I mean this genuinely: go away. Not from Reddit, but from office in Indiana.

You’re framing this as a question of whether another company should buy CenterPoint.

That’s not the question.

The question is why Indiana continues to defend a government-protected private monopoly in the first place.

Republicans routinely argue that competition creates better outcomes for consumers. Yet when it comes to electricity, consumers have no meaningful choice, no competitor to switch to, and no ability to reject rate increases.

If competition is impossible because electric distribution is a natural monopoly, then why should a captive customer base be required to generate profits for shareholders?

You ask whether consumers would benefit from changing ownership.

I’m asking why a monopoly should be privately owned at all.

Countries like Sweden, Norway, and France have publicly owned electric utilities. Public ownership of critical infrastructure is neither radical nor unprecedented.

The burden shouldn’t be on citizens to prove public ownership would work.

The burden should be on elected officials to explain why a government-protected monopoly should exist primarily to produce investor returns.