Why Is EPEC So Afraid of Solar?

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It seems that the El Paso Electric Company is afraid of the solar industry. They seem afraid of your having solar panels on your home and producing your own clean energy. If you buy electricity from them even if it is generated by photovoltaic panels, that's okay. Just don't produce your own, thank you very much. Why?

Of course it cuts into their profits. It's not just solar users, it's most of us. Over the last five or so years, demand for electricity has been down in El Paso. Solar is a very small part of reducing that demand. More efficient appliances and energy efficient homes have reduced demand. Yet, EPEC wants all of us - not just solar users - to pay higher fees to help them build more production facilities. Why? Again, demand is down. 

First, know that EPEC sells energy that it doesn't use back to the grid where other utilities can buy it. They make money on excess electricity. We are all subsidizing EPEC by financing their capital improvements. They improve, sell to the grid and get you to pay for all of it. Over five years they have made just about a half billion dollars in El Paso. How much has gone back to our community? A thousand buck pop for this thing or that thing. Good PR only.

Second, EPEC's rate hike on solar is really part of a nationwide cabal by the oil and gas industry and the electrical utilities to stop solar - to take away your right to buy a different product. They and their cronies talk free markets, but the unspoken disclaimer is that the market is free as long as it only belongs to them.

The Koch brothers and big utilities campaign to unplug solar power is the title of a David Horsey piece for the Los Angeles Times last year. About the tea party darlings, Horsey writes: "Consumer choice. Business competition. Autonomy for individual Americans. Those certainly seem like sound conservative principles. You would think that is something the Koch brothers could appreciate, but, obviously, their brand of conservatism is defined less by principles than by profits." Note to readers: the Kochs aren't really conservatives. They are oligarchs. As the article mentions, real conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Jr. (Yes, Barry's boy and a good man. I've met him.) Barry Jr. is for consumer choice.

Even the Walmart Waltons have joined the effort to stop you from having solar panels on your home. Certainly Walmart isn't a utility or a natural gas or coal producer. But they are 30% owners of First Solar, a company that makes solar arrays for utility companies. First Solar and the good ol' Waltons don't want you making your own energy. They want you to buy electricity from utilities. That is why the Walmart heirs "have given $4.5 million dollars to groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Americans for Prosperity—groups that are attacking renewable energy policies at the state level and, specifically, pushing for fees on rooftop solar installations." Read more HERE.

Remarkably the Walmart is the largest corporate user of solar panels. In Walmart Is the Biggest Corporate Solar User. Why Are Its Owners Funding Groups That Oppose Solar?, Tim McDonnell states:"Walmart loves solar power—as long as it's on their roof, and not yours." Tim's article also has a long list of the groups Walmart supports. All these groups in one way or another are fighting clean energy.

EPEC wants you to pay for their production so that they can sell the excess energy to other utilities. They don't want you to use solar and will dissuade you from doing so not because of what they are saying in their PR hype, but because they are part of a nationwide effort to destroy the solar industry so they and they alone sell you electricity. 

Neighborhood Associations Speak Out Against Proposed Walmart

There is a big elephant in the room and Walmart has launched an unprecedented political, marketing, and PR campaign to camouflage it under the guise of neighborhood and economic development.  The reality is that the proposed store at the corner of Montana and Chelsea accomplishes neither. No amount of marketing, television commercials, or political gamesmanship can circumvent the obvious code and site problems this location presents. Due process was undermined on June 18th at City Council chambers when Walmart influenced a postponement of the rezoning appeal case and turned away myself and over fifty other residents who were present to protect our inherent property rights. I think everyone can sympathize with rearranged work schedules, childcare arrangements, and even those with health issues making an effort to attend this meeting only to be turned away without a chance to speak. 

On May 16th, the City Planning Commission ruled overwhelmingly in a 6 to 3 vote to deny Walmart’s rezoning request. They ruled on the merits of the case. The site is simply too small and too congested for any supermarket of this size. Pretty architectural renderings and landscaping cannot disguise the automobile and commercial truck traffic flowing through our small residential streets. This store will turn Cardon Street into a “freeway” with thousands of cars trying to get back to Trowbridge and Chelsea Streets every week. The existing code designations do not allow a supermarket of this size to be built on any of these four parcels. Certainly, the owners of these commercial properties have the right to sell their land. But what Walmart is trying to do is buy these properties that already prohibit their proposed store and lobby their way into the City allowing them to put their elephant into a teacup. Sadly, the current property owners of these four parcels have been led down a path that Walmart knew had problems and chose to ignore them, assuming their influence would be enough to get their deal done.

