To the editor:
I noticed that Jim Roche, in his piece titled “Energy infrastructure from a business perspective” in the April 5 issue, omitted discussion of peak metering that could have described a fundamental difference in the way electric usage is billed to homeowners versus businesses.
On the other hand, Frank Edulblut, in ‘‘’Build it and they will come’ not good enough’,” also in the April 5 paper, reveals shocking data. Statewide New Hampshire residents are saddled with $1.27 billion dollars of what feels like long-term, bad debt from the energy industry. The Northeast Energy Direct project would increase the burden on New Hampshire residents for the foreseeable future by $720 million to a total of $1.99 billion dollars.
Imagine an alternative without NED where the $720 million could provide economic growth incentives for businesses and homeowners. Homeowners could be better positioned to invest in renewable energy – especially after the recent increase in net metering. Businesses could work to reduce energy demand pressure by selling energy efficiency improvements to both homes and businesses. How many jobs would that create? How attractive might this be for people moving into New Hampshire?
I would hope that we encourage our policy leaders to develop economic growth incentives for residents and businesses in New Hampshire. For example, why not take a closer look at peak metering for business electricity bills?
Peak metering applies the highest daily cost to an entire monthly electric bill. Imagine a business that is charged $100 per day, paying on average $3,000 for the month. Imagine a scenario where production skyrockets to meet demand for a single day in a prosperous month. The business gladly uses more electricity resulting in a daily charge of $200. What is the monthly electricity bill? It is not $3,100, but $6,000 at $200 per day. With peak metering, where is the economic growth incentive for New Hampshire businesses?
Tim Somero
New Ipswich