Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to letters@bangordailynews.com
My partner and I saved enough money to install solar panels on our home in Bangor, in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to stabilize our energy costs for our senior years. We are now both above the age of 70 and living solely on Social Security. Net energy billing (NEB), which gives us a kilowatt credit whenever we send an excess kilowatts to the grid, was an important factor in our financial decision.
Now some lawmakers want to end net energy billing, claiming it is driving up the cost of electricity, conveniently not mentioning the volatility of fossil fuel prices and the cost of extreme weather events, which contribute more to electricity prices. They don’t mention the externalized costs of burning fossil fuels, such as air pollution and associated health effects, wildfires, floods, wind damage, droughts, heat waves. Or the massive subsidies that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed for decades. If all those costs were added to our electric rates, our bills would be astronomical, but they are hidden in our taxes and cost of living.
The net energy billing opponents make a financial argument for eliminating NEB by willfully ignoring the actual costs of fossil fuels. They are applying a massive double standard.
For those of us who have already installed solar panels, it is not fair to change the rules of the game after the fact. Net energy billing may need to be reformed, but should not be eliminated.
Karen Marysdaughter
Bangor