As Northeast Utilities notes in its tips on coping with a power outage, the general rule on food spoilage is: “When in doubt, throw it out.”
The same maxim may hold true for policymakers considering whether to put subsidiary Connecticut Light & Power Co. (CL&P) on the hook paying for food gone bad in blackouts.
Under a law enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly, the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) is investigating the feasibility of requiring Connecticut Light & Power Co. and United Illuminating Co. to pick up the grocery tab on any food spoiled as a result of preventable blackouts, for up to $150 per instance.
In a 2005 Connecticut General Assembly study, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women calculated a Connecticut family of four”™s weekly grocery bill at just under $170.
PURA is also investigating whether any reimbursement policy would extend to medications requiring refrigeration.
The Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), which exists to represent residents, says such a program may not be worth the administrative hassle and recommends if enacted it be restricted to low-income families.
Con Edison has a similar program on the books in New York that is available for all Empire State residents regardless of income.
“OCC recognizes that limited-income residential customers face particular hardship when confronted with the loss of food (or) medication due to the lack of electricity for refrigeration,” wrote Elin Swanson Katz, Connecticut”™s consumer counsel, in formal testimony on the proposal. “Thus, if PURA determines that a ”¦ program is appropriate and should be paid for by ratepayers, OCC advocates that the program should be restricted to limited income customers in order to reduce the impact of such a program on rates.”
She added any program should be capped at $5 million per blackout for CL&P, and $1.5 million for United Illuminating, with new groceries and medicines coming on the ratepayer”™s dime if blackouts are beyond the control of utilities, and on company shareholders if no utilities are culpable.
Earlier this year, a commission determined Connecticut”™s utilities were not prepared to deal with storms packing the destructive power of the nor”™easter and Tropical Storm Irene, which downed power lines across the state.
In an initial 22-page response to the PURA query, CL&P estimated that 10 percent of customers losing power in last year”™s nor”™easter and filing a full, $150 food replacement claim would have resulted in $10.7 million in costs alone.
CL&P termed the proposed program “unnecessary and, in fact ”¦ undesirable” in part due to the cost and on grounds it does not guarantee continuous service under its contracts in Connecticut, and disclaims responsibility whether direct or consequential for damages absorbed by its customers in any interruption of power.
CL&P also argued that few homeowners save grocery receipts, making verification of losses difficult to prove and so opening the door to fraudulent claims; and that any repayment program in the wake of a storm the size of last year”™s nor”™easter, with 800,000 people losing power for an extended period, would be an administrative nightmare.
“In short, every road to establishing ”¦ (a) program is full of potholes and obstacles that must be carefully and deliberately avoided or overcome, and which would take such a disproportionate amount of time and resources so as to make the establishment of such a program impractical,” wrote Leonard Rodriguez, senior counsel at CL&P.
“PURA must wrestle with the question as to whether, beyond homeowners”™ insurance covering such a loss (which is not required), Connecticut is willing to go down the road of requiring compensation from a third party for events caused by natural events, such as storms.”
