LETTERS: NV Energy has questions to answer on Integrated Resource Plan
NV Energy shortfall
Energy costs are a major expenditure for my business. Because of this, I am concerned with the Integrated Resource Plan that NV Energy recently filed with Nevada's Public Utilities Commission. In the filing, NV Energy stated it will face a "significant resource need" as early as 2018. A closer look at data buried deep in the filing reveals a shortfall of a whopping 15 percent of demand in 2018.
I worry that this can only mean higher energy costs for consumers in the very near future. How NV Energy proposes to deal with this supply shortfall is confusing. On one hand, the company indicates one of the primary reasons for the shortfall is the expiration of a power purchase agreement with the Griffith Energy Plant in September 2017. On the other hand, NV Energy offers no explanation as to why it isn't renewing this agreement. Instead, the stated plan is to "explore market-based solutions" (whatever that means) until it can build its own $1 billion plant and get it on line in 2020.
Is NV Energy intentionally creating this so-called power shortage as a ploy to raise our electric bills? Is the Griffith Energy Plant no longer available as a resource? Are the "market-based solutions" contemplated by NV Energy akin to the financial wizardry that put the company on the brink of bankruptcy about a decade ago? And the biggest question of all: Is building a new plant and saddling consumers with the $1 billion price tag really the best plan for Nevada — or just the best plan for NV Energy's new owner, Warren Buffett?
It is this type of game-playing that has led some major energy users in Nevada to consider abandoning their relationships with NV Energy and move to other sources of power. Unfortunately, most of us do not have that choice. I certainly hope the PUC keeps these questions in mind as it considers the plan submitted by NV Energy. And more importantly, the PUC should force NV Energy to provide answers to these questions. The company should have to explain to all of us how it plans to provide affordable power to our state in the coming years if it already knows it won't have enough power to meet our needs.
Nathan Emens
Las Vegas
Saving electricity
Mary Beth Horiai's "Green Living" commentary included a suggestion to unplug electronic devices when they are not in use ("Unplug: Keep cool the low-carbon way," July 25 Review-Journal). Ms. Horiai states, "A plasma TV will cost $165 a year just for the standby consumption."
Statements like that are one of the reasons there are so many skeptics when it comes to the green movement. Anyone should be able to look at that number and realize that it is absurd. Whether it's purposely misleading or just sloppy work, it should lead anyone to question Ms. Horiai's credibility.
For a ballpark estimate of savings per year, a little over $1 per watt is fairly close. Plasma TVs use from 1 to 30 watts when off, so the actual savings would average about one-tenth of what Ms. Horiai states. The number she gives would be fairly close for a plasma TV that remains on 24 hours a day, seven days a week for an entire year, not one on standby.
Bill Wyszczelski
Las Vegas
Gun-free venues
Churches, schools, military establishments and movie theaters are typically gun-free zones. Recently, at least one church, one school, one military establishment and one theater have been the scene of a mass shooting.
I'd put a sign in my yard announcing that my home is not a gun-free zone, but I consider that unnecessary, because so many other homeowners also own guns and know how to use them. Those who would repeal the Second Amendment should be required to advertise their homes as gun-free zones.
Owen Nelson
Las Vegas
Iran nuclear deal
Regarding the Iran nuclear deal ("Obama says Iran deal best way to avoid more war," July 16 Review-Journal), all the reports I read cited the effectiveness of sanctions that the U.S. and our partners had imposed on Iran, to the extent that Iran's economy was near collapse. If so, this "deal" has only prolonged the threat Iran poses to the region. One might opine that this deal could actually promote war, since Israel has stated it cannot tolerate a nuclear threat to its country.
Andrew P. Fahey
Las Vegas
