Grand Valley Power has issued a strongly worded statement opposing the cap and trade legislation working its way through Congress. In this statement, it becomes clear that the overriding mission of Grand Valley Power is to provide least-cost power to its customers without other considerations.
Grand Valley Power purchases all its power from XCEL Energy. XCEL Energy generates power from a variety of sources, with coal plants contributing over 50 percent of this mix. The mean use GVP customer, the one that uses only 750 kilowatt hours of power a month, is secondarily responsible for the combustion of 10 pounds per day of coal and the subsequent discharge of carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere.
There is an excellent analysis of the climate crisis currently on newsstands, issued by National Geographic, called “Energy for Tomorrow.”
Only diehards are continuing to deny that the 6.8 billion human inhabitants of this planet bear some responsibility for climate change. The U.S. coal industry has or will receive half a trillion dollars to start the transition to cleaner electricity, yet some power suppliers are aggressively fighting this transition. Why?
What is Grand Valley Power’s responsibility as a secondary power distributor? Should REAs hold to least-cost mission statements, without factoring in any of the end costs related to their industry? Should power producers be required to utilize carbon sequestration, coal gasification and other processes to generate cleaner electricity or be penalized for their emissions?
Is cap and trade the best possible platform of change? There are many who support a straight carbon tax as far better solution. If you want to write your congressman, that would be my recommended suggestion.
I am a customer of Grand Valley Power, as a residence and as a business. I adamantly oppose Grand Valley Power’s position on this issue.
Fred Pittenger, CEO
Simplicity Solar
Grand Junction
No comments:
Post a Comment