Marin IJ Readers Forum for January 5, 2022 – Marin Independent Journal

Rooftop solar power allows the state to rethink the electricity grid

The recent editorial written by the Bay Area News Group Editorial Board and published in the Marin IJ (“Rooftop Solar Program Steals from the Poor, Gives the Rich,” December 23) was a perfect early Christmas present for grown-ups. utility companies like Pacific. Gas and electricity company

The editors seem to have fallen for the efforts of our utilities to pit the owners of rooftop solar installations against everyone else. This is a cynical ploy to distract from the real issue: What form do we want our future energy grid to take? Should it be a centralized system in which utilities control all energy production as it once did, or a decentralized and resilient grid in which individuals and small businesses generate electricity locally?

Utilities want to go back to the 1920s, when they controlled everything from production to distribution and reaped guaranteed profits every step of the way. But this utility-centric system is bad for us and bad for the environment.

The editorial ignores the environmental costs of large solar farms that take the natural habitat away from plants and animals that need it. It is removing farmland from production and would require thousands of miles of expensive and dangerous new high-voltage transmission lines. Solar panels have their place where energy is needed – on our already built environment. A decentralized system is also more secure. It is more resistant to system-wide outages, planned or unplanned.

Adjustments to solar cost sharing may be appropriate, but an average ‘connection fee’ of $ 57 per month billed only to solar customers and a reduction in the solar net generation credit of 80% would be extremely. daunting for rooftop solar advocates. The changes currently on the table should be rejected by the California Public Utilities Commission.

– Stacey Pogorzelski and David Fiol, Novato

Rooftop solar power should be sold at a discount

When I decided 19 years ago to add solar panels on the roof to my house, I thought it was strange that my contractor informed me that the law said I could only install enough solar panels to cover my personal use. I had to do a power audit first. For a few hundred dollars more, I would have chosen to add many more panels. My roof would have helped with the much-discussed power surges during peak use with rising rates.

I quickly realized that this was the usual legislative giveaway to Pacific Gas and Electric Co., as well as the big telecom companies for all of their “contributions” and lobbying. This illogical limitation on electricity production was proposed by the “Consumer Advocate” of the Utilities Commission, who is supposed to defend us against the abuse of monopoly utilities.

I was hardly shocked, but saddened, to read in an op-ed written by the editorial board of the Bay Area News Group and published in the Marin IJ (“Rooftop Solar Program Steals the Poor, Gives the Rich,” December 23) that this same PUC advocate was supporting the flawed reasoning that I was now abusing low-income people and had to pay $ 900 a year for the privilege of participating in progressive blackouts.

The editorial didn’t take into account that we are all adding power that PG&E couldn’t produce and helping everyone keep the power. Since the electricity we generate is essentially donated to PG&E on terms they dictate, why not sell the electricity our 1.2 million solar homes generate to others at our discounted rate? I think our officials would rather see lower bills than we punished for our “greed”. PUC’s complicity will slow down the transition to solar energy, a goal that no one supports.

Once again our lawmakers have sold us for “contributions” and our local government officials are silent.

– Greg Knell, San Rafael

The carbon tax is the best way to progress

With regard to the recent op-ed written by the editorial board of the Bay Area News Group and published in the Marin IJ (“Rooftop solar program steals from the poor, gives the rich,” December 23) on reducing incentives to solar energy, it should be recognized that every invoice from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. already includes a “minimum delivery charge”.

To quote the PG&E website, “Customers pay… monthly to stay connected to the grid. (The royalty) is used to pay for the transmission of electricity on the PG&E network.

Each month my bill has a charge of around $ 10 for this. Considering PG&E’s 16 million customers, this represents approximately $ 160 million per month for the PG&E network.

California utilities have proposed adding $ 40 to $ 70 per month to their combined $ 1.3 million residential solar bills, which would net them more than an additional $ 1 billion per year. I suspect the windfall would end up in the pockets of utility shareholders.

I will step away from the grid before paying up to $ 70 a month as a penalty for helping them avoid building new power plants and reducing their carbon emissions.

The real solution is to charge the fossil fuel companies a fee on carbon pollution and use that money for a 100% dividend returned equally to everyone, which would give a family of four about $ 240 per month. Even if Exxon (and the others) passed on the increase (which would be insignificant compared to recent increases in gas prices), those in the lower two-thirds income brackets would come out on top. This would speed up the transition to renewable energies. It is much simpler than the selfish proposition of PG&E and it is socially fair.

– Richard Bailey, Novato

PG&E demands too much solar power on rooftops

It appears that officials at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. are keen to add about $ 57 per month to the fees paid to them by those who have installed a home solar system (“Rooftop Solar Program Steals the Poor, Gives the Rich” , Dec 23). If PG&E gets its way, it looks like those of us who care about our planet will then pay $ 57 a month to not use up their energy, to send PG&E some of ours for virtually free, and for spending dozens of dollars. thousands of dollars alone to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions it produces by burning fossil fuels.

PG&E will also reimburse us for even less than the paltry sum they are currently paying us for the energy we send them – energy that they willingly accept and then sell for a higher price. What the company does with its profits is in the public domain. What he does not do for the public is even more public.

Those who might consider a solar system will find that, rather than having to wait around 10 years for the installation to pay for itself, it might never pay for itself as promised. This prospect will inevitably make solar unaffordable for many who see it as a chance for the survival of all rather than as a threat to impoverish the shareholders of PG&E.

– Jeff Deitchman, Point Reyes Station

Installing solar panels does not rob the poor

I didn’t know I was robbing the poor. I didn’t even know I was rich.

But according to the recent op-ed written by the Bay Area News Group Editorial Board and published in Marin IJ (“Rooftop Solar Program Steals from the Poor, Gives from the Rich,” December 23), I’m rich.

In fact, I am not rich. I made the decision to prioritize the money I have available to install solar panels on my roof because it is clean energy that is good for the planet. It was expensive, it was installed about five years ago, and hopefully it will pay off in five years. But if I have to pay a hefty penalty for these panels, I may never see them pay for themselves.

I think Assembly Bill 1139 could destroy the solar industry as we know it.

I thought we were trying to stop global warming. It goes against common sense. The bill will only benefit Pacific Gas and Electric Co. To make the argument “rich versus poor” is ludicrous.

– Rodger Jacobsen, San Rafael