Lawmakers must think big on utilities

Amonth later, with tempers having cooled, it would be easy to assume that everything is back to normal with Connecticut’s electric utilities. Prolonged outages, after all, are rare, and for the most part in this state, the lights turn on with the flip of a switch, as we’ve come to expect.

State legislators, though, do not seem inclined to let the rage of August’s mass power failures following Tropical Storm Isaias subside. And rightly so, since the storm and the subsequent response left thousands of people in the state without power for a week or more. For many, that meant no running water at the peak of the summer.

Just as bad was the lack of responsiveness on the part of the utilities. Not only could residential customers not get answers on when to expect their lights back until days after the storm, but town officials across the state reported a lack of information from utility representatives. Whatever preparations Eversource and United Illuminating have been doing over the past decade, building up the public-facing aspect of their responsiveness was not part of it.

The question, then, becomes what legislators are willing to do to reform the system. Connecticut has some of the highest electric rates in the nation, and though its system is generally reliable, it has repeatedly proven vulnerable to major storms. Maybe there’s no way to avoid that, but legislators owe it to their constituents to get as much information as possible before letting utilities off the hook.

For its part, Eversource, which is responsible for the majority of residential customers in the state, says its response met its state mandate, and that complicating factors such as the coronavirus pandemic are what slowed things down. It could have communicated better, the utility allowed, but “Eversource met the commitments” to its customers, the company said.

Separately, in response to a query about the cost of burying power lines underground, the utility cited a figure of some $67 billion to accomplish the task for the entire state. Such a move would presumably make future failures less likely, since falling trees wouldn’t cut the power, but the cost of tens of thousands of dollars per residential customer could be too much for anyone to stomach.

To start, the state needs its own independent assessment of those costs, not one that depends on the utilities, which are understandably interested in maintaining the status quo. Beyond that, the Legislature is expected to consider a bill in special session this fall that could mandate utilities reimburse customers for a portion of the cost of spoiled food and medicine in future power failures.

It could still go much further. A notable number of legislators have said they would take on the entire deregulated system of power distribution in the state, where two for-profit companies have geographic monopolies, answering to shareholders while expecting to fulfill a public good. It’s a system that doesn’t make much sense on the best day, less so during a crisis.

Legislators need to look at everything. It’s a complicated system, so a full appraisal may have to wait for a full session next year. But nothing should be off the table.

Connecticut has some of the highest electric rates in the nation, and though its system is generally reliable, it has repeatedly proven vulnerable to major storms.