Incorrect stories on CUC investment, wind turbines

Two separate articles in Wednesday’s local newspapers were disturbing in that they presented, in one case, information designed to specifically mislead the public and, in the other, probably misinformation by its author.

In the first, CUC director Muña states that CUC already has $123 million “invested” in its equipment, therefore, we should not purchase new generators and, thereby, add to the already high investment. I am not an accountant, but this statement is absolutely ridiculous and contrary to basic accounting 101. CUC “invested” that $123 million generally more than 30 years ago. Mr. Muña, have you totally forgotten about that most basic of all accounting principles called depreciation? Or have you simply neglected to mention it, hoping that no one else would think of it either? This is a great disservice to the people of the NMI.

Not only will normal wear and tear, in spite of maintenance, but normal depreciation rates applicable to a commercial facility of more than 30 years old, and equipment that has already far outlived its projected manufacturer useful life, will by now have rendered that $123 million “investment” as “$0.00”. That’s why I have been saying that CUC’s “value” is near zero.

Mr. Muña, you also stated the problem was not in “new” generators, but in continuing “maintenance.” Is it not true that the constant maintenance required for the very old engines we now have, which you pegged at $7.5 to $11.5 million just to bring online, will be far greater than the “normal” maintenance required for “new” generators that are ready to go online? It appears that your statements are designed to deliberately fool the public while fomenting “stories” that will “fit” the continued blunders of CUC’s real controllers. Such is not worthy of you, Mr. Muña.

Secondly, in another story from the Saipan Tribune, a bit of real bad information was transmitted to the public. Let me preface this by saying that I fully support Mr. Thomas’ efforts to bring small personal wind machines to the NMI and his efforts to force CUC to issue the interconnect regulations. I also fully support Mr. Steve Tilley’s efforts to promulgate zoning regulations for these machines. I have read those proposed regs and have made but one comment regarding tower height for larger lots.

But the Tribune story made a misleading statement: “When power is shut off in a building, electricity generated by a wind turbine can roll back the CUC meter (paraphrased).” This is not true. No wind turbine generator can be connected directly to a building or home power supply. This is not possible unless you also purchase and install a complete set of storage batteries and associated inverters between the wind turbine and the building. Such storage batteries will at least double the cost of any wind installation, must be replaced about every six to seven years and present an environmental nightmare.

During a commercial power outage, a wind turbine generating power for your home through its required interconnect system will shut down, unless also connected to storage batteries. When properly interconnected with your home, and under ideal wind conditions, a sufficiently large turbine will generate an excess of power needed for your home and the CUC meter will turn backwards—but not during a power outage. Such a connection would present an imminent danger to CUC’s equipment and personnel and is never permitted.

There are several very good sources for this information. Go to www.bergey.com; www.southwestwindpower.com or www.skystreamenergy.com (my favorite) for complete schematic information on these units, their installation, required equipment and energy specifications including prices—or see Mr. Thomas locally, as I’m sure he is aware of these things. Prices for a complete unit including the turbine, tower, inverters, cables, and interconnect boxes that meet all necessary specifications and are ready to install, can be found at these sites and range from around $6,000 to $25,000. In order for this to be economically feasible, a homeowner must consider how much of a reduction in their monthly CUC bill will occur after installation, the capital investment cost and the length of time required to recover that investment. For the average homeowner, the 3.7 KW Skystream will reduce your monthly CUC bill by more than one-half if located in a good wind location (optimal rated wind speed for this unit is lower than most, at about 15-20 mph). This unit is also ideally suited to Saipan’s relatively close quarters for most homeowners.