Reading between the lines
IN a recent status report to the federal court, the U.S. government highlighted an issue that CNMI elected officials would rather not revisit: CUC “has not implemented measures to assure that its revenues are sufficient to cover every day operating and maintenance expenses, let alone future capital improvements.”
In other words, CUC can’t afford to exist as it does. And yet, according to the status report, despite receiving about $200 million in EPA grant funding alone since 2008, CUC has yet to complete a plan to ensure its financial independence.
Why? Perhaps because such a plan would likely include utility rate increases — a move deeply unpopular with CUC customers, many of whom are voters, which in turn makes rate hikes politically unpalatable to elected officials. Hence, the creation of the CPUC, the designated “fall guy” for rate increases. CUC can propose rate hikes, but subject to the CPUC’s approval.
Recently, citing its consultant’s recommendations, the CUC board said it will ask the CPUC to approve a (base) rate increase that will be implemented over a five-year period “to minimize the impact on ratepayers.”
The “problem” with CUC is actually more of a feature than a bug. Ultimately, it is run by politicians — who select the board members — and must navigate the turbulent currents of politics. Unpopularity is fatal to any political career, and rate hikes are always unpopular. The federal government, for its part, is the stern but generous parent who, after scolding its errant child yet again, is still expected to keep providing funds.
There is little or no incentive to break out of this cycle. Many CUC customers — who are also voters — expect their elected officials to “do something” about “high utility rates.” That’s why, in every election year, politicians — many of whom should know better — promise to “do something.” But they can’t, so they end up talking about something else — like renewable energy or the “high” salaries of CUC’s top officials — to somewhat deflect the electorate’s ire.
In any case, the only thing that could help the CNMI government pay for utility services is a booming local economy, which cannot be willed into existence by campaign promises, however heartfelt.
That is the question
THE Commonwealth government is so big that a proposal to reduce the number of legislators amid a financial crisis and declining population has been described as an act of “bravery.” However, the author of Senate Legislative Initiative 24-2 is not up for re-election until 2028 — meaning its passage would require the support of even “braver” lawmakers. Before it can be placed on the ballot in next year’s election, the legislative initiative must be approved by three-fourths of the members of the nine-seat Senate and the 20-seat House of Representatives who are “present and voting.”
We believe that after seeking public comments and holding public hearings, lawmakers should approve the measure and allow voters to decide its fate at the ballot box.
Now if, by some miracle, S.L.I. 24-2 is passed by lawmakers and ratified by voters, would a “smaller” Legislature truly cut government spending — or simply shift more funds to the executive branch? Fewer lawmakers — but more directors, program managers, or special assistants?
