Patch's Poll: Would You Pay Higher Utility Rates For Fewer Outages?

Governor Malloy unveiled plans for the state to be more proactive about storm damage - would you pay more in exchange for more stable power?

On Jan. 11, Gov. Dannel Malloy "announced 'concrete' steps that will be taken to make the state better prepared for disasters."

The state-initiated Witt Report and Two Storm Panel have made recommendations about how to improve preparedness and response time for the state and the utilities.

Asked if some of these changes may mean higher utility rates, Malloy said, “It might.”

What do you think? Are you willing to pay more in exchange for fewer outages? Take the poll and add your thoughts in the comments.

Susan Schoenberger January 26, 2012 at 02:50 PM
As suggested, let's keep the comments on this thread relevant to the story, please. Thanks for your cooperation.
R Eleveld January 26, 2012 at 03:32 PM
@Jim G and also Ziemba… the conversation was limited to crony capitalism, based upon a comment originally made by Maria. Crony capitalism, which everyone should be opposed to or love, no middle ground here, is when government through its multitudinous methods assists, for the good or the bad, others. It is Government picking winners and loser, like Malloy with Jackson, and others, or the Feds with Solyndra, and who knows how many others. We specifically were talking to tailored deals to benefit a few. My position related to this issue is no assistance or bailouts for anyone, period. Then we do not have to support Joe’s shop or Exxon. To allow anything is to allow all of it. Maria came back with: but certain people should get something… and I responded, if it is good for the goose its good for the gander. You take it all with a smile, or take nothing with a smile. There was no discussion of the other items that you have tried to interject into the conversation. You and Ziemba are both wrong. The topic was limited within this subthread. Why do you not write a thoughtful article and post it like I have, and we can all then see where your thought processes go. And the same to Ziemba, and others. We can then remark on it in a civil dialog. BTW my work is my product, I do not look to listen to talking heads because I am fortunately intelligent enough to process rational and logical thought, contrary to your assertions.
R Eleveld January 26, 2012 at 03:42 PM
@ Maria, The point I was making is that if you do not think we should support Exxon, or GE, or others, then you must also agree not to support Jackson, CIGNA or the ticket people. We also should not support Jane’s and Joe’s Optics from above. Fairness is always in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. Not objective. Since I do not claim to be Solomon and I would hope you would say the same. The only rational fair equitable application is to say no to all of it. Otherwise we are back to who, and how much, etc., and then you will complain about Exxon, or bailouts, or the local business not getting something, or your buddy not getting something, and AT&T did get something, or Jane got something and Joe did not... Where does it end? It does not! You must see the slippery slope. A principled position of no deals, and the slope disappears.
suffieldpatriot2 January 26, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Funny that Robert B.'s stereotypical and prejudicial post and link stays up on these boards, but heaven forbid anybody states or posts a link that is negative to the liberal, "Patch", agenda - that will imediately be removed by the Patch thought police. Patch has become a joke.
Susan Schoenberger January 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Comments have strayed way too far from the topic here, folks. This thread is now closed.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »