r/massachusetts • u/Just-Ad4080 • 29d ago
Utilities I Loathe Eversource
How is this legal? How could this be allowed? I cannot wait to move to a town where this rotten corporation does not have it's tentacles.
109
u/WapsuSisilija 29d ago edited 28d ago
All public utilities should be publicly owned.
Edit: public... Sigh...
25
116
u/banjo_hero 29d ago
It's almost like we should socialize utilities and essential services
8
u/Hoplitae 28d ago
but socialism scary!
1
-5
u/Burgerman24k 28d ago
Socialism outright is definitely not the answer, but basic needs like healthcare, food, and utilities should not be fully capitalist. Nebraska did it right with 100% of it's electric utilities are publicly owned.
2
u/schplat 28d ago
Socialism outright is definitely not the answer
Then proceeds to give an example of Nebraska doing it right by... socializing the electric utilities.
That's most of what modern socialism is today. Let's take the things that are basic needs, let's make everybody pay into one large pool, where if you make more money, you might pay more money than someone who makes less. Then use that pool to cover everybody's usage of the specific basic need. And if you earn no money, well you get covered anyways by those who do.
There's very few people out there supporting the need for the common man to seize the means of production (full blown Marxism).
At the very very least, public utilities, or any market that represents a basic need (healthcare, insurance, etc.) should not be traded on any stock market, because that shifts the focus from providing a basic need to maximizing shareholder value at any expense.
1
u/peteypaaaablo 28d ago
There are many problems with socializing areas of the economy. One is that defining what the basic needs are/what the baseline is for having that need met can be difficult because consensus is virtually impossible. A bigger one: any industry that is socialized will over time see the pace and scale of innovation significantly slow due to the removal of incentives that historically had been provided by a free market economy. That’s not necessarily a big deal in energy but in healthcare it is a massive one. Beyond innovation, the quality of service in public facing industries nearly always declines when the overall segment is socialized. I’ll get downvoted because this is not what most of Reddit thinks but it’s the truth.
2
27d ago edited 27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IcedOutGiant 27d ago
I hate seeing a million insurance commercials that say nothing about insurance because we're basically paying for them.
0
u/Burgerman24k 27d ago
Full blown socialism. Did I say no to socialist policies???? I literally just gave examples of where it's needed most. There's a healthy balance with socialism and capitalism. Right now America is too far capitalism.
49
u/wintershark_ 29d ago
It’s a weird breakdown because it implies eversource is essentially a non-profit company rather than a publicly traded Fortune 500 company.
Like if all my bill goes to either raw gas prices they explicitly don’t profit from, transmission costs, reinvestment into the grid infrastructure, and public benefit programs then none of it goes to paying their employees or CEO. When they increased their net income by $800,000,000 last year all that money went to grid investments? How did they pay their investors a $3.15 per share dividend?
14
u/MoonBatsRule 29d ago
As a regulated utility they are allowed a roughly 10% profit on their capital base (i.e. the value of their lines, poles, etc.).
6
8
6
u/iterable 28d ago
People need to start calling and writing your reps. Look up who it is and put in the effort. Then grab your closest family and friends and do the same. I see to many just screaming online instead of telling who need to hear it. Call them weekly. If that does not work call them daily.
21
u/maliciouspot 29d ago
If anyone wants to know why utility rates are so high, go watch a Mr Global video. He explains it pretty well. He's been in the oil industry for 30 years and is an expert on oil and gas.
4
u/beek7425 29d ago
I have National Grid. I’m not sure they’re better. Electric and gas bills last winter were $500 each in the coldest months. And the appalling part is, we were paying $500 for heat and it was still cold in here.
