Connecticut’s cost of delivered electricity has become a preoccupying, contentious issue in the General Assembly. Rhetoric is high; trust and perspective are scarce. The public is understandably despairing.

So, how about a fresh approach: focus on facts and address the substantive issues candidly. That’s the only way to find and agree on the best way forward. There really is a way forward.

The situation

A good starting point is to recognize that our electricity, natural gas and water utilities are investor-owned monopolies with guaranteed markets. They are not evil entities as some characterize them. They are corporate citizens that are allowed, by law, to recoup incurred expenses, and allowed by our constitution, to earn a profit.

However, since our lives depend on the products and services they deliver, the state has a responsibility to ensure that those products and services are not only safe, clean and reliable, but also reasonably affordable, which is why their monopoly profits should be less than those of unregulated enterprises.

How does the state do that? By delegating oversight and regulation to an independent body, as is done in every other state.

I empathize the word “independent.” Our court system does not report to the attorney general for the obvious reason that that would be a conflict of interest. The same, fundamental principle should apply to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority not reporting to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, as it currently does. DEEP controls PURA’s budget, ability to hire and the structure by which it operates. Yet DEEP also appears before PURA for judgments, and it has sought to influence the outcome of PURA dockets. Even the possibility or perception of such interference is unacceptable.

Up until a few years ago, PURA commissioners dealt with our utilities at arm’s length as neither friend nor foe, seeking reasonable judgments, applying facts to the law. The repeated accusation from Senate Democrats that past commissions were lax in fulfilling their duties and gave utilities free rein is unfounded and untrue. Such polemics exacerbate tensions and dangerously erode the public’s trust.

A constructive conversation would dispense with the rhetorical attacks and focus on this reality: Our grid was not designed to receive renewable forms of electricity generation nor to serve extensive new demands, for example by our skilled workforce pursuing artificial intelligence projects.

There is no question, we urgently need a modern, dynamic grid to improve reliability and resilience, boost our citizens’ quality of life, and enable Connecticut’s economy to grow.

Three of the most prominent issues related to modernization are cost, appropriate regulation and public benefits.

Cost

Gov. Ned Lamont points out that Connecticut has no indigenous fossil fuels. Electricity generation, not controlled by Eversource or Avangrid, accounts for about 70% of your bill.Increasing supply of natural gas to generate electricity would require persuading New York to construct another pipeline across New York, which it says it won’t do. Hydroelectric power from Quebec would be expensive and cause environmental damage.

Other supply options include modular nuclear generation, wind and solar energy. Each has costs and controversies.

Lawmakers need to have backbone and level with the public. The truth is, we have to seek additional supply, accept high generation cost, or possibly both. Denigrating the distributors as the enemy serves no purpose, and is, frankly a cop-out.

Regulation

Connecticut is increasingly recognized as having one of the worst regulatory climates in the country. That hurts our ability to attract businesses and has caused rating agencies to react, resulting in higher costs to borrow money. Customers pay for such higher costs.

Seeking to improve on the structure of the former Department of Public Utility Control, Gov. Dannel Malloy appropriately reorganized PURA to have three commissioners. There is plenty of work for three – law, finance, engineering, public policy, rate setting, mergers and acquisitions – in electricity, natural gas and water.

There is not work for five commissioners. In the DPUC structure with five commissioners, some were idle.

Smart management must also include delegation and accountability. Therefore, a core principle should be division of the workload in three equal shares, each commissioner being responsible for a third of the dockets, not the current set-up of placing the entire load under the chair. What’s more, PURA must operate with teamwork, equal access by commissioners to staff resources and collegial commitment to collaborate and reach timely, reasoned resolutions.

Connecticut’s regulatory climate is also suffering from policy decisions that are having damaging consequences. PURA’s denial of utility rate increases to cover incurred expenses have caused utilities to avoid expenditures in Connecticut and divert maintenance and capital to states where they can get their money back. We can all agree that we don’t want electricity outages and other repercussions of such diversion.

Another policy of denying rate increases until distribution utilities lower costs sounds great, but consider that it might also demonstrate either ignorance of current market conditions or unwillingness to confront those conditions. We do not close universities until professors give better lectures or students get better grades. We do not shut down the General Assembly until it passes better legislation. We solve problems by facing the facts and, ideally, working with all stakeholders on what we can improve.

I am not advocating a free ride for utilities. I am saying utility submissions must be probed carefully and examined with a skeptical, but thoughtful, eye. Dockets should not be received in an antagonistic and vindictive spirit.

Public benefits

A convenient but careless way to address the costs of social welfare and environmental concerns is to attach such expenses to electricity bills. We have also turned to nuclear power to alleviate he threats of climate change.

The most direct and transparent way to address our social and environmental concerns is head-on, through our normal revenue generation and appropriations processes, not by deciding that electricity customers should pay for them.

Tagging tangential costs onto electric bills exacerbates Connecticut’s already high cost of electricity.

Solution

We need to recognize that the core problem is the cost of electricity supply amid escalating climate crises and technology demands. There is no other way around the truth; we must both increase that supply and cope with its cost, not avoid reality and cast diversionary accusations.

Current levels of anger and accusation are not solving the problem.

A calm, rational approach to regulation is in order. We have done that in the past and can do it again. It requires less social theory and more basic attention to applying facts to law in setting rates and arguing respectfully about what reasonable, constructive profit levels serve Connecticut’s energy future.

Solutions are neither easy nor obvious. High electricity bills present a very real challenge or regulators, policymakers and citizens. Shrill rhetoric does not make it easier. And it wouldn’t hurt to acknowledge that our utilities are also eager for win-win solutions.

Edward R. Murrow, observing the remarkable difficulty of the U.S. response to the Axis powers in World War II, wrote: “Difficulty is the one excuse that history never accepts.”

So it is with 21st century energy supply and demand. We make progress by facing reality making hard decisions and getting the job done.

Arthur House was PURA Chairman from 2012 to 2016. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Connecticut.