Be Wary - Very Wary- of a Possible Utility Merger

To the Editor,

I suspect that not many Conn. residents are aware of the fact that NE Utilities (which owns/operates CL&P) is trying to get approval to merge with NStar, the Massachusetts electric utility. Reuters reported late last week that the CL&P’s incompetent handling of the post-Irene clean-up shines an unwelcome light on this matter The story is a real eye-opener, go read it: Stormy Weather for a Utility Merger

For those who think that we’ve been too hard on poor CL&P’s (mis)management, please take special note that (a) CT residents pay more for electricity than any other state in the lower 48, and (b) CL&P’s customers have grown by 41% in the last 35 years – while line workers have shrunk by 21% (according to the article). The punch line in the Reuter’s story says it all: “…Judging by the evidence in Connecticut and elsewhere — as opposed to the unproved promises of the companies’ executives — the watchdogs need to take care to extract a few pounds of customer service flesh or kill the deal outright.”

In light of this, it seems to me that the hearings Ms. Boucher and Ms. Lavielle have proposed MUST be closely coordinated with the process for evaluating this proposed NE Utilities/NStar merger. I leave it up to our elected officials to determine how best to do that – but clearly it would be a travesty to hold hearings while on another track this merger sails through. CT Citizens need to watch the watchdogs closely on this.  

Likewise, any rate hike should be rejected out of hand. NE Utilities consciously and intentionally under-manned the company for decades in order to increase profitability – and CT citizens have just paid the butcher’s bill for their greedy behavior. NE Utilities should pay for any “unexpected” costs resulting from Irene – indeed, the real justice here would also be to require NE Utilities to reimburse every citizen for the costs of that full refrigerator/freezer of food everyone had to throw away.

-Steve Symonds

Wilton Resident

Ed.'s note: also see Symonds' previous letter, "