Confessions of a green-power welfare queen

When the Public Utilities Commission rejected the Review-Journal's request to see contracts between NV Energy and the various companies proposing to provide "green" energy, I momentarily forgot I already have such a contract -- mine.

I am a Generator.

"Nevada Power Company ('Nevada Power' or 'Utility') is pleased to offer Thomas Mitchell ('Generator') this Letter of Agreement and Exhibits for Interconnection of Net Metering Customers ('Agreement')," the five-page contract begins.

It states and restates in every conceivable permutation how the Utility "assumes no liability" and the Generator is "solely liable for any damages" whatsoever in the event of providence, nature or human error.

It also makes iron-clad sure the "Generator hereby transfers to the Utility all Renewable Energy Credits derived from the Generator's ownership and operation of, or production of, energy from the Generator's Installation ... "

This is because the Nevada Legislature -- in a sweeping repeal of the laws of economics and common sense, as well as a total disregard for the cost of electricity to ratepayers -- has dictated that our monopoly power company must generate 25 percent of its electricity from "green" sources by 2025.

Now, before you denounce me as some kind of cactus hugger, allow me to elucidate. I am what Ronald Reagan pejoratively called a "welfare queen." Five years ago I read in the newspaper about rebates being offered to residents who install photovoltaic solar panels. I happen to have a spot in my back yard that gets direct sun at least 90 percent of the day. I missed out to the insiders who snatched up the $5-per-watt money but managed to file in time to get the $4 handout.

Suffice it to say, fellow electricity customers, you picked up half the cost of my 5-kilowatt installation. In addition, the value of the array is not assessed on my property taxes, and there was no sales tax. Without the rebate and tax breaks, the amount of power generated would never have provided an adequate return on investment over the estimated 30-year life of the equipment.

When I generate more power than I am using, that power goes onto the grid, and each kilowatt-hour "sold" is deducted from my monthly bill. Essentially, I'm being paid the same rate per kwh generated all residential consumers pay. The panels generate a little more than $100 worth of power on average a month. Ironically, they are less efficient when the temperatures soar above 100 degrees.

Now you know what I am paid and how much of a subsidy I got to salve the green consciences of Nevada lawmakers. The question is: What is NV Energy proposing to pay for the energy it plans to purchase from seven commercial alternative energy producers?

The amount paid will help determine how much our future power bills will rise. That's why the newspaper asked to see those contracts now on file with the PUC as part of the company's resource plan. The PUC resisted, because NV Energy said the contracts are trade secrets and that revealing their terms would hamper future contract negotiations.

But the PUC opened a legal process and began accepting arguments from interested parties.

On Monday, the attorney general and the consumer advocate filed arguments outlining why the contracts should be available to the rate-paying public before they are finalized.

The very reason for the PUC's existence is so power customers can have transparency and see whether the company is operating efficiently and providing adequate power sources at the lowest possible cost. At least that was the rationale before the Legislature decided to force the purchase of green energy, no matter the cost or how high the subsidy.

According to a story by Business writer Jennifer Robison this past week, the current cost to residential power customers in Nevada is about 13 cents per kwh, but a national survey found the average cost of solar-generated power in June was nearly 35 cents per kwh.

What NV Energy has contracted to pay for green power is not yet known. Knowledgeable sources speculate some wholesale contract rates might be as much as four or five times the current retail rates.

Do the math. If 25 percent of your future power consumption costs merely three times as much more, your power bill would "necessarily skyrocket," as President Obama once said, by at least 50 percent.

The Review-Journal is simply asking that ratepayers' voices be heard before the PUC closes the barn door on this escaping horse.

If nothing else, maybe a few of us backyard and rooftop solar welfare queens should demand the PUC grant us a comparable rate for our green power as those commercial plants. After all, our lawmakers are determined to save the planet -- even if it costs the last dime of your money.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press and access to public information. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.