Haley Fisackerly, president of Entergy Mississippi, has taken the position that the investor-owned utility is regulated enough, thank you.

Responding to public statements that Attorney General Jim Hood followed up by filing a fraud suit in state court, Fisackerly said the fact that Entergy reports to federal regulators from multiple agencies and state regulators wherever the parent company sells electricity should be enough.

It’s not.

The Mississippi Public Service Commission is essentially toothless. In response to past corruption, the three-member elected panel no longer even selects or controls its own investigatory staff. The Legislature removed that power several years ago and gave the governor oversight of utility investigators. Another complication for the PSC is that it must, by statute, guarantee that public utilities have rates approved that allow them to be profitable. After all, Mississippians would gain nothing if a state agency had the power to render a water, sewer, phone or gas company bankrupt.

It’s also a fact that Hood, as attorney general, is the person empowered by statute to act for many state agencies. A glaring example is that the state auditor can’t even initiate a criminal prosecution of a public official caught with his or her hand in the till. With thanks again to the Legislature, all the auditor can do is send the file to the attorney general, who might or might not pursue charges.

Fisackerly is correct when he says Entergy provides voluminous records on its transactions and finances to regulators. Hood, in the fraud case, said he expects to find some devilment there. Specifically, he says Entergy has been using wholly owned subsidiaries as suppliers, increasing company income by paying subsidiaries more than market prices and passing the added costs along to ratepayers.

Hood relishes being the champion of the proverbial little guy. No doubt about that. It’s not a good time to be a utility company. With rates still at or above historic highs, no one is enjoying paying power bills.

But in this case, there is objective truth to be found. Either Hood can prove what he claims or he can’t. It’s painful and inconvenient and expensive for Entergy to go through a legal process that seems to be layered on top of other legal processes. But there’s a price to pay for being granted a monopoly, so this case should proceed.