LETTERS: Rooftop solar can flourish, if we allow it

MIT professor Richard Schmalensee's commentary about utility-scale solar misses the point ("It's time to supersize," Jan. 17 Review-Journal). Everyone knows that initially, technology costs more. It is entrepreneurs and pioneers who reach out and ultimately push that technology forward, making it economically feasible.

Power companies may be able to generate solar energy more efficiently now by buying hundreds of acres of desert, acquiring solar panels utilizing economies of scale and building new infrastructure. But who do you think pays these costs? At least with rooftop installations, only those who participate pay the bill, not everyone being asked to pay for more power plants. What are NV Energy's costs that nonsolar customers need to subsidize? It can't be new infrastructure, because rooftop customers are already on the grid. The net meter, which has a higher connection fee, is only paid by rooftop customers.

So the only thing I can think of is that rooftop consumers are supposedly not buying enough energy to support current infrastructure costs (lines and power plants). If that's the case, let's stop making our homes more efficient with insulation, green appliances, LED light bulbs and low-E windows, or else soon we'll be paying an efficiency fee.

No one has mentioned the value of rooftop solar generating excess power for the grid at the most important time, when extra power is needed (daytime or summer, as air conditioners are sucking power). Rooftop solar customers are simply requesting to get most of that power back at off-peak times, when utilities must create excess power anyway.

We don't need $76 million to build a road to Tesla's new battery development plant, or huge tax incentives for Faraday Future to develop electric cars. All that's needed is for solar customers to be given back excess renewable energy sent to the grid. Isn't that the definition of net metering? No money needs to change hands.

The rooftop solar industry doesn't need subsidies to flourish; it just needs a backup system to level usage. People should be able to use the power they generate. California's net metering policy has been done correctly. Any excess power a consumer generates is just a credit toward future usage.

Gary Lewey

Las Vegas

Solar sham

After reading two recent Review-Journal articles on rooftop solar ("Nevadans must rise up against PUC's decision," Jan. 24; "Rooftop Solar reprieve?" Tuesday), it appears there's a formula for those who oppose the Public Utilities Commission's net metering decision. All you need to do is show up to protest at rallies organized by a for-profit company, put pressure on Gov. Sandoval's office by accusing him of bait-and-switch tactics in relation to his business promotion agenda, and have a large megaphone supplied by the Review-Journal to gain an economic advantage over the disadvantaged NV Energy ratepayer.

The governor's office and the PUC should be ashamed of themselves if they cave to the political pressure by allowing an economic benefit for a few, while sticking it to the general public with ever increasing green energy cost-sharing promotions. This situation is precisely why government should not be picking winners and losers in the free market, and why it is important to have a newspaper that is not agenda-driven, as the Review-Journal appears to be. It seems the RJ is promoting the ideology of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. Shame on all involved in this political sham.

Dennis Leffner

Las Vegas

Misleading images

I don't think that the Review-Journal is as right-wing as some readers imagine under the ownership of the Sheldon Adelson family. The front page of the Jan. 22 RJ featured the Donald Trump rally at the South Point ("Fired up"), with a photo of an older gentleman sitting at a slot machine, dangling a beer and holding a Trump sign. Adjacent to that article was another story with a mug shot of a dapper Bill Clinton ("Bill Clinton backs wife's presidential candidacy").

As both articles continued inside the A section, there was a shot of a near-empty ballroom at the Trump rally, and a photo of a packed small section of bleachers at the Hillary Clinton rally held in a gymnasium at Advanced Technologies Academy.

I was at the Trump rally. It was packed, with hundreds of people turned away and having to view the event from different areas throughout the casino. We overheard officials estimating a 4,000-person turnout. Regardless, the RJ should show and print the truth. We've been fed lies for the past seven years and are tired of it, as evidenced by Mr. Trump's popularity.

Carole McClendon

Henderson