{"id":8690208,"date":"2022-12-14T16:30:35","date_gmt":"2022-12-15T00:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/?p=8690208&preview=true&preview_id=8690208"},"modified":"2022-12-14T16:31:01","modified_gmt":"2022-12-15T00:31:01","slug":"letters-1085","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/2022\/12\/14\/letters-1085\/","title":{"rendered":"Letters: Rooftop solar | Spare ratepayers | Not affordable | Impact on community | Celebrate deal | Litmus test"},"content":{"rendered":"

Submit your letter to the editor via this form<\/a>. Read more Letters to the Editor<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Rooftop solar shouldcome with storage<\/h4>\n

California currently has a huge surplus of solar energy, particularly in the spring of the year.<\/p>\n

This year in March through May, CAISO reported curtailing<\/a>\u00a0over 2 million megawatt hours of solar energy. Meanwhile, the utilities had to credit rooftop solar customers at essentially retail rates for their surplus energy.<\/p>\n

This makes no economic sense. Any new rooftop solar systems should be required to include enough batteries to store the excess.<\/p>\n

Jonathan Schaff<\/strong>San Leandro<\/em><\/p>\n

Ratepayers shouldn’t beon hook to pay for solar<\/h4>\n

Severin Borenstein correctly points out that shifts in utility rates to fund rooftop solar disproportionately affects non-solar ratepayers and particularly the poor (“California rooftop solar bias is pointing us in wrong direction<\/a>,” Page A6, Dec. 13). Unfortunately, his putative solution is worse and misses the real problem.<\/p>\n

The people of California have decided that subsidizing rooftop solar is the right thing to do for climate change for a variety of reasons. The problem is not so much that decision but how the state has decided to implement it. By implementing it through utility rates, it means the ratepayer must shoulder the burden for something that is of value to California residents independent of their ratepaying status.<\/p>\n

The solution, which requires a bit of “put up or shut up” from the Legislature, is to fund the subsidies out of the general fund rather than to expect the electric ratepayer to fund it.<\/p>\n

Max Sherman<\/strong>Moraga<\/em><\/p>\n

Spieker developmentwon’t impact affordability<\/h4>\n

The county board of supervisors recently approved the Spieker Development \u201cDiablo Glen.\u201d The move-in price necessitates that the target audience for this proposed development comes from individuals residing in affluent communities.<\/p>\n

I am not opposed to expensive senior housing, but the developer continually says (and the supervisors did not argue when it was stated) that these prospective residents will be leaving behind affordable housing for young families to move into. This is a false narrative. The people moving into \u201cDiablo Glen\u201d will need top sales dollars for their move-in fees.<\/p>\n

Troy Bourne of Spieker also declares that anybody who sells their home and is on Social Security would be able to afford to live in the development. The highest Social Security retirement payment for 2022 is $3,345<\/a>\u00a0per month. The lowest monthly Diablo Glen rent is $3,770<\/a>. You do the math.<\/p>\n

Brandon O’Sullivan<\/strong>Walnut Creek<\/em><\/p>\n

Supervisors ignoredimpact on community<\/h4>\n

The Spieker \u201cDiablo Glen\u201d development for Seven Hills Ranch, given recent approval by the county board of supervisors, brings sizable impacts to the surrounding community, yet questions regarding those impacts have been largely ignored.<\/p>\n

No plans have been prepared for the off-site access improvements on North San Carlos, Seven Hills Ranch Road and Kinross Drive. More than 6,000 truckloads of soil and bedrock are to be hauled off-site, but there is no discussion of how or where or if there will be any restrictions to this activity over Walnut Creek city streets, including the street that runs through Heather Farm Park. One wonders how the staging and construction-related activities will impact the significant habitat and human activity found on or near the proposed access points.<\/p>\n

There will be substantial impacts on communities outside the boundaries of Seven Hills Ranch. The county has shown little concern. I doubt this is acceptable to anyone except the developer.<\/p>\n

Jim Frey<\/strong>Walnut Creek<\/em><\/p>\n

Celebrate deal thatbrought Griner home<\/h4>\n

Brittney Griner is back home. A Russian criminal goes back to a Russia that is embracing Stalinism. Trumplicans are calling the trade a debacle and a bad trade.<\/p>\n

In Vietnam, it was inconceivable that an American was left behind. In the jungle, one did not ask if a buddy was white, black, yellow, gay, straight, Republican or Democrat. One only cared about having one’s back. Dying to save or rescue an American was what was done.<\/p>\n

Brittney Friner is an American. Trading her for a single Russian bandit is a deal that should be celebrated by every American.<\/p>\n

Those who can criticize this transaction are playing at being disrespectful of Americans who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I was in Vietnam, they could not be counted on to have my back. Shame on these cowards. Welcome home Brittney.<\/p>\n

Norm Weiss<\/strong>Orinda<\/em><\/p>\n