Captain Cook
HELCO profits
Things don’t add up
Today, we read in the WHT that last year HELCO’s income was up 30 percent. Like most everyone in West Hawaii who has decreased their electric use, we have seen our electric bills go up and we are amazed the utility needs to raise rates to compensate for the loss of revenue from homeowners who have installed solar.
Today, we read that 40 percent of the Big Island’s energy needs are from renewable energy. At the same time it has had such reported losses due to the new solar sources. I find this puzzling.
The costs of energy from burning fuel to produce it have increased considerably. But I don’t note any recognition of the power being produced by the solar installed by many of our neighbors.
They tell us that during the day we are buying energy produced by them. If this is the case, that HELCO is selling this energy to us, then in some sense, the cost of the fuel is being saved — actually (because we are sharing the solar produced by all those new panels being installed). That being the case, then it should actually be reflected on all our bills as fuel savings (solar is not fueled by burning fossil fuels).
It seems HELCO wants it both ways, a rate increase to offset the energy it is not selling to those solar installers and not acknowledging the utility is, in turn, selling that energy to us and not burning oil to supply it — record profits and still wanting more.
In fact, conservation from those using solar, and those being supplied with the excess solar energy, is not being rewarded, not being acknowledged and not being accounted for in the positive light it should be.
HELCO is after more than its fair share because it is a business with investors. Something is not right here. Can anyone else see that? Why isn’t the utility seeking more solar installation and thanking all those who are actively subsidizing the energy load. Is it because that would really bring HELCO’s profits down?
Steve and Irene Ray
Kona
HECO and solar
Revenue response wrong
Your article raises some interesting questions. The article states that solar panel customers don’t help pay for fixed costs of billing and meter reading. In fact, they must pay a minimum hookup fee of $20/month regardless of their energy use or production. This would seem to be more than enough to cover those costs. Also their reading/ billing cycle could be reduced to quarterly, or even yearly, without causing HECO a cash flow problem. So it is not clear how these customers are being “subsidized” by others.
It is also not clear how raising rates helps HECO in the long term. Higher rates incentivize more people to use solar, exacerbating HECO’s problem.
In a competitive business environment, companies often face the issue of declining revenues. The usual responses to this include increasing revenues by entering adjacent markets or right-sizing the company to the market. Raising prices to offset revenue declines rarely helps. Are these other options not open to HECO?
Perhaps a follow up article by WHT could address these and other questions raised by the article and also include input from HECO representatives.
Scott Neish
Captain Cook