We have property rights too. Collectively, we have invested millions of dollars in our homes and properties and have the inherent right to protect our interests. Due process should settle this issue like it did at the City Plan Commission, not Walmart’s strong arming.  All four surrounding Neighborhood Associations: United Neighborhood Association, Austin Terrace Neighborhood Association, Radford Hills Neighborhood Association, and the San Juan Neighborhood Improvement Association are all opposed to this rezoning.  The residents that would be most affected by this store are overwhelmingly opposed. Our voices are united and clear; we do not want our neighborhoods and streets serving the interests of the largest retailer in the world. 
Accordingly, our neighborhoods have formed a coalition, Neighbors Supporting Neighborhoods, to unite our efforts in preserving the quality of life the people in these neighborhoods deserve. Do you think Walmart will suffer if they don’t get their way?  No, but the homeowners will have to live with a 35,500 square foot 24-hour store thirty feet from their front doorsteps with constant noise, light, trucks, and cars. Other neighborhoods are taking notice and standing with us. Walmart has saturated our city. Be careful El Paso, because your neighborhood could be next. The former and newly elected District 2 City Representatives are also opposed to this rezoning. Hopefully our new Mayor and City Council will see through Walmart’s tactics and stand by the decision of the City Plan Commission to deny this rezoning request - 

by Madeleine Haddox, President of the Radford Hills Neighborhood Association

The Empire Strikes Back

In preparation for its appeal to the El Paso City Council on July 9, 2013, Walmart has begun a new PR campaign beyond the immediate neighborhood of the Chelsea-Montana site that Walmart wants rezoned so it can build a new store.  Here is the flier that they are circulating:

Walmart Flyer for Chelsea Montana Store, El Paso, TX

Neighbors oppose the site because the new store will mean added traffic both from service semis and customer vehicles.  The matter went before City Council but Rep. Noe was successful in getting the matter postponed until July 9. 

Noe got a postponment with the hope of impeaching the 211 that neighbors in the immediate proximity of the proposed Walmart had signed.  The 211 accepted by City Attorney Sylvia Firth would require a super majority (6-2) of City Council to approve Walmart's zoning request.  No Mayoral veto is allowed in a 211.  Noe's connection with Walmart comes through his association with advertiser Jose L. Lopez who he used in his 2011 campaign. See one of his 2011 campaign financial reports as well as this one.

Jose Lopez is the lobbyist and local advertiser for Walmart.  His October lobby report reveals Walmart as a client:

Jose L. Lopez (October 1, 2012) Lobby Report

His January report mentions "possible new store":

Jose L. Lopez (January 1, 2013) Lobby Report

One strange matter: The current Chelsea pool which is part of the Parks and Recreation inventory is set to be replaced and money was set aside in the Quality of Life bonds to purchase a new location.  As a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I remember our discussing the location at Chelsea and Montana where Walmart now wants to build a retail center.  What happened to the pool project?  Did someone at higher levels in the City nix the pool/park idea (popular with the neighbors) in favor of Walmart?

Also read:

The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart's low wages and their effect on taxpayers and economic growth

America Feeds the Rich

Dr. Noe Likes Walmart but not People NOT in His District

At the NW corner of Montana and Chelsea with Trowbridge defining the northern boundary sits some land that now has a Vet clinic and a Chico's and once a Baptist church now torn down.  Adjacent to this land is a quiet neighborhood. On the other side of Montana is old Chelmont Center and an Albertson's.  Walmart is hell bent on obtaining the land.  The neighbors do not want the added traffic congestion which will surely come with semis delivering products to the store and thousands of customers forced to go around the block - i.e., through the residential areas. 

It was a concern during the recent campaign in which I was a candidate.  Early on I opposed the project - the rezoning for the benefit of Walmart.  My opponent, Larry Romero who was subsequently elected, favored Walmart until he realized that his position could cost him one or more precincts.  Flip-flopping he changed his position and came out against the Walmart. (At the City Plan Commission meeting he sat silently as people spoke out against Walmart.  He sat opposite of the neighbors in the chambers of Council.  He did send his surrogate from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to speak in favor of Walmart.  That was two weeks before the election and days before he had his convenient conversion.)

Besides knowing that it would be a huge stress on the neighborhood, I opposed the project because I was aware that the Parks and Recreation Department at one time looked at the land as a place to move the now-closed Chelsea Street pool.  There is money in the quality of life bonds just for purchasing new land for that pool.  Somewhere along the way, that plan got moth balled in favor of supporting Walmart.  Obviously, some in the City hierarchy were persuaded by Walmart to let them go after the land. Many neighbors favor the idea of a park and pool.  Fred Borrego has a very special vision of what that park and pool should look like.

There were close to 70 neighbors - maybe more - at City Council today.  The plot to rezone the land had been turned down by the CPC earlier largely because of neighborhood opposition.  Walmart appealed to the City Council and today the matter was to have been heard.

Homeowners within 300 feet of the proposed site had signed a petition in opposition to the Walmart.  There were enough of them who signed to force what is called a 211 - in order to pass Council there needs to be a super majority.  5-3 for does not work.  It must be 6-2.  Dear Dr. Noe questioned the validity of the petition and asked for a two week postponement.  This in spite of the fact that 70 people (maybe more) were there in opposition - 35 of us had signed up to speak against it.  This also in spite of the fact that Sylvia Firth issued an opinion that the petitions gathered constituted the 211. Citizens had already tolerated nearly two hours of special accolades and recognitions before Council even got to the regular agenda.

Courtney (whatever business wants business gets) Niland seconded the motion.  It passed with the help of Lilly and Acosta who had promised to vote against the Walmart.

Why was Noe so eager to postpone when the proposed Walmart is not even in his District but in outgoing Rep. Byrd's district?  Here's the scoop so pay attention: Joe Lopez, Noe's campaign operative, does the local advertising for Walmart.  Need I say more?  Noe and Walmart are betting on the new City Council to support the retail Leviathan.  The matter will be heard again in two weeks - July 2nd.  We will see if Romero is true to his word or will find a reason to flip flop again.

The vote may also be an early sign of just how reactionary and bourgeois this new Mayor and City Council will be.