Vote ‘Yes’ on LPEA ballot issue
To the editor,
Many people are asking me what this is about. It is an agreement between LPEA and the City of Durango that facilitates the establishment and maintenance of electric lines throughout the city, saving both LPEA and the city time and money. In return, electric users in the city are charged a 4.7 percent fee on their electric bill.
Many people are asking me what this is about. It is an agreement between LPEA and the City of Durango that facilitates the establishment and maintenance of electric lines throughout the city, saving both LPEA and the city time and money. In return, electric users in the city are charged a 4.7 percent fee on their electric bill.
The franchise fee – in effect for decades – today results in almost a million dollars in revenue for the city, comprising about 3 percent of its operating budget. An ill-advised no vote will effectively result in an unplanned cut to the city budget of actually more than 3 percent as city (and LPEA) staff would have to spend more time and effort negotiating and approving each and every electric line construction and maintenance activity citywide. So if you vote no, be ready to identify just which city services you would cut and what city staff you would lay off.
Meanwhile, a new provision will help promote renewable energy throughout the city. Today, if you want to install a solar system on your roof, you can have your meter run backwards when you produce more energy (notably in the daytime and in summer), then run forwards again when you use more energy than your solar system produces. This is termed net-metering. But what if your roof doesn’t face south, is shaded by trees or powerlines, or simply isn’t large enough for sufficient solar panels to offset your electric usage (as can often be the case with businesses and/or multi-story buildings)?
The franchise agreement negotiated between the city and LPEA will facilitate off-site solar systems – those not physically attached to your meter, as current LPEA rules require. Other co-ops utilize this virtual net-metering principle in the form of community solar farms. In short, it would not only make solar available to those of us that don’t have just the right roof, but also facilitate larger solar systems for the city itself at the most suitable sites – 4 thereby lowering costs for solar through economy of scale.
And to the “Committee to Restore Power to the People” that sent us mailers urging a no vote to “avoid a 5 percent increase” to electric bills, get your facts straight. Approving the agreement won’t result in any increase in our bills as we have been paying the fee – which lowers costs for both LPEA and the city – for 40 years. Whoever you are, be brave! Publicly correct your mis-statements, and tell us who you are so voters know who is irresponsibly urging us to vote no.
Vote yes on the LPEA franchise agreement (termed an ordinance on the ballot).
– Jeff Berman, LPEA, Board of Directors, District 3
LPEA contract in our best interest
To the editor,
Approval of the proposed Franchise Agreement between the City of Durango and the La Plata Electric Association (LPEA) on the April 3 mail-in ballot is in the best interest of the City of Durango and its citizens. (http://docs.durangogov.org/sirepub/cache/2/v21laj55u3b51cuyjoc3wp45/140122890322201202060413.PDF)
Approval of the proposed Franchise Agreement between the City of Durango and the La Plata Electric Association (LPEA) on the April 3 mail-in ballot is in the best interest of the City of Durango and its citizens. (http://docs.durangogov.org/sirepub/cache/2/v21laj55u3b51cuyjoc3wp45/140122890322201202060413.PDF)
A franchise agreement between the City and its electrical utility has been in place at least since the early 1970s. Such agreements are mutually advantageous and cost-effective for both organizations.
They facilitate long-term planning by LPEA. The 20-year duration of the Franchise Agreement assures that the electrical load from the City will be a substantial part of their supply responsibility – and revenue stream – for a lengthy period of time. This reduces the cost of financing for LPEA and its power supplier, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, to fund major improvements in generation and transmission capacity.
The contract also facilitates routine planning by the City and LPEA. This allows cost-effective, coordinated action on infrastructure improvements. In particular, it prevents the absurdity—which is not uncommon elsewhere—of one party paving a street only to have the other tear it up a few years later.
They facilitate infrequent, but critical, emergency operations, as manifest in an emergency planning exercise conducted in Durango on March 19.
The proposed franchise agreement has a specific provision for sharing of optical fibers—something that did not exist when the last Franchise Agreement was implemented in 1991—as well as conduits.
Among other provisions, the agreement newly guarantees that LPEA will purchase renewably generated electricity from the City and other Durango customers and it further commits LPEA to implement technology that would facilitate community solar gardens.
Finally, on a day-to-day basis, the Franchise Agreement defines the routine access of LPEA to City rights of way for their operations of connecting new members and maintaining electrical infrastructure. Without such an agreement, such operations would require additional costly staff time from both organizations.
The Franchise Agreement also includes continuation of a 4.67 percent fee on electric bills. In effect, this is “rent” of City rights of way for delivery of electrical service, analogous to what the utility would have to pay private property owners if it did not have access to City property.
