The state and local officials who regulate utility monopolies set rates by allowing companies a certain profit margin above their costs. Does that mean my rates are now going to go up to pay the tab (and maybe a profit margin, too) for my repair crew’s plane fares and motel bills? How does the rate setting work in states and communities across the country? What is it about the way rates are regulated and profits accounted for and allowed that seems to encourage utilities to cut their staffs but then pay for outsourced workers to fly in days later? Has any state or local government tried to reverse those incentives by building in penalties — say, $200 per home per day — for outages lasting more than 24 hours? Or are the utilities’ lobbyists in our state capitals too strong to allow that?
More important, what kind of twisted incentives let utilities get away with not making the kinds of investments — such as putting the wires underground, in the case of my community — that would prevent blackouts and probably pay for themselves in unspent repair crew time and overtime (not to mention tickets on Hawaiian Air) within 5 to 10 years?
In theory, the state and local officials who regulate utilities allow the monopolies because you can’t have two or three or four companies running wires across poles or underground. But with cable and telephone companies also running wires, does that still make sense? I now use Cablevision for phone service because Verizon had a lousy repair record in prior storms. Both have wires running up and down my road. So why couldn’t two electric companies be allowed to run wires and compete?
I enjoyed meeting my friends from Alaska and Hawaii, and they did a great job. But I’d sure like some good reporters to explain how we’ve lapsed into an almost Third World state of affairs, in which our basic infrastructure is so vulnerable that in a state with an 8.9 percent unemployment rate, we had to fly those guys in to put our lights back on.
2. Scoping out open primaries:
If next time around the Republicans are going to nominate the kind of semi-middle-of-the-roader who can appeal to people other than white men, they need to avoid the kamikaze ritual of primaries that we saw this year, in which almost every contender, especially the eventual nominee, tries to get to the right of everyone else. The way to do that is to change the rules and allow “open primaries,” in which independents and even Democrats can vote in a Republican primary. That way someone like Jeb Bush — who has great appeal to moderates — would have a far better chance of getting the nomination.
Some key primary states, like New Hampshire and South Carolina, already have open primaries. But major sources of delegates — such as California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania — do not. So I would like to see a story about what it would take to open up those primaries and whether Republicans backing someone like Bush are likely to begin working behind the scenes to make it happen.
Sure, it’s a wonky “inside baseball” issue, but it may be the only way to bring the Republican Party back from the right-wing edge. Imagine the different dynamics in Florida and California if Bush — who has consistently pushed for immigration reform and whose wife is Hispanic — could benefit from support in those states from Hispanics who, because of the current Republican stance on immigration, aren’t registered Republicans.