Letters for Wednesday, March 25, 2009

•Food bill needs tweaked

•Questions linger

•Try tolerance

Food bill needs tweaked

Many interested in food security have been following some controversial federal legislation, The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (HB 875).

For those unfamiliar, this bill proposes many regulations on growers in the name of public safety (riding the fears of the peanut scare).

If passed, it will affect most growers on Kaua‘i.

Personally, I think the bill should be opposed in its entirety because it doesn’t support small growers (some argue it is an assault on them instead). However, seeing as how it is backed by many big food and seed corporations and may be passed in the next two weeks as is, I’d like to offer suggestions regarding the bill.

Contact our reps and tell them any produce safety bill must be:

• Scale-appropriate. Federal law should support growers at each level, not impose a one-size-fits-all approach that runs small farms and farmers markets out of business.

• Risk-based. Measures to mitigate produce safety risk or to implement safety solutions must be based on actual risk assessments for different products and scales of farms, not assumptions based on an industrial food model.

• Science-based. Specific measures to mitigate produce safety risk must be based on sound science, specific to the growing conditions on individual farms.

• Provide tiered compliance alternatives. Compliance with produce safety measures should be tiered to reflect farm size, market served, and risk.

• Focused on education, not regulation. On-farm food safety should center on education and incentives rather than mandated regulations with punitive measures for non-compliance.

Rana Jackson, Kapa‘a

Questions linger

Randall Hee, president and CEO, and Dennis Esake, chairman of the Board of KIUC are stand-up gentlemen for their detailed response (“Increased costs today, rate stability in the future,” Letters, March 15) about KIUC’s Net Energy Metering program. 

They are correct in pointing out that KIUC cannot buy electricity from private PV and wind systems for more than KIUC’s generating cost, and that if the private system were to include storage batteries the private cost would increase substantially.

It is interesting to note, however, that KIUC’s operating and maintenance structure is so high. In the example they give, currently the cost to generate our electricity is $0.1046 per kilowatt-hour, leaving $0.12624 per kilowatt-hour for operating and maintenance expense. 

In Colorado we paid $0.10 per kilowatt-hour for our electricity. Why is it that KIUC’s operating and maintenance expense alone is 126 percent more than Colorado’s total cost per kilowatt-hour? Perhaps it is because KIUC’s customer base is smaller?

Also, when generating costs go up again, as they surely will, will KIUC continue to match their generating cost to the purchase price of privately generated electricity? 

Also, my understanding of how the PV and wind systems operate is that the power meter at the home actually slows down or runs in reverse if the system is generating more electricity that the home is consuming at that instant. If so, then the only time a private system will “sell” electricity to KIUC is when, in any given month, the power meter reading is actually lower than the previous month’s reading.

Therefore, the homeowner is receiving the full cost per kilowatt-hour ($0.23084 last month) for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated — until they generate more electricity than they used in a month. 

I would only have a complaint about this program if KIUC paid the private system less than the generating cost for the excess electricity.

Perhaps these gentlemen can comment on these items.

Roger Ward, Kalaheo

Try tolerance

I read with dismay the very expensive half page ad on page 6 of the March 16 edition. I do not understand why same sex civil unions are so scary to these people. 

In exactly what way would these unions affect your household? Why should you be able to impose your belief system on others who do not share it? Why should you have civil rights but decide who should not?

If 70 percent of the citizens of Kaua‘i did not like your lifestyle or beliefs, should they be allowed to prevent you from having civil rights?

Live and let live. 

Try some tolerance for people who are not exactly like you. Stand up for your neighbor when hate and fear threaten to take away his rights. The next time it could be you.

Cindy Granholm, Princeville