VOICES

Nevada already has great electricity rates — here are the numbers: Kuchler

Russell Kuchler

Randolph Townsend's "Your Turn" column ("Why put energy choice in the Nevada Constitution?," Sept. 9) reminded me why I never voted for him — all political spin, no context. He wants to let a legislature the can't agree on the time of day without a debate and a majority vote make the rules for deregulation affecting everyone 24/7. Six states that tried it reverted back to monopolies. We'd lose that option. It's insane.

Townsend claims between 2008 and 2015, rates in deregulated states decreased 14 percent, while regulated states rose 5 percent. National averages be damned — how does this affect me? I'm kinda anal about some things, one being my use of electricity and its cost. Some actual numbers: In July 2008, the cost per kWH in Reno was $0.12859. In July 2015, it was $0.10159. Not a 5 percent increase; a 23 percent decrease.

Going a step further, in July 2018 it was $0.09024 — a decrease of 29 percent. Even allowing for his 14 percent decrease (which will never happen since we already have some of the lowest rates in the country), that's $7.58 on an average 600 kWH bill. Given all the other benefits NV Energy offers, that's nothing.

Another view:Question 3 is for suckers: Cherry

Opposing view:Why put Question 3 in the Constitution?: Townsend

More:Still confused about ballot Question 3? You're not alone, despite an eight-figure ad blitz

In December 1973, the cost was $0.0276 per kWH, about a 234 percent increase over 45 years. A lot? Gasoline that same month was $0.48 a gallon. For premium. At a Union station. Yesterday in Sparks it was $3.39 for regular at a cut rate, an increase of 606 percent. My home since May 1973 has increased in value close to 700 percent.

True, users of over 1 MW can opt out of the grid. What he doesn't tell you is they pay millions of dollars to do it, and they're still not completely separated. They still have to move the energy they buy to their facility, and someone has to pay for the infrastructure to do it. And 1 MW will supply about 1,600 homes. Someone has to pay for the loss of that revenue, and it falls on the remaining customers.

He claims those users are installing 1,120 MW of solar. NV Energy also has plans to build solar farms if Question 3 fails. But solar isn't the final answer. California has an overabundance of solar and wind power during the day, but when the sun goes down they still have to buy power on the open market. They have retired most of their fossil fuel plants due to their environmental regulations, and now have to pay to import power from out of state. If NV Energy divests itself of its plants, we'll be in the same situation.

Utilities were allowed to form monopolies for a reason: efficiency and reliability. To prevent abuse, commissions were formed to regulate them. In Nevada, it's the PUC. They regulate every facet of the industry. Every increase and decrease in rates must be justified and approved. We'll lose that protection.

I would like to go on, but I'm out of space. Question 3: overall, a bad idea. Vote no.

Russell Kuchler has lived in the Reno-Sparks area since 1948, and retired from NVEnergy in 1999 after 36 years.