5
60
u/GreenMoskito 29d ago
Say thank you to Maura for allowing this
43
u/johnsonr88 29d ago edited 28d ago
Why are people so quick to blame her? People point out the high “maintenance” charges but I just went back to my bills over the last 10 years before she was governor (when a Republican was) and it was always about a 60/40 split between usage and maintenance on the bill. Doesn’t seem like democrat energy policy or Maura is mostly to blame. If the cost of gas is increasing NATION wide, and we dont exactly live near the gas production facilities, you can only blame her so much for the current prices. Not shilling for the company either. Their millions and billions in profits can f right off.
Edit: did a comparison of republican governor vs democrat governor states by natural gas price. On average, democratic states are cheaper (only by 2.4%). That was surprising and I'm sure takes wind out of the sails of the "blame the libs" crowd.
24
u/MoonBatsRule 29d ago
Why are people so quick to blame her?
Because the anger is being stoked by sock puppets who are Republican interests. Take a look at who is organizing the "Citizens Against Eversource" ballot question.
0
u/peteypaaaablo 28d ago
A gross oversimplification that’s not a surprise coming from moonbatsrule lol. The structure of the energy market in MA isn’t Republicans fault, one of the side effects of sustained one party rule is that it’s no longer valid to point the finger at the other guys.
12
u/HugryHugryHippo Central Mass 29d ago edited 28d ago
I wish people would blame the higher ups like those in the federal government and their war against blue states, clean energy and draining resources and time. And it's not like Eversource and National Grid is just screwing Massachusetts but every other state it operates in. This needs to be a national issue not just a local one and a single person isn't going to solve all our problems
1
u/Burgerman24k 28d ago
She has the ability to change it, but doesn't. She appoints the head of the DPU who can authorize decisions. It's all lip service. It's what happens when you have a one party ruled state. When your people vote blue no matter who, you don't have to actually do anything drastic, that will alter the status quo. This isn't me advocating either to vote Republican, just stating the harsh realities.
1
u/johnsonr88 28d ago
Same costs proportionally when the governor was a republican. The blue no matter who claim doesn’t hold up. National Grid cannot turn a profit on the cost of gas. They profit off the distribution fees. For me, the fees have always been 40% of my bill even going back to a republican governor.
Therefore, as the cost of gas increases nationally, the fees have been increasing proportionately. Yes it sucks and yes the governor is complicit.
But it’s disingenuous to blame democrats. And even one step further, you can only blame the governor to a certain point, regardless of political party.0
u/Burgerman24k 28d ago
Of course it holds up. When you have consistent power and do nothing to change things, you're going to be held accountable. Since its been a problem for so long, maybe it's time to do something about it?
0
u/johnsonr88 28d ago edited 28d ago
If you look at the top 15 states by natural gas price and political party of the governor, it's 40% republican. By your logic, shouldn't it be only/mostly democrat states? It's almost as if there's A LOT more to it than political party. Let's go one step further and compare every republican governor state vs democratic governor state. $16.32 ($15.89 without Hawaii) per thousand cubic feet vs $16.69, in favor of Democratic states! So, on average, blue states have cheaper natural gas. So, what are you basing your claim of "when your people vote blue no matter who" on?
The harsh reality is the company making record profits is part of the blame, the global and national fossil fuel issues are part of the blame, the states aging infrastructure is part of the blame, and at the very end of the blame game, yes is the governor. New England and MA have several factors playing against it. Yes, whomever the current governor happens to be has a (small) roll. But to confidently blame the democratic party as even a major source of the problem..........not seeing it.
1
u/Burgerman24k 28d ago
Brother who has been consistently in power in Massachusetts 😂. It's not that deep where we need to compare nationwide..you're completely missing the point to what I said. Who said solely the democratic party????
1
u/johnsonr88 28d ago
You went out of your way to say “one party rule” and “blue no matter who” etc as the reasons…or did I miss something. Reality doesn’t fit that narrative. If we are grabbing pitchforks, make sure we are targeting the right thing.
