"Pro-Utility": What Does That Mean?

My law students write short papers on the weekly readings for the course Monopolies and the Nation's Infrastructure:  The Regulation of Public Utility Performance.  Last week covered the legal changes necessary to convert a monopoly market into a competitive market.  (Changes include modifying franchise exclusivity, defining the type of regulation that new entrants "consent" to, establishing quality of service standards, defining the obligation to serve, addressing eminent domain powers and granting nondiscriminatory access to bottleneck facilities). 

One student, prefacing his critique of a court decision, admitted that he was "pro-utility."

Here's what I wrote back to the student:

At this stage in your career—at any stage, actually—you want to be pro-facts and pro-logic, then let the chips fall where they fall.  Being "pro" anything implies being "anti" something else.  In this context of converting markets from monopoly to competitive, what is that something?  Might it depend on the context?  One can be "pro-utility" when the government fails to compensate the utility justly for the utility's services.  One can be "anti-utility" when the utility uses corporate structure to escape liability for environmental damage.  What does it mean, then, to be "pro-utility"?  One can always have hunches and leanings; those are the signs of an active, attentive, committed thinker.  But what must accompany hunches and leanings is a curiosity about facts and context.

How would you respond?