VOTE "YES" ON THE KIUC "SMART METER COST" BALLOT

We don't suffer fools gladly as many of you have gleaned And it's no different with the KIUC smart-meter cost-sharing ballot being foisted on members/customers by those who have chosen not to participate in the 21st century non-carbon energy revolution.


Despite what you've heard from some people there's one and only one issue here- who should to pay for the cost of some people "opting out" of the switch to the new meters.


The issue isn't whether they are safe (they are) or whether KIUC is or has ever been a real co-op (it isn't and hasn't) or even whether these is a cost involved in keeping the old meters (there is) or anything else about smart meters themselves. If those who petitioned wanted to do "undo" the boards decision to switch to smart meters, they should have done so- and they didn't.


But now they want us to pay for their choice to "opt out."


If you want the pertinent facts (something those who are critical thinkers and readers will notice is sorely lacking in the much of the writings of the petitioners) about the cost of having kept your "dumb meter" (if you will) and the savings and benefits of having smart meters read the Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) ruling, not from KIUC but courtesy of former long-time North Shore State Representative Mina Morita, the current Chair of the PUC. It examines all the elements that go into the cost of "opting out" of smart meters, giving straight answer to all the conspiracy theories and "what if" conjecture and outright misinformation spread by the anti-smart meter crowd.


The fact is that there is a cost and the people who don't want smart meters want you to pay for their choice. That and that only is what the ballot question is about.


It's like if you have lunch with a bunch of people and everyone orders the chicken. But one person decides that not only does he want the lobster but he wants everyone else to chip in and pay for it. No one is stopping him from having his choice of entree but neither should other have to pay for it. We're as much of a Marxist as the next commie but that's a much larger societal issue that transcends the matter at hand.


If you want others to pay for your lobster, ask us. But don't try to tell us that it's only "fair" that we should pay for it.


It makes no difference whether you like or don't like KIUC or whether you think it's a real co-op or think it's an investor-owned utility in co-op's clothing. If you want to change things at KIUC wake up and join the "nitpickers" who fought the inflated purchase price (not to mention responsibility for the toxic waste dump under the `Ele`ele power plant and have been battling for reform for 15 years. You can read probably at least 50,000 words on the subject of "What's wrong with KIUC this week."


All the crap KIUC has done doesn't matter here. What matters is the issue on the ballot. Don't let a bunch of science-challenged conspiracy theorists make you pay for their tin-foil hats (sorry- couldn’t resist). Vote "yes."