By Del Benson
Saipan resident
SUNSHINE is the most abundant energy source we could ever have. It shines freely over our islands every day. For many people, solar power sounds like the perfect solution — the panacea for our energy problems. The energy from the sun is free, after all.
But is it really free? That is the question we need to ask.
For years, solar energy has been promoted as part of the climate change agenda. Saving money is never the issue. The goal is to “save the planet.” Those are two very different claims, and we should examine them carefully before making long-term decisions that affect every family and business on Saipan.
First, we need to understand that there are two different uses of solar systems. One is a solar system installed on a home with its own battery backup. The homeowner produces power during the day, stores excess energy in batteries, and uses it when the sun goes down. It still needs CUC as extended backup.
The other type is a utility-scale solar farm tied directly into a public power grid.
Right now, the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation is moving forward with a Request for Proposals to add solar power into the island’s grid. The project would involve a third-party energy company building a large solar facility and selling that electricity to CUC. CUC would then distribute that power through the existing grid.
The central question is simple: Will this actually save money for ratepayers?
In fact, it could increase the cost of electricity for residents and businesses across the island.
If power costs rise even five to ten cents per kilowatt hour, the long-term impact on Saipan’s economy could be significant. Higher electricity prices affect everything — restaurants, hotels, small businesses, and families already struggling with high costs of living. And if we lock into a 20- or 25-year contract, we may be committing ourselves to decades of higher prices.
To be clear, a project like this can be very profitable — but mainly for the companies producing the solar power.
That was part of the original idea behind many renewable programs worldwide. By raising the cost of traditional energy, people would be encouraged to use less electricity. But history has shown that one of the most powerful ways to lift people out of poverty is affordable, reliable energy. When energy becomes expensive, economic growth slows.
There are also technical realities that deserve attention.
Solar panels only produce electricity when sunlight hits them. That means production fluctuates throughout the day. Even under ideal conditions, the peak output window may only last four or five hours when the sun is highest in the sky.
Cloud cover further reduces production. In January alone, we experienced roughly twenty-two days of overcast conditions. During those periods, solar generation drops dramatically. If there is not enough sunlight to feed the grid, there certainly will not be excess power to fully charge large battery systems.
This leads to another important point: diesel generators will still have to run.
Power plants cannot simply turn generators on and off like a light switch. They must remain running so they can immediately respond when solar production drops—whether from clouds passing overhead or the sun setting at the end of the day. That means fuel will still be consumed, equipment will still require maintenance, and the entire existing power infrastructure must remain in place.
In other words, solar does not replace the generators — it supplements them.
At the same time, the solar project itself must be financed. Estimates I have heard suggest a cost somewhere between $150 million and $200 million. That includes solar panels, shipping, installation, battery systems, and long-term maintenance. All of those costs must eventually be paid.
The solar company will sell its electricity to CUC. CUC will then add its own costs—generation backup, transmission, administration, staffing, and maintenance. All of those costs ultimately appear on the ratepayer’s bill.
So the real question becomes: Where are the savings?
Even if solar reduces fuel consumption by 20–25%, that does not necessarily translate into a 20–25% drop in electricity prices. Instead, we may simply be replacing fuel costs with payments to the solar producer.
Before any long-term contract is signed, the public deserves to see the full financial projections. What will the electricity rate be under the proposed solar contract? What assumptions are being used about fuel savings? What happens if the projections are wrong?
Once a 25-year agreement is signed, there may be no easy way to change course.
I believe it will increase our costs to 40-45 cents per kw. Affordable electricity is essential for families, businesses, and the future growth of our islands. For that reason, the people of the Commonwealth deserve clear answers before such a major decision is made.
