LIKE many people across the CNMI, I understand that CUC is under tremendous pressure after Super Typhoon Sinlaku. Restoring power, maintaining water operations, purchasing fuel, and stabilizing damaged infrastructure across our islands is no small task. Utility workers, line crews, and many frontline employees have been working long hours under difficult conditions, and they deserve recognition for that effort.
At the same time, the recent statements from CUC leadership about the possibility of shutting down operations without $35–40 million in emergency funding have left many residents deeply concerned. We are concerned not just about the immediate crisis, but about CUC’s long-term direction.
Kevin Watson’s warning that CUC could “cease operations entirely” certainly gets attention, and perhaps that was the point. But for many residents already struggling with storm recovery, rising utility bills, and uncertainty about the future, that kind of messaging can also feel alarming and overwhelming. It creates the impression that the Marianas is being forced into a corner: either immediately approve massive emergency borrowing or face total collapse.
The reality is probably more complicated than that.
Yes, the storm created extraordinary costs. Yes, FEMA reimbursements can take time. And yes, fuel prices continue to put enormous pressure on island utilities. But many of the financial and operational problems facing CUC today existed long before Sinlaku. The typhoon exposed vulnerabilities that have been building for years — aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, fuel dependency, and recurring financial instability.
That is why many people are asking an important question: how did we get to a point where one disaster pushes our utility system so close to the edge?
I also think some of CFO Betty Terlaje’s comments deserve thoughtful criticism.
When she described the situation mainly as a “timing issue” or “liquidity problem,” it may have been technically accurate from a financial standpoint. But to the average resident, this does not feel like a simple timing problem. When customers hear discussions about emergency borrowing, the possible use of customer security deposits, rising Fuel Adjustment Charges, and warnings about running out of cash, it can seem like a much bigger problem than temporary cash flow issues.
Her comment that “every time we energize a customer, we are taking a loss” was especially concerning. I understand the point she was trying to make about fuel costs exceeding what CUC is currently recovering. But hearing that statement as a resident is unsettling. As Mr. Bruce Camacho pointed out, electricity is not a luxury service. It is essential for families, manamko’, businesses, schools, and healthcare facilities. If the system is structured in a way that makes serving customers financially unsustainable during fuel spikes, that points to a deeper structural problem that deserves honest discussion.
I also believe many residents were frustrated by the argument that increases in the Fuel Adjustment Charge are not technically “rate increases.” Maybe that distinction matters legally or administratively, but for families opening their monthly bills while still recovering from typhoon damage, the difference feels meaningless. When people pay significantly more each month, they experience it as an increase, regardless of the terminology used.
And while the idea of using customer security deposits may only be under consideration, even discussing it understandably worries ratepayers. Those deposits belong to the public. Many families are already stretched thin, and people want assurance that their money is protected and not being treated as a fallback solution for operational shortfalls.
At the same time, I do not believe anyone truly wants to see CUC fail. A collapse of utility operations would be devastating for the CNMI. Hospitals, water systems, schools, emergency services, businesses, and daily life all depend on CUC functioning properly. The Commonwealth cannot afford instability in critical infrastructure.
But if the public is being asked to support emergency funding, increased borrowing authority, or higher utility costs, then the public also deserves transparency and accountability in return.
People want to see:
– clear explanations of where the money is going;
– stronger oversight and auditing;
– aggressive pursuit of FEMA reimbursements;
– accountability for longstanding financial issues;
– protection of customer funds;
– and a serious long-term plan to modernize infrastructure and reduce dependence on imported fuel.
Most importantly, residents want confidence that this crisis will lead to meaningful reform rather than another cycle of emergency warnings and financial instability a few years from now.
The CNMI community is resilient. People understand hardship, especially after disasters. But trust is built when leaders are honest not only about the emergency itself, but also about the deeper problems that brought us here and what will be done differently moving forward.
FRANK LEE BORJA
Marpo Valley, Tinian