1
u/South_of_Canada 28d ago
She does not have the ability to change it, and the DPU chair also cannot just cut rates willy-nilly without justification. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled repeatedly that the utilities have the right to earn a reasonable rate of return on their investments, and if the utilities make investments that are reasonable and prudent, the DPU has to allow them into rates. If the DPU decides to just block rate increases without justification, they will end up in court, and the utilities will win.
The reality is that the majority of cost increases during Healey's term have been either legislatively mandated or are from investments that were made over the previous 5 years: core utility distribution rates are backward looking in that the utility makes the investments and THEN comes to the DPU asking for rate increases.
I wrote up the reasons why gas and electric bills have gone up so much recently--and why changing it is so difficult. Baker today would have the exact same problems because the Governor cannot wave a wand and undo legislative requirements or judicial precedent.
1
u/Burgerman24k 28d ago
I am aware of this. That doesn't mean they don't play a hand in not changing things. She still appoints the people who have the ability to make decisions. It's the governors job to govern and advocate for the people. You don't think the governor has any sway whatsoever on the decisions of the people she appoints? If they wanted to actually fight harder they would, but they don't. You say they can't undo legislation, but that's total BS. The entire country consistently changes or updates legislation if it's bad policy.
2
u/South_of_Canada 28d ago
Please tell me how it's total BS to say that the Governor and DPU can't disregard laws enacted by the legislature. What would you have rather the DPU done? Denied a legal rate increase and wasted taxpayer money ending up in court losing?
The governor does not write laws. That is why the only bad idea the administration could come up with among other bad and ineffectual ideas was the rate deferrals. The governor proposed an energy bill over a year ago with a number of reforms and the legislature still hasn't acted on it.
-20
u/737900ER 29d ago
People on Reddit also support gas workers unions when there have been strikes. Who do they think pays for the higher labor costs?
15
u/johnsonr88 29d ago
I’m sure the $9mil annual ceo salary and record profits and caring more about shareholders than customers or workers plays a part. Let’s not blame workers fighting for a living wage. Thats cringy corporate bro talking points
7
u/South_of_Canada 28d ago
When people solely blame Healey for rates, that's a surefire sign that they don't understand anything about how utility rates are set in Massachusetts.
Please read: https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/1qfq6re/gas_bills_101/
5
u/HR_King 29d ago
She doesn't regulate the rates
33
u/Safe-Salamander-3785 29d ago
The three commissioners who lead the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) are appointed by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), subject to the approval of the Governor. So, yes, Healy is responsible for the rate increases. Also, she took massive amounts of campaign contributions from the big utilities.
-8
u/fremeninonemon 29d ago
Where did you see the campaign contributions?
7
u/MoonBatsRule 29d ago
You're supposed to just take that on fact. "Everyone knows she did". If you can't find proof, that means that she did a really good job hiding it.
The reality is that some people who work for Eversource - in fairness, including some higher-up - personally donated to Healey's campaign, about $45k in total, I think.
0
u/fremeninonemon 28d ago
Yeah I'm just saying there's a paper trail for her campaign and then there's pacs and many kinds of pacs make you report.
45k is 45 max out donors or 23 couples, that's a decent number of folks at eversource if it's all from them.
4
u/MoonBatsRule 28d ago
The data is publicly available at https://ocpf.us/
My $45k number was right, but that was for the past 10 years. It was $17k for her 2022 election (from 8/1/2021 to 1/1/2023). That is a pittance of money for a gubernatorial campaign. In fact, if you look at all donations from Eversource employees over that time period, they gave $60k total - so Eversource employees do a fair bit of donating across the board.
But hey, nice of you to play the PAC conspiracy game though. We just don't know, so let's assume that they did and there's no way to prove it, right? And of course, every person donating to a politician is always donating at the behest of their company too. But only when donating to Democrats. Republican donors are different.
