LETTERS: PUC, elected officials betray rooftop solar users

David Noble, a member of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, includes in his analysis the average cost of power that net metering customers pay to NV Energy, but he does not include the cost of leasing or purchasing solar panels ("PUC official: Keep new rate in place," Jan. 12 Review-Journal). I believe Mr. Noble's accounting methods are very suspect.

I am a retired Air Force veteran and a retired information technology specialist, living on a fixed income. I chose to lease rooftop solar panels last June as a means to reduce utility expenses. I investigated the costs of leasing, the guarantees of energy production and the cost of net metering and was able to see a 20 percent savings. I spoke to both the solar provider and NV Energy to confirm rates, production and net metering costs.

Now, with the PUC changes to the rules, I will end up paying at least 20 percent more for power than I would have without rooftop solar panels. This situation has made a sham of utilizing solar panels in Nevada. I find this to be outrageous. I can only think of one action that might change this: all rooftop solar panel customers should vote against the current statewide-elected officials until they pressure the PUC to change. I voted for every current statewide elected official, and I feel betrayed.

The power of the vote is the only thing we have left. I am surprised this type of injustice is allowed to stand in Nevada.

Anthony Affronti

Las Vegas

Rooftop solar viability

It seems that every day, the Review-Journal prints another letter from a disgruntled rooftop solar purchaser or provider complaining about reductions in power rebates. Because the rebates are much higher than the price NV Energy would have to pay for other power supplies, the rest of us end up subsidizing rooftop owners.

Their disappointment in losing something valuable to them is understandable, and now the industry has to downsize. But the fact is that rooftop solar is not economically justifiable. Taxpayers and power consumers should not have to pay for others' profits. Most government-subsidized businesses are a poor use of resources, and like hybrid cars and corn-derived ethanol, this one should be allowed to stand on its own or disappear.

Tom Keller

Henderson

PUC ruling right

The Nevada Public Utilities Commission got it right ("PUC OKs new solar rates," Dec. 23 Review-Journal). Why should all other NV Energy customers be forced to subsidize rooftop solar? The solar industry has been built on subsidies from the ground up. Remember Solyndra, the California solar panel producer? Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Rooftop solar users claim the PUC changed the rules. Welcome to the club. The original decision to subsidize solar was a rule change at the expense of nonsolar customers. The price we pay for electricity frequently changes. The idea that NV Energy has to buy excess power from its rooftop solar customers at any price — let alone retail price — is a subsidy. Who else has a guaranteed customer for its product? Particularly when that product can be delivered by the supplier whenever and in whatever amounts that the supplier wants.

The relatively few rooftop solar users are louder than the many traditional power customers, but that doesn't mean they are right.

John Welch

Henderson

Picking up ACA's tab

In reading an article on Obamacare, the second paragraph caught my eye ("Obamacare helping poor get access to care, studies show," Jan. 6 Review-Journal). It states: "Fewer low-income residents of Kentucky and Arkansas, two poor states that expanded Medicaid in 2014, reported problems paying medical bills after the coverage expansions."

Don't get me wrong. I have compassion for the truly needy. But since Medicaid is free to those recipients, wouldn't these people also have fewer problems making their car payments if government forced their neighbor to pick up the tab?

Robert Gardner

Henderson