As conservatives, we cherish the free market. We believe businesses should compete for customers by offering lower prices or better products and services, and that government should not put its thumb on the scale to help or harm one company over another.
The proper way to handle monopolies has been debated for more than a century. President Theodore Roosevelt used federal power to break up monopolies like John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which controlled much of the U.S. energy sector by the early 20th century. The federal government broke up AT&T in the early 1980s after concluding it dominated the telephone market. Today, the government is investigating Google over its near-monopoly on search and online advertising.
One issue that has long vexed conservatives is the nature of public utilities. Modern life requires electricity, water and sewer, and internet access. These are “natural monopolies,” because it simply isn’t feasible to run multiple competing water lines or electrical conduits to each home.
You can choose to live off the grid—deploy solar panels, dig a well, use a septic tank, and install a service like Starlink. But if you live in a suburban community, as many of us do, you accept the providers that serve your neighborhood.
Where I live in Eagle, my water is supplied by Veolia, a private company. Sewer service comes from the Eagle Sewer District, a public entity. For internet, I can choose Sparklight via cable or CenturyLink via phone lines, along with various satellite options. Trash collection is handled by Hardin, under contract with the City of Eagle.
Outside of internet service, I don’t have choices—these providers are tied to the location. Libertarians might argue that we should have options, but as mentioned, it’s simply not practical to run redundant pipes and wires to every residence. Imagine a utility digging up your street every time a neighbor wanted to switch companies.
Eagle is pursuing a novel idea for broadband: installing city-owned fiber conduits using federal grants and allowing multiple providers to compete over that infrastructure. Time will tell if this model performs better than the traditional system.
The breakup of AT&T offers an instructive look at how public and private power collide. Alexander Graham Bell founded Bell Telephone Company in 1877, which evolved into American Telephone & Telegraph. A century later, AT&T controlled most local and long-distance telephone service in the country, as well as key patents. By the 1970s, the federal government sued AT&T for antitrust violations, leading to a settlement that created regional “Baby Bells” and opened long-distance service to competition. If you’re my age, you probably remember TV commercials urging you to switch long-distance providers.
In its early days, AT&T enjoyed a natural monopoly—only its phones could use its network. But by the latter half of the 20th century, competitors were developing ways to use AT&T’s infrastructure or bypass it entirely, such as MCI’s microwave transmissions.
Should private companies that invest enormous time and capital into infrastructure be required to share it with competitors?
Sometimes cities and counties operate utilities themselves. The City of Eagle runs a water utility serving about 3,800 households. The rest of Eagle was once split between Eagle Water Company and Suez, until Suez acquired Eagle Water and was later itself acquired by Veolia.
Since these utilities operate as monopolies, they are tightly regulated by statute. It would be unacceptable for a water company to raise rates so high that homeowners are pushed out, or for a telephone company to cut off service because it disliked something you said. That’s where the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) comes in. The Legislature created the PUC in 1913, now codified in Title 61 of Idaho Code:
There is hereby created a state commission to be known and designated as the Idaho public utilities commission. The commission shall be comprised of three (3) members appointed by the governor, with the approval of the senate.
Idaho Code § 61-201
The statute also defines which utilities are considered “public”:
The term “public utility” when used in this act includes every common carrier, pipeline corporation, gas corporation, electrical corporation, telephone corporation and water corporation, as those terms are defined in this chapter and each thereof is hereby declared to be a public utility and to be subject to the jurisdiction, control and regulation of the commission and to the provisions of this act.
Idaho Code §61-129
The PUC is a government agency, but it operates somewhat independently from the three branches of state government. In a report issued for the commission’s 100th anniversary, Commissioner Paul Kjellander explained:
In its quasi‐legislative capacity, the commission sets rates and makes rules governing utility operations. In its quasi‐judicial mode, the commission hears and decides complaints, issues written orders that are similar to court orders and may have its decisions appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. In its executive capacity, the commission enforces state laws and rules affecting the utilities and rail industries.
