By Del Benson
Saipan resident
THERE was a Commonwealth Utilities Corporation board meeting last week. I showed up, as I’ve done before, to give my three-minute statement. Like many citizens, I left with a familiar feeling — speaking into an empty room, with little response and even less dialogue.
I attempted to meet directly with Executive Director Ken Watson and Deputy Executive Director Betty Terlaje the beginning of the week. I did so respectfully. These are not personal attacks — these are concerns about policy, cost, and the future of our Commonwealth. But the response I received was telling: no meeting, no follow-up, no effort to engage.
Busy schedules are understandable. But leadership is not just about managing operations — it’s about communicating with the public. If you truly want to address concerns, you don’t simply say “too busy.” You say, “Let’s find a time.”
That didn’t happen.
Instead, I was directed toward formal requests and bureaucratic processes. That’s not dialogue — that’s deflection.
The bigger issue: a lack of communication
This raises a larger concern: where is the communication between CUC and the public?
There is no meaningful forum. No open discussion. No proactive outreach. And yet the decisions being made will impact every resident and business for decades.
CUC is not directly accountable to the people — it answers to a board appointed by the governor. And while that structure may be legal, it creates distance. The people paying the bills — the customers — have little voice in the process.
And that’s a problem.
Because we are now discussing long-term energy contracts — potentially 25-year commitments — that could significantly increase utility rates.
The reality behind the numbers
At a recent economic forum, it was noted that Saipan’s power infrastructure is aging, with approximately 49.5 megawatts of available capacity out of a higher designed capacity. We’ve also seen requests for hundreds of millions in funding for generator upgrades.
Let’s be clear: even with solar, we will still need generators.
Solar is not a replacement — it is a supplement.
That means:
We pay for solar infrastructure.
We maintain diesel generators.
We carry operational and staffing costs.
And we still face fuel volatility.
At the same time, a rate increase has already been filed — the first in over a decade. We are told it will be gradual, spread over five years to soften the impact.
But here’s the key point: this current spike in fuel costs may be temporary. Global instability — like conflicts affecting shipping and energy — can drive prices up. But history shows they can also come back down.
So the question is simple:
Why lock ourselves into a 25-year contract during a temporary crisis?
The solar assumption problem
There is a widespread belief that solar energy will lower costs.
Even CUC leadership has acknowledged that this may not be the case — at least not in the next five years.
Why?
Because when power is generated by a third party:
They must recover capital costs.
They must finance the project.
They must make a profit.
That cost is passed on to consumers.
Based on industry estimates, solar contracts can range roughly from 14 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour before adding existing grid costs. When combined with transmission, operations, and backup generation, total rates could exceed 40 cents per kilowatt-hour — even if fuel prices decline.
That’s not savings. That’s long-term cost elevation.
The subsidy illusion
We’re also told that government subsidies may no longer be sustainable, meaning costs will be passed on more directly to ratepayers.
But let’s examine that.
The government itself is one of the largest utility users. When it fails to pay or requires subsidies, who ultimately covers that gap?
The public.
This creates a circular system — a shell game — where costs are shifted, not reduced.
Experts, bias, and the need for broader input
CUC relies on experts, as it should. But experts are not immune to bias. They work within specific industries, with specific perspectives.
We’ve seen in recent years — whether in public health or other sectors — that expert opinion is not always unanimous, nor always correct.
That doesn’t mean we reject expertise — it means we expand the conversation.
We need to explore all options
Right now, we appear locked into one path.
But what about:
Geothermal energy, especially in a region within the Ring of Fire?
Micro-nuclear technologies now being developed globally?
Hybrid systems that reduce risk instead of concentrating it?
Exploring these options requires investment — but far less than what we’re committing to long-term contracts and infrastructure.
A call for transparency and dialogue
This is not about opposing solar. It’s about how we implement it, when we commit to it, and what it truly costs.
Before we sign decades-long agreements, we need:
• Public forums
• Transparent financial modeling
• Independent analysis
• Open debate
Democracy requires participation. It requires questioning. It requires discussion.
Right now, we don’t have enough of that.
Final thought
I am willing to be scrutinized. I welcome debate. That’s how good policy is made.
But decisions of this magnitude should not happen behind closed doors or without meaningful public engagement.
Before we lock ourselves into the next 25 years — let’s have the conversation.
