LETTERS: Rooftop solar owners carrying fair share

The editorial on rooftop solar (and many before it) mistakenly claims NV Energy gives me 11.6 cents per kilowatt hour for the excess electricity I produce ("Solar must pay its way," Nov. 22 Review-Journal). I am a new solar user, but based on my first nine months, I anticipate that over a year I will produce more electricity than I use. I make more than I use some months and use more in other months.

Based on the editorial's description of the system, I should be receiving money from NV Energy in the excess months and paying them more in the others. It does not work that way. NV Energy is not buying my excess; rather, the relationship is more like a bank account. I deposit my excess energy with NV Energy when I have it, and withdraw it during the months I need it.

Like a bank, NV Energy uses my deposited excess by selling it to other customers. It costs NV Energy nothing, and the company sells it for full retail price. When I need my deposit back, I get it at full retail cost, for which NV Energy pay its wholesale cost.

Looking at it this way, NV Energy makes money when I make excess, and it makes money when I need more. In the meantime, I pay a basic connection fee that should be covering my part of the infrastructure. (If it doesn't, that's a different issue the Public Utilities Commission might need to address.)

The assertion that nonsolar customers are subsidizing solar customers is just wrong. The average solar installation is north of $20,000, and if there are 5,000 installations, the total investment in electrical production from rooftop solar is $100 million. That's $100 million, or a significant portion that NV Energy does not have to spend on generating facilities and charging back to customers.

The excess energy that I and other solar users put into the system should actually lower the amount that needs to be produced by NV Energy, and lower everyone's cost.

Bruce McPherson

Henderson

Immigrants vs. refugees

The fuss over 10,000 refugees is ironic, considering our elected officials and law enforcement agencies have turned their backs on the law and let millions of unknown people enter our country illegally. Now, the Syrian refugee situation has them reacting with alarm for our country's safety. Really?

Is there any rational, logical person who doesn't believe that because of our open southern border and nontracking of overstayed visas, there aren't already hundreds of terrorists and sleeper cells here waiting to do us harm?

Nevada is no better. Our state leaders are OK with protecting hundreds of thousands of unknown individuals. To wit: Sen. Dean Heller jumped on board with Sen. Marco "Gang of Eight" Rubio's amnesty bill a couple of years ago to reform our immigration system. The state Legislature approved driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, whom the state already spends more than $700 million a year supporting.

Then the Review-Journal published an editorial noting that Gov. Brian Sandoval and others rightly called for caution with refugees (Rethinking refugees," Nov. 18 Review-Journal). So now, everyone is worried about our security and safety because of a few thousand refugees? Get real.

If you're OK with open borders and not deporting undocumented immigrants, then you ought to be OK with these refugees. It is this kind of thinking that is dooming our country and our state — officials picking and choosing which laws they will enforce for their own political purposes, instead of making honest decisions based on what is best for our citizens, our state and our country.

Richard McArthur

Las Vegas

Student-athletes

Raising the eligibility standards for high school and college athletics says that we want our students to do more than just be athletes ("Tougher academic requirements changing the game," Nov. 11 Review-Journal). Why challenge students on the court and not in the classrooms? What happened to education coming first and sports coming second?

I was shocked to read that high school and college administrators and the coaches associations were complaining about the new standard their students would have to achieve. I agree with the NCAA's new standards for student-athletes to achieve a 2.3 GPA, and I hope more parents, teachers, coaches and athletes believe their education is a priority, as not every student-athlete will make it to the pros.

I am a mother of two Clark County School District student-athletes, and I support the "2.3 or take a knee" campaign.

Denise Charles

Las Vegas