Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

LPEA customers deserve answers

At the Oct. 8 LPEA meeting in Pagosa Springs, LPEA’s Michael Dreyspring was questioned about the $20.50 base fee that LPEA charges its members each month, asking whether a portion of this fee covered meter-reading. Dreyspring said yes. At the Oct. 9 Durango meeting, a member questioned Dreyspring about AMR meters. Most who have opted out of “smart meters” have AMR meters. She asked if these meters needed to be manually read. Dreyspring said that AMR meters have attached transmitting devices allowing usage data to be sent to LPEA via the power lines and are called “turtle meters.” At the Oct. 15 LPEA board meeting, a member asked what portion of the base fee was designated for meter-reading costs? She was told it was $1.42.

So, LPEA has charged members $1.42 monthly to read 41,000 meters at the approximate cost of $58,000 per month and almost $700,000 per year – for who knows how long – even though the majority of members have meters that don’t need to be manually read at all.

When asked where all that money went, the room went silent. LPEA is now poised to demand $50 additionally per opt-out per month for meters that don’t need to be read manually. Of course, those opting out will also be forced to pay the $1.42 base charge for not having their meters read.

Since the LPEA board of directors has declined to consider the 9,500 peer-reviewed articles done by credentialed scientists exposing the health dangers and environmental damage that pulsed, EMF smart meters emit and have also snubbed their noses at the 2010 FBI warning that “individuals with only a moderate level of computer knowledge are likely able to compromise meters with low-cost tools and software readily available on the Internet,” and are cavalierly ignoring our constitutionally guaranteed Fourth Amendment right to privacy with their intrusive 24/7 surveillance of our homes and lives, perhaps the board might be amenable to learning math. Or is this double-dipping practice just business as usual over chump change? Can we get some answers around here?

Diana Luppi

Pagosa Springs



Reader Comments