Black Hills Energy has done it again. They propose closing the gap between the cost of their new peaking plant and approved revenue by punishing solar owners. In their July 11 Phase 2 rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission, Black Hills proposed increasing the monthly customer charge for solar owners 49.9 percent -- from $17.96 to $26.92 -- to "cover their costs for a second production meter at rooftop solar sites" (approximately a $700 cost). They also proposed raising the energy charge for solar customers from $0.0865 to $0.1591 per kilowatt hour, an 83.93 percent increase, because the company claims its costs to serve net-metered customers have increased 140 percent since 2012.

The proposed new rate structure will likely impact the stability of the rooftop solar industry in southern Colorado, a small but important and growing segment of our region's economy. Solar jobs are likely to be lost again, as occurred in 2010 when Black Hills abruptly canceled its solar rebate program. Following that move, 10 of the 15 existing solar installers went out of business.

Solar providers are returning to our sunny market. According to the Colorado Solar Energy Industry Association, there are presently 27 solar installers doing business in Pueblo, with 1,022 installations in place as of April. Only 111 of these are commercial installations because Black Hills' harsh demand charges override any cost savings from solar for businesses. Now because of Black Hills Energy's rate proposal on solar customers, these solar companies are worrying once again about their future. How many times can Black Hills change its policies overnight and expect businesses to invest here? As Public Utility Commissioner Frances Koncilja noted, this rate increase constitutes a policy change that should be reviewed by the full PUC.

The proposed increases by Black Hills reflect a national debate about the costs and benefits of rooftop-solar to utilities. The business model of investor-owned utilities is focused on building expensive infrastructure for a substantial rate of return and fully controlling the generation and sale of electricity to maximize shareholder earnings. When the power supply is democratized and individuals generate their own electricity, companies lose profits.

Most solar owners need very little access to either the generating plant or the transmission system. Even the excess power they sometimes generate and feed back into the grid is consumed largely by their closest neighbors, who pay the utility full price for it. The energy charge should be lower for solar customers, not higher.

Utilities sometimes fail to calculate the benefits that rooftop solar systems provide to the grid and to nonsolar customers. The May 23, 2016 Brookings Institute's "Rooftop solar: Net metering is a net benefit" (brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/) concluded that "there were fewer costly grid upgrades, less expensive investment (in power generation), as well as reduced pressure on other forms of energy during peak usage periods." Rooftop solar also reduces transmission and distribution line losses, stabilizes energy prices and improves grid reliability. Because of these cost savings, solar energy is actually worth more than owners receive in net-metering benefits.

All this begs the big question: How do we continue to generate electricity and preserve a habitable planet in 50 years? We need to encourage customer-owned renewable energy, not squelch it for the sake of increased corporate profits. Rooftop solar will become even more important if Pueblo moves to a municipal-owned utility in place of its franchise agreement with Black Hills.

This year, our City Council boldly endorsed 100 percent renewable energy for all by 2035 and courageously reaffirmed the international Paris climate accord. Gov. John Hickenlooper committed Colorado to Climate Action.

Arizona, California and New York utilities are looking into setting up their own distributed solar packages. Why can't Black Hills recognize the future and do the same?

The motives of this proposed rate increase are clear. It's not that solar owners are causing nonsolar owners extra expense. It's that Black Hills is a monopoly and wants to maintain control of all power generation. Instead of embracing a new technology, it is viciously fighting change. In Pueblo, we are striving to reinvent our economy. We are encouraging new businesses to locate here. We want them to succeed.

If Black Hills wishes to be part of Pueblo, how about acting like they care about their customers here? Don't just worry about your investors, Black Hills, worry about people's lives and the fate of our community.

Roz De Lizarriturri and David Cockrell, Ph.D. are Black Hills solar customers and members of the Sierra Club's Pueblo Ready for 100 team.