The usual
SOME ratepayers are (again) complaining about their CUC bills, specifically for power. They (once again) blame the Fuel Adjustment Charge. Elected officials, as usual, nod their heads, and have met with CUC officials to loudly and publicly tell them to lower utility rates. As if that’s all it takes to reduce utility costs.
Meanwhile, global oil prices, which determine the FAC rate, have been going down recently. Consequently, for this month, the FAC rate has been reduced. But some CUC customers are still complaining about “high rates.”
CUC believes that a public information campaign can help “enlighten” ratepayers about their CUC bills. Maybe. But since FAC was first implemented, CUC has already explained its purpose to the public on multiple occasions. Many ratepayers know what it is. FAC reflects the current price of fuel that CUC has to buy for its power plants so they can generate power.
The main “problem” is that many ratepayers who don’t want to conserve power also don’t want to pay high utility bills — and they believe that their government can “fix” this “problem.” The same government that is also CUC’s largest delinquent customer.
The only way ratepayers could pay “lower” utility bills is if someone else would provide subsidies, which was the case last year when the former administration approved a federally funded utility stimulus credit. That funding source has been depleted already. Who else could subsidize the ratepayers’ utility bills? The CNMI government? How? Tourism numbers are still down compared to what they were pre-pandemic. Consequently, the economy is still down and so is the government’s revenue collection.
All this should be easy to explain to the public because it is true. But many elected officials prefer pandering to educating their constituents. Elected officials, in any case, should encourage the public to adopt energy-saving practices at home. They should also ask CUC to provide more information about the cost per kWh of using home appliances so ratepayers can plan accordingly. Government offices, for their part, should set an example by reducing their utility usage, which should be reported to the public each month.
Show us
IF some elected officials believe that CUC can reduce its utility rates, then they should explain how. Federal officials have indicated that CUC should charge more to reflect the actual costs of providing utility services. But again, if CNMI elected officials disagree — 2024 is an election year — then please tell us how can CUC charge less while still providing the same level of utility services.
For example, do elected officials believe that CUC is overstaffed and its workforce should be streamlined? Which, of course, begs the question: what about the CNMI government itself, and its redundant and/or overlapping departments, divisions, agencies, bureaus, offices, programs and services?
And what about the CNMI government’s unpaid utility bills? CUC has said that regular payments from the government could help the utility corporation improve its power generation, resulting in savings for ratepayers. Who among the incumbent lawmakers will introduce the appropriation measure — and what is the funding source?
Some say CUC should be privatized. But what legitimate business company would be willing to take over an entity whose operation is subject to frequent interference from politicians?
