The article on LPEA election finance was interesting (Herald, June 29). LPEA CEO Chris Hansen tells us that we deliver power to some members at a price below cost. He also tells us that LPEA commissioned a third party to do a comprehensive cost of service study.
So, the question is what other members are being subsidized with power below cost? Academic studies, and common sense tell us that residential rooftop solar is a subsidy via net-metering billing. So, as members we should all know how big that subsidy is and what it’s costing members.
The demographics of rooftop solar owners and of likely voters are the same. Our board has been playing politics for years with subsidies aimed at the members most likely to vote. Under the guise of being green our board is bent on dividing the membership into those that get subsidies and those who pay for the subsides.
Academic research has for years shown that rooftop solar subsidies are socially and economically regressive. Meaning they disproportionally benefit wealthier people while shifting cost to poorer people.
As for the supposed environmental benefit? Because their peak power is cheaper, residential solar owners use 20% to 30% more power. That peak power is not provided by solar. The academic studies on residential rooftop solar show it to be two to five times more expensive to produce than utility scale solar. So why did our board price Sunnyside power above the cost of residential rooftop solar? Blatant politics.
John Purser
Durango