LPEA franchise fee revenue contributes about 3 percent of the City’s General Fund, which supports diverse services, including public works. In 2012, the Public Works Department’s budget includes $2.6 million for street maintenance, plus additional funds for engineering. It further includes $950,000 from the General Fund for capital improvements of City streets. If continued, LPEA franchise fee would contribute about a quarter of this $3.5 million investment in infrastructure that facilitates delivery of electrical power to LPEA members.
Voter rejection of the Franchise Agreement would result in expiration of the current agreement April 30, creating a $600,000 deficit in the 2012 City budget. This would reduce General Fund revenue below the depressed levels of 2010 that led, among other cutbacks, to deferred maintenance on City rights of way. Future budgets would feel the full loss of more than $900,000.
More than half of General Fund expenditures are personnel costs, with the largest proportion coming from services that most directly impact the public: public safety, parks and recreation, library and public works. Consequently, addressing a $900,000 budget shortfall certainly will result in reduction in visible services, that could include police protection, staffing for the proposed recreation facility at Lake Nighthorse, operational hours at the library, and delayed snow removal or street maintenance. It could diminish funding for community support services, such as the animal shelter. And it could drive another round of deferred capital improvements for Durango’s streets, a trend the City Council was keen to reverse because of its negative long-term consequences.
Because of the operational efficiency and other advantages provided by the LPEA Franchise Agreement and the associated revenue that contributes to maintaining Durango’s services and infrastructure, a 4-1 majority of the City Council judged that agreement serves the public interest and, as mandated by the City Charter, placed the agreement on the April 3 ballot for voter approval.
We urge you to vote Yes.
– Dick White and Sweetie Marbury, Durango City Council members
Become informed on Affordable Health Care Act
To the editor,
Whatever your opinion about the Affordable Care Act, which was passed in March 2010 to reform the way health insurance is provided, the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will affect you and your family.
Whatever your opinion about the Affordable Care Act, which was passed in March 2010 to reform the way health insurance is provided, the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will affect you and your family.
Twenty-six states are challenging the constitutionality of two main aspects of the law, the individual mandate (which requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty) and the expansion of Medicaid. Therefore, it is important for all of us to be as informed as possible. Here are some ways to do that.
A good six-minute video explaining what the hearings are all about, produced by Kaiser Health News, is available at www.lwvlaplata.org/hc12.html – scroll down the page to the link under LWVCO Healthcare Actions - *3/15/12 LWVCO: March - LWVCO Health Care update, item No. 2
.
Although the part of the Affordable Care Act being challenged won’t take effect until 2014, other parts of it are already in effect. One is that most states (including Colorado) have already set up, or will be setting up, health insurance market places (Health Insurance Exchanges) where people can shop for policies that best meet their and their family’s needs. You can learn more about Colorado’s Health Benefit Exchange, at http://www.getcoveredco.org.
Although the part of the Affordable Care Act being challenged won’t take effect until 2014, other parts of it are already in effect. One is that most states (including Colorado) have already set up, or will be setting up, health insurance market places (Health Insurance Exchanges) where people can shop for policies that best meet their and their family’s needs. You can learn more about Colorado’s Health Benefit Exchange, at http://www.getcoveredco.org.
And to find out how the new rules will affect you and your family, you can get a personalized report from AARP at www.aarp.org/healthlawguide (in Spanish at www.aarp.org/guiadelaleydesalud) - and no, you don’t have to be over 50 to use it.
– Jill Patton, League of Women Voters La Plata County
Exported fuel culprit in gas prices
To the editor:
The increase in gasoline prices is not attributable to worldwide supply problems. Threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz are partly responsible for the increased prices, but another culprit is our oil industry.
The increase in gasoline prices is not attributable to worldwide supply problems. Threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz are partly responsible for the increased prices, but another culprit is our oil industry.
In 2011, U.S. refineries exported a record amount of refined fuels to foreign markets. In December 2011, fuel exports averaged 2.89 million barrels a day compared to an average of 1.25 million barrels a day in 2007. Higher prices paid in foreign markets attracted U.S. exports.
Fuels exported overseas means less fuel here and higher gasoline prices. Our oil companies have put profits ahead of our economic health. It is estimated the five largest U.S. oil companies had profits of $120 billion in 2011.
U.S. refineries closed some facilities or reduced production in 2011. We continue to be constrained by old refineries, which require major maintenance, and thereby increase the cost of refined fuels. The last new refinery to come online in the U.S. was in 1975.
We need the Obama administration to pressure U.S. oil companies to upgrade refineries and sell more refined fuels to U.S. markets to
help lower our prices. When Obama became president, gasoline was $1.84 per gallon.
–Donald A. Moskowitz, via e-mail