To the editor:
For years, our elected officials and power providers have been pushing solar power for our homes. Now consumers are installing solar panels, tankless, solar-powered water heaters, etc., and in some cases are selling power back to providers such as NV Energy. And some big consumers have decided to leave NV Energy and get their power from lower-cost providers.
So why are these power companies now saying that they aren’t selling enough power, and raising their rates?
For years, water suppliers have recited their mantra to reduce use and conserve, and consumers responded by removing grass and replacing it with drought-tolerant landscaping and cutting in-home water use, thereby using less water. So what is the first thing these same water providers do? They file for a rate increase.
Why is it that when consumers do what we’re asked to do, we get punished by rising rates? A better question is why didn’t utility companies plan better for these reductions and the effect it would have on their business plan? Did this lack of planning cause an overbuild of their infrastructure? Have they cut positions, salaries and benefits to help deal with the loss of revenue?
These are questions that the utility companies need to answer. Lack of planning on their part should not constitute a rate increase on the consumer’s part.
KATHLEEN M. STONE
Getting rich in Congress
To the editor:
I cannot believe that after all these years of living in Las Vegas, I actually totally agree with an editorial (“Time to rein in the lobby hobby,” April 20 Review-Journal). To further your excellent commentary, I suggest someone check the worth of members of Congress when they enter the halls, and what their worth is when they leave, no matter if it’s four years or 14 years later.
Furthermore, we should check their worth two years after they’ve left Congress. Somehow, the numbers don’t jibe with an annual salary of $174,000. I’m sure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Harry Reid and many others are multimillionaires. I want to know their financial advisers; will those advisers take on those who live on Social Security or unemployment?
Do you think former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor really cried when he lost his election? No sooner were the ballot machines put away that he got a real cushy job. The whole system is a disgrace, but members of Congress do not take away from themselves. They take away only from we the people.
To the editor:
Assembly Bill 405, the parental notification bill before the Nevada Legislature, is not about abortion. It is about restoring to parents what is rightfully theirs — the ability to parent their teenage daughter (“Abortion parental notice bill backed,” April 18 Review-Journal).
Our society reflects this wisdom. A girl under 18 cannot get her ears pierced, a cavity filled or a tattoo without parental permission. No physician would ever consider doing surgery on a minor without consulting her parents, yet it’s OK to allow an abortionist to do this? Opponents’ mantra has been “you can’t legislate good parenting.” How about getting the government out of the way so we can parent? How about the sex traffickers and predators who hide their crimes with secret abortions?
A truly fair-minded, pro-choice person would see the wisdom in letting parents help their teenager — whom science tells us has not fully matured mentally — make the serious decision about abortion. They then could help the teen with post-op care, too. The law allows for a judicial bypass in cases where a teenager fears abuse, and it is those very cases where a teenager needs an intervention with a Family Court judge.
So who are the real extremists? Where is common sense?
To the editor:
Not surprising is the mini-barrage of letters to the Review-Journal from various critics of the Yucca Mountain Project after the recent congressional junket to the site. A common thread from all these critics, be they informed, uninformed or just plain hysterical NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) is they present no viable alternative to Yucca Mountain.
From Sen. Harry Reid on down, no alternative plan is ever brought forward. While I’m not totally sold on Yucca Mountain, I do not believe it is at all wise to store highly dangerous nuclear materials willy-nilly at various sites around the country, with varying levels of security. What is the greater danger: the unlikely chance of a transportation or site accident at Yucca Mountain, or the chance of some of these materials getting into the wrong hands?
The federal government has many sites where nuclear activity has taken place, some going back to the Manhattan Project of World War II. Surely there must be someplace where this material can be stored safely, and just as important, securely.