sure a pair is nicer and putting extra glass in the ground up front is never a bad thing. End of the day glass is fairly cheap putting it into the hole and terminating it not so much.
It's by no means perfect but it's gotten well past the point it's a reasonable solution within the capabilities of muni's to do. Plenty of fiber going in for traffic management where they allready have contacts for the service end and bringing the skillset in house is not a bad thing for the muni.
writingonthefall OP t1_iu2hkp8 wrote
I blame politicians in eversources pocket. Towns are accountable to voters. Privatizatized companies are accountable to shareholders who aren't neccesarily local.
It diminishes democratic control over basic necessities.
Eversource also charges higher rates for the same services in CT than other states they operate in.
Specialist-Lion-8135 t1_iu2v639 wrote
Yes but there comes a point when they have forced us to choose between them and food and shelter. It’s a strange and cruel thing to be forced to buy something without a chance of thrift. In the past, one could choose to use candles and kerosene to save on electricity or oil but now, two necessary public commodities are scalping the public (and they are posting excessive profits) without mercy or opportunity for negotiation.
No amount of future regulation can balance this unconscionable and rapacious excuse for gluttony. We are at a time in history where there is tremendous opportunity for alternative resources and we are trapped under flagrant corruption disguised as pragmatism.
redshirttiger t1_iu30bil wrote
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ES/financials?p=ES
Where do you see excessive profits? Their profit is literally regulated by the state.
Eversource did not cause natgas to go from $1 to 6 (or $30 in the winter in NE). Imagine being in Europe where it is $40+. I think there's a lot of fat in the system just as much as anyone, but geopolitics is the driving factor for most of the cost increase in the last couple of years. Eversource's problems were already reflected in everyone's baseline power bill.
BobbyRobertson t1_iu4midj wrote
Their profitability is regulated by the states to be a percentage of costs. They inflate costs and overrun the budgets of approved projects because that directly inflates the profits they're allowed to pull, even though the margins are the same. John Oliver did a great episode on this
>The law imposed some restrictions – companies are supposed to spend the least they can while providing quality, environmentally safe service. “Which sounds great, because it caps their ability to make too much money,” Oliver said. “But, and this is a huge but, there is a carve-out. Because when they build something – a piece of physical infrastructure – they’re allowed to then pass along that cost to you through your bill, plus an additional percentage that they get to keep as profit” that’s usually about 10%. “This creates a clear incentive: the bigger the project, like a power plant, the more profit they make.
johnsonutah t1_iu27t7x wrote
Great summary
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments