What can we do now? Write letters to the editors of every paper you can think of. Then send letters to your representatives and the governor. Contact info for just about everyone is on our Web site at www.mearatepayers.com. Come to the next board meeting.

I believe the perspective of the majority of the board is summed up well by Larry DeVilbiss when he stated that he did not believe that the group speaking (in opposition to the MEA plan) at the May board meeting was representative of the membership and he did not think the information we were sharing was valid.

On the contrary, Mark Foster is one of, if not the, most qualified consultants available to address this issue. As we have approached other economists for comment, consistently we have been told, "You already have the best."

Foster's analysis (available on our Web site) shows that MEA may have underestimated the cost of the coal power plant by as much as 80 percent, and as a result, when more reasonable cost projections for carbon tax, personnel and administration are added in, a conservative estimate of the end cost to the ratepayer is 23 cents per kilowatt hour.

Compare that to your current bill and see if it isn't about double.

Furthermore, Foster's analysis calls into question other MEA assertions that we need to be independent and that building our own power plant will provide more reliable service. By becoming independent we lose any economies of scale, such as: increased bargaining power of a large consortium of utilities that could get better rates on fuel, lower cost per megawatt when building a larger plant, and the ability to build closer to the fuel source and transmit power rather than transport fuel.

Also, indications are that the majority of MEA reliability problems are due to failures of the MEA distribution system and not as a result of Chugach Electric Association generation or transmission facilities. More tree trimming would best solve these distribution failures, and generation in our own service area would do little to improve reliability.

So when MEA states:

• "We need to be independent!"

We say: Tell us why. There is no indication of actual benefit to the ratepayer. In fact, it appears to be a bad business move. Instead, cultivate better working relationships with all of the Railbelt cooperatives, which will lead to better economies of scale and better rates for everyone.

• "Coal is cheaper!"

We say: What is the true cost of coal? This plan appears to be doubling our electric rates. Put your coal plant plans on the table next to contract proposals from Chugach, Municipal Light and Power and Golden Valley and others as interested, and let the best deal win.

• "Local generation is more reliable!"

We say: Conduct and publicize an honestly independent study of the reliability issues over the last 10 years or so and assess what the true reliability problem is and what the best solution would be. Then begin discussion with the owner-members on whether or not we need local generation.

Note: I did not once mention renewable energies or anyone's backyard. These are separate and important issues, but the single most important issue is that this plan is bad; we must return to Step 1 of this process before any more of our money is spent on it.

We must devise a plan that makes the best use of every dollar that we pay for our electricity.

This "best" plan is the responsibility of the board, not, as (board member) Mr. David Dahms apparently believes, the responsibility of ratepayers who are willing to step up and question the process.

I do agree with the board on one point, though: Time is of the essence, 2015 is tomorrow and you've wasted our time so far!

Peter Houston is president of the MEA Ratepayer's Alliance