To the Editor:

As many of you know, the Dakota Energy board recently held several “informational meetings” at various locations around the service territory. The meetings were an effort to defend suing East River Electric for a buyout number. I’m a Dakota Energy member and have never been in favor of Dakota Energy leaving the cooperative family. There’s not enough room in this letter to the editor to list and explain the negative impacts.

In participating in these meetings my viewpoint on the subject went from bad to worse. The (only) thing that has ever been mentioned by the board that could be viewed as positive is a possible rate reduction.

This is the only thing they’ve been hanging their hat on.

I attended most of these informational meetings and found out that there is no way a rate reduction is possible. The Guzman representative stated at the meetings its rate to Dakota Energy would be 6.2¢/kWhr. With a minimal buyout number another 2¢/kWhr could easily be added for a total of 8.2¢/kWhr. This amount could be much higher.

The rate paid by Dakota Energy to East River is 5.9¢/kWhr. The TransCanada pumping station and Dakota Provisions are on different rates, 5.9¢/kWhr for all other members. Guzman does not offer any savings, even before adding in the buyout number payback. This would explain why other utilities that went with Guzman experienced rate increases immediately after switching.

Why does the Dakota Energy board continue down this road when there is nothing in it for the membership? What’s in the letter of intent that was signed with Guzman? Why waste money on legal fees only to have a rate increase? To add creditability, I’m the manager of a neighboring electric cooperative. I can back up the rate information stated.

Dave Eide
Dakota Energy member