Editorial 8.11, November 2006, by Deirdre Helfferich GVEA's Big Carrot Might be a Rotten Apple In with our most recent GVEA bill, we got a little notice with the enticing headline, “G&T to Save Members Millions,” with the other side of the card bearing the announcement, “Membership vote set for November,” followed by a few short paragraphs on the topic of the generation & transmission cooperative. The little card notified us that in 2004, the GVEA board “formed a new entity called GVEA G&T” that could be used “as a strategy the co-op may want to use in the future” “that will save the co-op millions of dollars” by separating the costs for power plants and other construction projects from the distribution operating costs, and that “the assets would remain under GVEA Board of Director [sic] control.” Well...perhaps. The typo in the quote above is significant, because it is typical of the problems with the proposal: there’s stuff missing, and there are mistakes and misleading parts in it. For one thing, GVEA is not offering its members an analysis of the pros and cons of transferring an estimated $300 million worth of assets (and debt) to a separate entity over which GVEA members would have no control, and which, judging by its proposed bylaws, could mortgage them or sell them to somebody else, willy-nilly. GVEA isn’t even saying, hey, here’s some possible objections or problems, and here’s why your board doesn’t think they are significant. Instead, GVEA has provided an ad-like two-page outline in Ruralite of all the reasons why we should jump at the chance to give away our control over our assets—with no discussion of the possible disadvantages of doing so, and a few errors along the way. For example, the Ruralite article claims that “GVEA is unique because we own the distribution system and the generation and transmission (G&T) systems for our utility.” This is hogwash—many utilities, especially in Hawaii and Alaska, own distribution, generation, and transmission systems. This is not what I would call “informing the membership.” It’s more like “selling the membership.” And I don’t like that. It gets my back up. Perhaps it’s my suspicious nature, but I really would like to see an actual analysis available on the GVEA website, and not just an ad. GVEA is providing its members with a link to the poorly crafted G&T board bylaws with their ambiguities, internal contradictions, and typos. These bylaws, once approved by the G&T board (I could find no information about this board on the GVEA website, by the way), could be changed by the board, and we, the member-owners of GVEA, would have no say over that. And the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has yet to approve the plan. My requests for information and clarification have been met with courteous, quick, and friendly attempts to help me understand. I don’t doubt anybody’s sincerity or well-meaning intentions. But I still would like more info readily available on GVEA’s website (for example, the minutes to the Oct. 16 meeting in which the GVEA board approved the G&T bylaws are not yet posted) or mailed to the membership. Dermot Cole wrote an excellent column on this issue in the Nov. 14 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. It may actually save us money, or give us economic control, as John Grubrich describes. But it’s not apparent that this is or would stay the case, and therein lies the rub. This is not a simple matter, but the vote is coming up quickly. Three areas have had one public meeting each: Fairbanks, Healy, and Nenana. One of the board members, Tom DeLong, my district representative, voted against this proposal. I’d like to know why he voted this way. As Dermot wrote, “the transfer plan is complicated and its pros and cons deserve to be examined in detail before the vote.” If we hand our power generation assets over, that’s it. We don’t get ’em back. Not even if we realize collectively that we made a mistake—it’s not one we can take back. The big carrot that GVEA is holding out to the members is the estimated $30 million to be derived from margins on money already obligated. We’d do this, apparently, by handing over our assets. Note that we won’t be selling them: we will be transferring them. GVEA members should be very careful in their decision on this matter, and make a strong effort to inform themselves. I’m leaning toward a no vote. The card refers to us, the member-owners, as “ratepayers.” But GVEA is a cooperative. We are more than just “ratepayers,” we are owners. If we give away our assets to this G&T cooperative, then we will cease to be owners, and we will truly become mere ratepayers, those who have little say in what those rates are about. For more information, go to http://comity.blogspot.com, www.gvea.com, and www.state.ak.us/rca/, or call Corinne Bradish, GVEA Public Relations, at 451-5657. | ||
 | | |
