Eversource, UI rate increases: CT legislators vow bipartisan reform

Submitted by ctmirror t3_112bmw7 in Connecticut

Frustrations over Connecticut’s high cost of electricity and concerns over its ability to adequately regulate Eversource are fueling a bipartisan effort to revise utility regulation for the second time in three years.

On Tuesday, the Connecticut General Assembly's Energy and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on two measures intended to give regulators more discretion over rate setting and to shift responsibility for some costs from ratepayers to shareholders, including compensation for executives and lobbying at the state Capitol.

The world of utility regulation is complex and quiet — but our Capitol Bureau Chief Mark Pazniokas breaks down what's going on here: https://ctmirror.org/2023/02/14/ct-eversource-ui-electric-rates-price-increases-bill-marissa-gillett/.

59

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Kolzig33189 t1_j8j390y wrote

How about also shifting responsibility for eversource to pay for their own advertisements and fines by the state and not pass that directly on to the customer?

63

Jackalope0331 t1_j8kldj2 wrote

Those topics and more are included within SB-966 which was heard by the Energy and Technology Committee this afternoon.

That Legislation can be found here. SB-966

3

ajamuso t1_j8jmhls wrote

How would that work exactly? I mean I agree but can you just say “you can only pay the fines with the money you already have and you aren’t allowed to change rates (which needs approval to do anyway)”?

2

Kolzig33189 t1_j8jnrd7 wrote

Profit that is distributed to shareholders should come last in the hierarchy of how things are paid for. Especially for fines for bad response, rule breaking etc, that should come from their profits.

13

SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j8kcu82 wrote

Set a profit cap, this will sound a little crazy because it is complicated, but hear me out. Brand new idea. Instead of price caps, you set a profit cap, any money not directly reinvested in expanding utilities and growth has a cap. Set max profits to 5% of the company's value, and anything over that is taxed 110%. The tax over 100% is important so the company isn't incentivized to fund the state.

8

eddie964 t1_j8jp1gd wrote

The ads paid by customers are generally promoting efficiency and conservation programs that are funded through hidden taxes on your bill; Eversource is mandated to run the programs, advertise them, and notify customers about where the money comes from.

Eversource would have to pay for ads that simply promote the company using shareholder dollars.

1

thedude_CT t1_j8jdabg wrote

Utilities shouldn't have shareholders, period.

57

GrubSprings t1_j8kurgl wrote

I tend to agree but would also recognize that publicly owned utilities have not covered themselves in glory throughout history. Whichever ownership model you have, there needs to be adequate government oversight that is shielded from political influence to the maximum extent possible.

4

TheAnt06 t1_j8ja2vq wrote

How to solve the CT energy pricing crisis: Regulate utilities at the state level again.

33

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8jemfs wrote

Step one: remove politicians, both democrat and republican, who have their hands on the payroll of energy companies

27

Kolzig33189 t1_j8jkme8 wrote

And ones that have spouses/immediate family members that work for eversource.

19

thisheregirafFe t1_j8jo46j wrote

"shift responsibility for some costs" ... y'all remember when sandy came through and eversource was bailed out by the state to cover the cost of repairs because they can't be bothered with infrastructure maintenance? what a fucking grift. it's painfully obvious where our elected officials' interests lie.

14

mrjharder11 t1_j8jztob wrote

Yeah more money goes to shareholders when you stop upgrading your infrastructure and cut repair/maintenance staff. Cheaper to spend for out of state repair crews when the poop hits the fan.

8

GrubSprings t1_j8kvdg6 wrote

My two cents from a Vermonter. Its deregulation that has you all over a barrel. CT should never have forced its monopolies to sell their generation assets. Now you pay for the profits at both the generation level, transmission level, and distribution level.

11

SonicBoom6 t1_j8mo8n5 wrote

ES - Eversource has an ever growing dividends every year to it shareholder. It will eventually reach the top 20 dividend paying stocks on NYSE by 2025 next to Fastenal by 2024 https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/es/dividend-history

Part of executives compensation agreement are in stocks. They are paying themselves through dividends. Just never sold the shares so it's not taxable or reduced the longer they hold it. Nothing corrupt about that. Most NYSE company does that.

From my understanding the company performance sucks. So I passed on buying in for the dividends. A growing debt to asset ratio now at 70%

My understanding of the company political standing and involvement is lacking so don't judge me. When they say they gonna shift the cost to shareholders. I think it's impossible unless they looking to cut dividends. Cutting it enough will make this company unattractive eventually bankrupt unless they charge the customers to cover the cost. The executive could then exercise their options and sell to pay themselves.

I'm just saying this political move can eventually fuck the customers over. I do not know as I have no vote in the company.

1

OldSchoolAF t1_j8nl20s wrote

The executives are excessively compensated... that's one problem right there. Please tell me how paying high salaries to retain "top talent" has a positive effect to the consumer? Why was it deregulated?

Also... why is it that a few years back the delivery portion of the bill was about 25% but now that we can shop around more it's 50% (substantially reducing the benefit of being able to shop around for generation)

1