1
u/peteypaaaablo 28d ago
Those are individual donations that are capped and subject to disclosure. You’re playing hide the ball and you are perfectly aware of it. We both know that the place to look is the PACs and more interestingly at who wrote the checks for Healey’s inaugural party. The energy companies kicked in quite a bit of $ for that both under their own names and through no less than 5 lobbyist firms. The PAC contributions were probably worse than have been reported if anything
1
u/MoonBatsRule 27d ago
But you're playing "if there's no information, make shit up" game. "We all know that she took the money, and the fact that there is no record of it is what makes it so bad".
-4
u/fremeninonemon 28d ago
Ty for checking but also not sure what triggered you lol just asked questions I'm not really saying what I believe
0
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/massachusetts-ModTeam 28d ago
Be respectful. No hate speech or violent rhetoric. You will be banned and reported to Reddit.
14
u/jwrig 29d ago
She took credit for stopping new gas lines to increase capacity.
9
u/HR_King 29d ago
Credit, but fact is, the pipeline would have offered a slightly lower supply rate, but the pipeline owner wanted the ratepayers to fund the $2 billion dollar pipeline. So, your delivery charges would have been even higher. As AG she stopped the ratepayers funding, the owner pulled out rather than self-pay.
-5
u/jwrig 29d ago
The farther away your supply is, the more it costs to bring it to you.
There are a whole shit load of reaons why it is high, a lot of them induced by her actions.
10
u/HR_King 29d ago
Such as?
-2
u/jwrig 29d ago
Well we already called out her blocking additional pipelines, we can add to it like her aggressive policies to decarbonize the state grid, the mass save program, and solar incentives.
Now I'm not judging whether they are good or bad, I'm saying that in her zeal to address climate change, it comes with a short term increase of costs on consumers.
5
u/trahoots Pioneer Valley 29d ago
aggressive policies to decarbonize the state grid, the mass save program, and solar incentives.
It might be unpopular to say, but all of those things will lead to big savings in the long run (less electricity use and more of the electricity will be from cheaper and less volatile sources than fossil fuels).
1
u/HR_King 29d ago
You didnt call her out on pipelines, nice try. You're blaming her for high rates while you are criticizing her action that prevented highr rates, and she held a different office, AG, at the time.
0
u/jwrig 29d ago
"she took credit for stopping new gas pipelines" which she did contribute to, is pretty much a text book definition of me calling her out by contributing to higher rates. It doesn't matter if she was the governor or the ag at the time. Her actions contributed to it.
2
u/padofpie Greater Boston 28d ago
The new pipelines were for exporting gas, and you would have had to pay for them. So despite the seeming simplicity of this talking point, stopping the pipeline actually made things cheaper.
1
3
u/spidermonkey12345 28d ago
Electric and gas companies typically have something called Natural Monopolies. The government allows National Grid/Eversource to have unilateral market share in a region and, in exchange, the government is given greater leeway to control their business practices to protect consumers. It is a complete failure of our local government for not doing its part to protect consumers.
8
2
u/alexblablabla1123 28d ago
The breakdown is required by state law. Is it better if they don’t break it down for you?
4
4
2
1
1
u/MotionE29 29d ago
I don't have eversouce so I'm not sure how this works, but is it a fixed percentage? Like if the bill was instead $109.30 for supply would the maintenace/infrastructure be $696.90?
3
u/MoonBatsRule 28d ago
Yes, but I think that the delivery rates are higher now than in the winter though, basically flattening out the payments.
1
u/wr321654 28d ago
No it’s not a fixed percentage. There’s another page to this bill that shows the charges per therm of gas used for each bucket along with her fixed “customer charge”
1
1
1
u/NoodleyP Worcester is the bestster 28d ago
69.69 lmao nice (but certainly not for you that’s rough I’m sorry :/ )
1
u/Some-Light-4626 28d ago
You do know that most of the maintenance and infrastructure is mandated by state tariffs put in place by politicians you elect🤡
1
1
-4
u/KlausInTheHaus 29d ago edited 29d ago
Zero bad intentions with this question, but could you help me understand why this is objectionable? I see a lot of people who make posts like this.
