Quote:
Originally Posted by LikeLakes
While paying their CEO 14 million a year, and quite a few others mid 6 figures and higher. They are guaranteed to make money, guaranteed to be able to set rates that are profitable, allowed to write down assets for tax advantages regardless of whether the taxpayers paid for them or not. Truly awful company IMO, as was PSNH before them.
|
They don't set rates. That would be the PUC; based on investment and government required operating costs.
If they could set rates, free of that authority, they would be much higher.
The money paid to the CEO, et al, is ROI that is lost by the investors.
If they paid the CEO a $1M, then the investors would get another $13M.
The loss is not to the consumer.
The consumer cost increase due to the demand of increased infrastructure costs... basically building new capacity in areas that didn't need it in the past and building that capacity in such a manner as to have lower impact as publicly desired.
Thus we, as a collective, increase the cost.
It is like when people do not realize that the increase in traffic congestion in Meredith is partially the result of increased home building in Moultonborough.
I93 is a main trunk... like the big transmission lines... but each of the smaller branch roads have to be redeveloped to handle the increase in usage.
Eversource is having the same issue. It must increase its infrastructure even for the part that runs from the generators to NHEC or other smaller regional grids. That cost a lot with the shortage of supplies and labor we currently have.
If we cut back on the use... the need to increase the infrastructure is offset.