By Del Benson
For Variety
WE are living through difficult and uncertain times. Global instability — from conflicts like the Iraq War to ongoing geopolitical tensions — has disrupted shipping lanes and shaken energy markets. We feel it every time we pull up to the gas pump or open our monthly power bill. Costs are rising, and households and businesses across our islands are feeling the strain.
But here is the critical question: are these high costs permanent, or are they temporary?
History tells us energy markets fluctuate. Prices spike during instability, then fall when conditions stabilize. It is entirely possible that within a few months, fuel costs could drop significantly. If that happens, we will be forced to re-evaluate decisions being made today — especially long-term commitments tied to current high prices.
This brings me to a pressing concern: the proposed solar energy agreements connected to the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation. While solar energy is often promoted as “free” because sunlight costs nothing, that claim deserves closer scrutiny. The sun may be free — but the infrastructure to capture, convert, store, and distribute that energy is not.
And once those contracts are signed, we are locked into them.
We are being told — reportedly even stated in public forums — that solar integration will not lower electricity rates. At least they are being honest to a point. If they say solar won’t save prices. Then how much will they go up? We should approach such claims with healthy skepticism. Around the world, large-scale public projects often begin with optimistic projections, only to face cost overruns and unintended consequences later.
My concern is not ideological. It is practical.
Let’s walk through a simple reality: CUC still operates the grid. That means it still carries fixed costs — power plants, transmission lines, maintenance crews, administrative staff, and operational overhead. These costs do not disappear just because solar energy is added to the system. The only variable cost that solar potentially reduces is fuel.
So the real question becomes: how much of our electricity bill is truly tied to fuel — and how much is fixed?
If solar reduces fuel consumption by, say, 25% or even 50%, that does not translate into a 25% or 50% reduction in your total bill. The fixed costs remain. In fact, if a third-party solar provider is selling power at a contracted rate — say 18 cents per kilowatt-hour — that cost is layered on top of CUC’s existing operational expenses.
The result? Instead of reducing costs, we may simply be reshuffling them.
I have spoken with local residents who have installed solar panels on their own homes. Surprisingly, some report little to no savings — during periods of cloud cover or inconsistent sunlight. We must remember: solar energy is not constant. It depends heavily on weather conditions, system maintenance, and storage capabilities.
So we must ask: are we building a system based on ideal conditions — or real-world performance?
Even more concerning is the lack of transparency.
In an effort to better understand these issues, I reached out directly to CUC. I requested a conversation — simply to ask questions and seek clarity. I was told executives were unavailable. No follow-up. No appointment offered. When I asked again, I was directed to file a formal records request.
That response raises an important question: why is it so difficult to have an open conversation about something that affects every resident and business in our community?
If the rates are not yet finalized, that is understandable. But that is precisely why communication matters now. This is the moment to explain the variables, outline the risks, and engage the public honestly. If there are unknowns, say so. If there are trade-offs, explain them.
Transparency builds trust. Silence erodes it.
This is not about assigning blame. It is about accountability and clarity.
Energy costs do not exist in a vacuum. They ripple through every part of our economy. High electricity rates hurt hotels already struggling with low occupancy. They burden restaurants facing declining customer traffic. They strain families trying to balance rising costs of fuel, food, and daily living. Energy is not just another expense — it is the foundation of economic stability.
And yet, we are being asked to accept major long-term decisions without fully understanding their impact.
We need a real conversation.
What are the true operating costs of producing electricity today? How much of those costs are fixed versus variable? If solar reduces fuel use, what is the actual net savings to consumers? How will third-party energy contracts affect long-term rates? And most importantly — what happens if fuel prices drop significantly after these agreements are in place?
These are not abstract questions. They are the difference between economic growth and economic strain.
To the leadership at CUC: the public is not your adversary. We are your stakeholders. We deserve answers—not after decisions are finalized, but before.
If I am wrong in my concerns, then sit down and explain why. I will gladly share your perspective, word for word. But do not dismiss the conversation. Do not assume that transparency is optional.
Because at the end of the day, this is not about solar versus fuel. It is about trust, accountability, and the real cost of power in our lives.
Let’s have that conversation — openly, honestly, and now. Please members of the community join me? How many would come to a townhall to discuss our issues?