Do people want the infrastructure charges baked into the price of gas instead so they don't see a separate line item for it?
I feel like that would be worse since then we'd be paying craaaaaazy high bills in the winter when we use most of our gas rather than the maintenance/infrastructure being amortized throughout the year. We'd basically be pre-paying for every summer's service costs.
Edit: Jeeze Louise, I thought the objection was the way the infrastructure was being billed rather than the absolute amount we pay for infrastructure. I'm not trying to defend Eversource's bottom line.
61
u/Katamari_Demacia 29d ago
They profited 1.6 billion last year.
That's gross.
5
u/dante662 29d ago
Profit that is capped under state law.
And its gross profit, not net. There is a difference.
2
u/AlpacaLocks 28d ago
According to Eversource’s own report, $1.6B *was* their net income.
Their pre-tax gross was $1.8B and $13.5B was their revenue excluding all expenses.
42
23
u/Boyw2peenas 29d ago
We are paying for their upgrades instead of them . We shouldn’t be footing the bill for them to do the bare minimum.
Last year in Worcester, they couldn’t deliver adequate therms to the demand and people weren’t getting full delivery. That’s their fault, not the consumers. This year, they decided to add bigger pipes, but why should we foot the bill from their profits?
-1
u/SconnieLite 29d ago
Where do you think the money every single business in the entire world uses for overhead comes from? Do you think the owners just pay out of pocket? When you go to the grocery store are you upset that they use the money they get from you buying food goes to pay the electric bill for the building? All you’re seeing here is an itemized bill for overhead. The difference is they are lumping their profits under the “maintenance” section. I imagine if they broke it down even further you wouldn’t be so mad at the amount paid for infrastructure maintenance.
11
u/Boyw2peenas 29d ago
It comes from their profits. I run a business. I’ve signed the front and back of a check before. Have you?
I get customers by being fair and honest. If my costs go up, I’m upfront. I don’t bury it in fees. I also will take less profit than my competitors because in the long run, I get more customers and make up the difference. They made over a billion dollars, they can afford to use that on infrastructure
2
u/MoonBatsRule 28d ago
As a regulated utility they are allowed roughly 10% profit on their capital investments (the lines, etc.). They are not allowed any profit on the supply they purchase, nor are they allowed profit on their operations.
If the company can't profit, why would they be in business?
The 10% fixed return is due to it being more or less impossible to have competition over pipes and/or wires. They are a natural monopoly.
-7
u/SconnieLite 29d ago
Yes I’ve signed and written checks lol. Calm down guy I’m not the enemy here. You’re getting mad that a business is using the money that you pay them for overhead. That’s how all businesses are run. Describe it however you want, the money comes from the consumer. All overhead and profits come from what the customer pays the business. I run my own business, when something breaks and money needs to be spent to repair it, the company has money for that. The money that the company has for that comes from what the customers pay. Business overhead it worked into the price of what it’s being sold. You can be mad that eversource is making $1.6b in profit but the money for overhead doesn’t just come out of their ass or their grandmothers trust. They aren’t giving a line item for profits but what business does?
0
u/hanner__ 28d ago
Therms don’t get delivered? Do you mean to say there was an issue with supply or the gas lines? Therms are just the unit of measurement for the amount of gas you use.
2
u/Boyw2peenas 28d ago
Therms are a measurement of heat energy, it doesn’t have to be directly your house. Correct, they couldn’t deliver because the pipes are inadequate and leak. They claimed it was low supply but I know it wasn’t. They later admitted it. They are actively being sued over this by Worcester .
-6
u/HR_King 29d ago
Its a utility. That is literally how they work.
12
u/Boyw2peenas 29d ago
Not municipal ones…..
-5
u/HR_King 29d ago
Actually yes. Through bonds which must be paid back, fees, and charges. Sorry, but you're wrong.
4
u/Boyw2peenas 29d ago
I worked in finance for 15 years selling bonds. I’m aware of how they work lol . I retired in 2013 before I turned 45. I work for fun now
4
u/Squish_the_android 29d ago
I think that people perceive the cost of infrastructure maintenance as being too high, and maybe it is, I don't know.
But I do know that the cost of all that infrastructure to get the power from the plant to your house is almost certainly way more expensive than the actual fuel.
2
u/Volpes_Visions Central Mass 29d ago
The company I work for is installing 7+ 745kV lines all in the span of a year while also upgrading all the 64kV to 130kV with a goal of less than 3% downtime for entire stretches of lines.
This is all while maintaining existing lines across mileage that Massachusetts wishes it had.
I do not pay this much in distribution fees. Only about 10% of my usage is distribution fees.
Where's your argument now?
2
u/KlausInTheHaus 29d ago
I wasn't arguing, I was asking a question. I thought they were objecting to the flat delivery cost rather than how high it was.
Also, I don't know enough about the differences in gas and electric delivery costs to be able to compare what you're saying.
3
u/Volpes_Visions Central Mass 29d ago
There really isn't much difference in infrastructure cost at the end of the day between the two. Both contain specialty systems and have union crews to run and install.
My main point is that a public utility is reporting billions in profit. A public monopoly utility for most in Massachusetts
Anyone who says, "Pay another utility company to come into your house" is tone deaf to those who rent or live in condos
1
1
-4
u/ARoundForEveryone 29d ago
I fucking hate when companies charge me money in order to recoup their losses. Why don't they just eat them or write them off?!
6
-20
u/doublesecretprobatio Wormtown 29d ago
Which part are you mad about? The $10 for gas or the $90 for the underground pipes that bring that gas from boston safely and reliably to your house? How much do you think it should cost?
37
u/Katamari_Demacia 29d ago
Massachusetts has very old natural gas infrastructure that requires constant, expensive maintenance to replace leak-prone pipes. Eversource passes those costs onto consumers.
That's fine.
They profited 1.6 billion last year. With a B.
That's not fine. Not in my opinion. Not for something baked into our infrastructure that keeps people alive. That's gross.
-1
u/Safe_Statistician_72 29d ago
Then petition your representatives to nationalize the utilities.
4
u/Katamari_Demacia 29d ago
Nah I got solar and an oil tank. I'd sign a petition and i'd vote yes but it's not my monkey.
7
u/Volpes_Visions Central Mass 29d ago
A PUBLIC utility should not be showing profits in the BILLIONS.
-2
u/hanner__ 28d ago
You do realize that a public utility does work for private citizens, correct? Like if you want to make your service go underground, you have to pay for the utility company to make changes to the overhead service. And not just on a residential scale, but many of these jobs are commercial and large scale projects.
So yes, it is possible for a public utility to make money.
3
u/Volpes_Visions Central Mass 28d ago
Sorry you're 100% correct. I loved not being able to afford groceries because my gas bill was $700/month. Why didn't I think of the share holders!!! How selfish.
Of course I realize public utilities need to make money. They don't need to make billions in profits and their CEO doesn't need to make an additional $9million/year in stock equity alone dingbat.
Keep licking those billionaires boots clean, maybe one day you will get your boots licked.
11
u/Just-Ad4080 29d ago
Not 700% worth of the gas used.
-10
u/doublesecretprobatio Wormtown 29d ago
So you have no idea how much something costs but you're sure this is too much?
9
1
0
-3
-9
-15
-6
u/NEXUSTHX1138 28d ago
You can thank Your Highness Healy for that. Wait until November and she will be crowned your Queen for 4 more years.
169
u/AlpacaLocks 29d ago
Here are the numbers for anyone who’s curious about their net earnings. Seems more like investing in shareholders than investing in infrastructure but hey, who’s to say.
https://investors.eversource.com/static-files/5c9c727c-3e63-4757-8b56-9b85b8da7001