To the Editor:

Would Dakota Energy offer the electric heat rate if they go with Guzman Energy? Basin Electric promoted this rate to encourage members to install electric heat. East River owns and operates the load management equipment. What is going to happen to that? What about the capital credits? A co-op that recently broke from their power supplier and went with Guzman forfeited $48 million in capital credits.

Are the Manager and Board of Directors promoting another power company? The flyers mailed by Dakota Energy have the Guzman logo on it twice and an invitation to visit the Guzman Energy site. Isn’t this a conflict of interest? At least it must be unethical for a for-profit company to help a nonprofit company break a contract so it can serve the nonprofit company. Dakota Energy is consistently saying it has not made a decision to go with Guzman. Why has it filed a lawsuit against East River? Why has it signed a Letter of Intent? Why did DE partner with Guzman on the mailing? Why are the Manager and Board of Directors being so disrespectful of the member/owners they are supposed to be representing?

Please reference the town hall meeting and their online comments.

The power industry needs long-term contracts to plan for the future. It takes years to plan and construct generation and delivery facilities. Basin Electric can buy on the open market as does Guzman, so how is Guzman energy better, cleaner, or cheaper? Furthermore, Basin Electric has backup generation. Guzman would have a set rate with a “market adjustment” (fuel adjustment)  clause to avoid a “rate hike.” What about the Dakota Energy’s “Facility Charge?” They recently raised the “Facility Charge” more than 8%, so they should not be complaining about Basin Electric and East River rates.

Twyla Folk
Huron