Letters: Solar Incentives | Scare the cities

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Let’s keep the incentives
for solar energy

The California Public Utilities Commission is once again proposing to tax solar power users and reduce the credit they get for sending solar power back to the grid. This disastrous policy will make switching to rooftop solar much less economically feasible and will hurt our ability to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California.

California, in conjunction with the federal government, should do everything in its power to make the switch to renewable energy sources a reality. Congress passed a landmark bill allocating billions of dollars to renewable energy. The CPUC’s proposed action makes it harder for Californians to go solar.

Finally, solar energy on the roofs contributes to strengthening the resilience of our electrical network. Rather than relying heavily on large power plants to produce the energy we need, rooftop solar is a great way for communities to provide their own distributed sources of power generation.

Vincent Casalaina
Berkeley

The state seeks to scare
cities in compliance

Governor Newsom’s survey of San Francisco housing policies is not about identifying barriers to new residential development (“State to Review San Francisco Housing Policies,” page A1, August 10). Many studies have already done this, including mine, “How to Restore the California Dream.”

Make no mistake, Newsom’s housing department is trying to find specific recent actions by San Francisco officials that violate state housing laws. If successful, this information will be forwarded to Attorney General Rob Bonta for possible prosecution. It’s a criminal fishing expedition disguised as a research project intended to scare local government officials across California into complying with housing laws.

Laurent McQuillan
Oakland

We can handle
our nuclear waste

In her letter to the editor, Shirley McGrath describes nuclear waste as a “scourge” (“Waste is the Poison Pill of Nuclear Power,” page A6, August 16). I don’t believe that to be true.

1) Plutonium-239 is not the most toxic substance on earth. Familiar things like fentanyl, ricin and botulinium (Botox) are more toxic. We know how to handle these substances.

2) We are now designing reactors, called “fast breeder reactorswhich can use waste from reactors like Diablo Canyon as fuel. Thus, the waste will become valuable and we will use it.

3) The drums in which waste is stored are very safe. Watch videos like YouTube”U.S. Nuclear Flask Endurance Testing.”

Ultimately, the ongoing climate change catastrophe is too big to ignore solutions like nuclear power.

golden cliff
Fremont

Human error makes
the unsustainable nuclear

In today’s East Bay Times letters to the editor, two people wrote that the problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste (“Waste is the poison pill of energy nuclear” and “Too great a risk to keep Diablo Canyon open”, page A6, August 16).

There is another problem: humans run nuclear power plants. Humans make mistakes. A mistake in such a dangerous situation is unacceptable.

Carol Solomon
Oakland

Prop. 1 could bring
unexpected results

Re. “Vote Yes to Proposition 1, Protect Women’s Reproductive Rights,” page A12, August 14:

The East Bay Times op-ed pontificates that the measure boldly challenges the excesses of the Supreme Court, accused of eliminating the right to abortion. But the East Bay Times urges exactly what the Supreme Court said should be done: let the people decide.

We, the Court said, did not have and do not have the power to judge and legislate essentially what is for the citizens of individual states to decide; it is federalism vis-à-vis the rights of the States, at the heart of our Constitution. To extrapolate the “right to privacy” of personal property from the Fourth Amendment to abortion might be a bit of a stretch; and such logic could apply to almost anything, leading to highly undesirable unintended consequences.

So California, although your state constitution is already seen by the state judiciary as supporting abortion access, vote for proposition 1 if you think it’s not redundant, but be careful not to inadvertently interfere with what is already legal.

Jack Knutson
Fremont

Comments are closed.