The PUC must be independent enough to regulate rates and protect consumers while maintaining a cooperative relationship with the entities it oversees. It’s a delicate balance, especially because typical market forces don’t apply. When Suez purchased Eagle Water Company a few years ago, many residents were unhappy—both that the city didn’t buy the utility and that the PUC later allowed Suez/Veolia to raise rates. Yet both decisions look reasonable in hindsight. If the city had purchased the system, taxpayers would have inherited decades of deferred maintenance. That also explains the rate increases: Suez/Veolia spent millions upgrading the system to modern standards, and those costs must be recouped.
That doesn’t mean I enjoy watching my water bill climb each year. But it’s easy for conservatives to fall into the same trap as socialists, believing we shouldn’t have to pay the true cost of the services we use. And without the ability to switch companies, we rely on the utilities and the PUC to keep rates fair. With water and electric rates rising in recent years—and data centers driving huge new demand—residents are asking whether the PUC is doing its job. Rep. David Leavitt recently raised these concerns regarding Idaho Power:
Across Idaho, families are paying more for everything. The cost of groceries, housing, and fuel continues to rise, and every household is learning to stretch a dollar further just to stay even. But as ordinary people tighten their belts, Idaho Power is asking for another rate hike. This time, it is a $199.1 million increase that would raise bills by about 17 percent for residential customers. For most families, that means an extra $20 or more on every bill.
Leavitt noted that Idaho Power’s parent company, IDACORP, brought in nearly $300 million in profit in 2024. As conservatives, we don’t object to businesses earning profit. But when a business is a monopoly with deep connections to government, it’s fair to ask questions—especially when it wants to raise rates again.
There are also some perverse incentives in this system. As a public utility, Idaho Power is tightly regulated: it must seek PUC approval for rate increases and cannot refuse service. Yet as a subsidiary of a publicly traded company, it exists to generate profit for shareholders.
And who are those shareholders? The usual suspects: Blackrock, Vanguard, Wellington Management, Morgan Stanley, T. Rowe Price, State Street.
Millions of Americans invest through these firms, expecting a return for retirement. But we’ve also seen these firms use their influence to promote globalist and progressive policies across the private sector.
That’s not to say Idaho Power or Veolia are necessarily engaged in Marxist plots; it’s simply to note that their incentives don’t always align with those of their customers.
I wouldn’t expect PUC commissioners to be openly hostile to the utilities they regulate, but are they too cozy? Angela Palermo wrote a detailed report for the Idaho Statesman about two former PUC officials who say they were fired for blowing the whistle on alleged misconduct:
The whistleblower lawsuit, filed in October in Ada County District Court, accuses PUC commissioners and a senior staff member of violating the state’s open meeting law, having ex-parte communications with officials from companies with open rate cases, creating a hostile work environment, misusing public funds and retaliating against the two employees for reporting such misconduct.
Ex parte refers to a one-sided discussion about the substance of a pending case.
Maria Barratt-Riley, the former executive director of the PUC, who had worked at the agency since 2012, and Joshua Haver, a former policy strategist, who moved through the ranks and aspired to eventually become a commissioner himself, are suing the agency, saying they repeatedly voiced concerns and filed reports over misconduct before being wrongfully terminated.
The PUC cannot comment while litigation is pending. But if the allegations are true, they point to a pattern of disregarding the law and getting too close to the companies the commission is supposed to regulate.
And despite technically being regulated, companies like Idaho Power wield considerable influence in state government. Niklas Kleinworth, formerly of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, recalled lobbying the Legislature on a Bitcoin bill in 2024 only to be out-lobbied by the utilities.
According to the Secretary of State’s lobbying portal, Idaho Power spent roughly $14,000 on food and beverages for legislators during the 2025 session. The company employs several lobbyists, including Nate Fisher Jr., who previously spent four years as a policy adviser to Gov. Brad Little. That doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything wrong; it simply illustrates how closely government and public utility interests overlap. The governor and his staff, lobbyists for power and water companies, and the PUC’s staff and commissioners all swim in the same fishbowl. It’s a big club—are you in it?
Power and water are essential—not just for our daily lives but for business, manufacturing, transportation, and nearly everything else that makes up the modern world. That’s why Idaho created the PUC in the first place. But given the latest lawsuit and the increasingly close relationship between regulators and the utilities they oversee, perhaps it is time to consider reforms to this system.
Gem State Chronicle is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
