After major member opposition to their proposed rate increases, the board of Sangre de Cristo Electric Association (SDCEA) has decided to cancel the rate changes it had proposed in its January member notification. Instead, the SDCEA board has agreed to go back to their rate consultant, Power Systems Engineering, to look for options for their rate structure “that are fairer to all segments of the membership”.
Colorado solar panels. Image courtesy of Pivot Energy.
Vocal and organized opposition to the rate changes, which dropped the long-time subsidies for those choosing to install passive solar energy panels on residences, appeared to come as a surprise to the SDCEA board prior to their January meeting. The board session had been announced as a small in-person session, which was changed to a virtual session. Nearly 120 members attended the SDCEA board meeting in January, voicing intense opposition.
The February SCDEA board was attended by 118 SCDEA members, who say they were surprised and relieved when the board began the meeting by canceling the rate changes, at least for now.
“They agreed to comply with the Colorado Net Metering law and to support the 1:1 credit for rooftop solar that is required by this law,” said SCDEA member Sue Greiner, who added that “members have asked to be involved in defining the next proposal for rates.”
The members at the Feb. 23 session (who represent .84 percent of the SDCEA membership base) urged the board to consider models for rates that lower fixed costs, do not penalize working and fixed income members, and support energy conservation. They pointed out that going forward they expect to be consulted about rate decisions before they are made, making such decisions more transparent. To that end, they proposed an advisory committee made up of SDCEA members (there appear to be examples of electric co-op advisories in other parts of the country).
That has not been confirmed by the SCDEA board.
Members who opposed the rate changes see the cancellation of the changes as a very encouraging first step in creating an open, democratic co-op that considers the needs of all the members of the communities it serves. But a large segment of SDCEA membership has not been heard from; those who don’t have or don’t intend to install solar panels, those who live here and who don’t happen to be second homeowners.
The proposed rate changes appear to have awakened a sleeping group of energy conservationists, but they may or may not be representative of the majority of SDCEA membership. SDCEA has roughly 14,000 customers, and around 400 of them are solar panel customers.
According to SDCEA CEO Paul Erikson, roughly one in every four SDCEA members is a second homeowner who does not live in the county full-time.
Erickson has explained that 90 percent of SDCEA meters and 90 percent of SDCEA consumers are residential. But seventy percent of electric sales revenue currently comes from residential customers. Why the difference?
“Because 40 percent of the 90 percent are seasonal — 40 percent of our residential consumers are second homes. It costs the same to deliver to them,” says Erickson.
More than 200 SDCEA members joined the contact list for the opposition movement against the rate changes, and more than 700 people signed an online petition in opposition to the rate changes (There is no way of knowing at this moment how many of them are actually SDCEA members). It appears that some SDCEA members have formed a group called Ark Valley Coalition for a Sustainable Energy Future (AVCSEF) to advocate for a responsible, clean energy future for SDCEA and its members. AVCSEF has a new website: www.arkansasvalleyenergyfuture.org .
Too bad you have to form a group and be a legal threat for any business to do the right thing. What they should do is charge the 2nd home and seasonal double and punish the exploiters causing the problems instead of the poor residents who already have to struggle because of those exploiters and usually can’t afford to fight back. This county and it’s businesses prey on those who cannot afford legal representation or rights.
SDCEA did propose a higher base rate that would have better spread the actual cost of energy delivery more fairly to second home owners, and they proposed to remove the rate reduction that solar panel residents were getting (which off-loaded actual costs to residential homeowners who don’t have passive solar). It would appear that it is the fair spread of these rates that this minority of SDCEA members were protesting.