CUC has already increased the FAC from $0.22075/kWh to $0.24500/kWh, and it has publicly stated that the full calculated April 2026 FAC is $0.44489/kWh. That is not a small adjustment. It is a proposed increase of $0.19989/kWh, which equals an 81.59% increase over the current FAC.
For a family using 1,000 kWh per month, that means about $2,398.68 more per year from the FAC increase alone. That does not include the base electric rate, water, sewer, food, freight, rent, school, or any other cost of living.
CUC says fuel cost is the driver, and public reporting states that monthly fuel expense could rise from about $4.2 million to more than $8 million. But rising fuel cost does not answer the separate question that every ratepayer has the right to ask: Has CUC done everything reasonably possible to cut cost before forcing the public to absorb another massive increase?
The available record says that answer is not yet clear enough.
This is also why we have been fighting for specific reforms for years: full public transparency of FAC-impacting price terms; itemized disclosure of transportation, add-ons, taxes, duties, insurance, storage, and other non-fuel charges; proof that fuel-tax exemptions and credits are actually reducing cost to ratepayers; open-book audit rights; stronger inventory and procurement controls; and a more disciplined transition to renewable energy and grid modernization so the CNMI is less exposed to imported-fuel shocks. That fight matters because every dollar hidden inside a broad pricing bucket, every preventable inventory loss, every financing premium caused by long payment terms, and every procurement weakness eventually shows up in someone’s electric bill, water bill, business cost, grocery price, or freight charge.
CUC’s audits show repeated problems with inventory controls, repeated qualified audit opinions, and recurring compliance and procurement issues. That matters because weak controls increase the risk of waste, poor reconciliation, over-ordering, or embedded cost that the public cannot easily see.
The fuel procurement documents also use broad pricing categories such as transportation, fixed add-on, taxes/duties/port charges, and any and all non-fuel items. When pricing is bundled this way, the public cannot easily tell what portion is freight, what portion is insurance, what portion is storage, what portion is margin, and what portion may be avoidable.
The CNMI fuel-tax law adds another reason for caution. Under 4 CMC Sec. 1403(c), liquid fuel sold to CUC for power generation is exempt from the liquid fuel tax if the statutory condition is met, and if the tax was already paid, a credit must be provided. That means the public is entitled to demand proof that exempt or creditable fuel taxes are not being buried somewhere else in the delivered price.
The Blue Bay lubricants documents show similar warning signs. On multiple line items, the fixed add-on is larger than the commodity base price itself. Those documents also route oil analysis through Shanghai, China, and the contracts use long payment terms such as net 60 and net 75, all of which can increase cost or operational risk if not managed carefully.
The people of the CNMI should not be treated as a bottomless backstop for every procurement weakness, every accounting weakness, or every preventable cost that can be negotiated, audited, or cut.
Before the public is asked to carry another crushing FAC increase, CUC should first:
| Household Usage | Extra FAC Per Month |
| 500 kWh | $99.95 |
| 750 kWh | $149.92 |
| 1,000 kWh | $199.89 |
| 1,500 kWh | $299.84 |
Audit all fuel and lubricant invoice packages and disclose all FAC-impacting price components; break open transportation and add-on buckets so each charge can be tested; prove that fuel-tax exemptions and credits are being fully applied to reduce cost; tighten inventory controls and materials accountability; renegotiate payment terms where possible to cut financing premiums; and show visible, measurable cost-cutting before asking the people to pay more.
This is not an argument against keeping the lights on. It is an argument for accountability, transparency, and ratepayer protection.
By Rep. Vincent R. Aldan Chairman, House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMI News Service or its staff. All assertions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
To submit an op-ed for consideration, email your piece to brad.ruszala@nminewsservice.com
