BY DAVID HAMPTON
White Rock

At last Monday evening’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) town hall at Buffalo Thunder Resort, hundreds attended, mostly anti-nuke advocates. Most who spoke wound up speaking against the third power line, the Electrical Power Capacity Upgrade (EPCU) project, which is planned to go into the Caja del Rio. No one spoke in favor. NNSA acknowledged that they have received 23,000 public comments on the EPCU. I would imagine most if not all are against it. The third power line is necessary to support expanded LANL operations.

On Tuesday evening, we learned at the Los Alamos County Council work session, during the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) presentation, that without the EPCU, the electrification goals of our proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) in Los Alamos County will be impossible to achieve. So without an alternative location for the third power line, which do you choose, the Caja or electrification? No alternative location was mentioned at the NNSA meeting.

During the BPU presentation, it was also clarified that all costs associated with upgrading our electrical distribution system to handle electrification from renewable sources will have to be paid by increased electricity rates and will result in substantially increased rates to rate payers for 15-20 years. They cannot be paid for out of the County General Fund. I question as to whether all these costs have been accommodated in a plan that indicates electrification will actually lower costs. The BPU Chair also stated that in order to achieve the CAP goals, county residents might have to be forced to upgrade their electrical systems. Additionally, the infrastructure upgrades required to support electrification of county buildings will also be paid for by all electricity rate payers.

While I support education and outreach to reduce energy consumption and keep the electrification dialogue going, as well as the purchase of some electric vehicles and installation of some charging stations, I don’t support “forcing” citizens to comply with what in all likelihood will be unfunded government mandates to support actions which will have insignificant reductions in global carbon emissions. I am also concerned about our ability to access enough renewable electricity to support the proposed electrification goals.

I can buy the argument that Los Alamos should be a leader in beneficial change, but at what cost to other programs and needs, as well as the cost of living in Los Alamos County? At a minimum, I want to slow down on our current path and develop climate goals which are more achievable and sustainable for all levels of income in our county.

With these things in mind, I strongly encourage everyone to read and make public comments on the proposed CAP at https://losalamosCAP.Konveio.com before the Aug. 9 deadline.