HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/2022 Item 7a, Schmidt
Delgado, Adriana
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda item 7a
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Just a brief note on one aspect of this item since it seems neither staff nor council really care about thoughtful critique of
the bigger issues from people who understand things they don't . . .
One premise of the program you're reviewing is that rooftop solar PVs will have a major role to play.
But that's in jeopardy due to onerous changes in utility charges for PV producers now being considered by the PUC. Like
all government decisions today, this one is justified by some debatable assumptions, in this case about who's paying what
for what and whether that is fair. In other words it's an ideological not a carbon-centric argument. The proposed charges
are so onerous that small producers (like my little 1,100 watt 18-year-old system that provides 95% of the household's
electricity annually, which is pretty close to net zero) will -- if current proposals become the law -- be economically better
off shutting down than paying the new fees.
Yet our self-proclaimed net-zero-aimed city apparatus has been silent on this issue. Why? Why aren't you vocally
defending the means you propose to advance your decarbonization goal? Why are you not objecting to a state policy that
will undercut rooftop solar?
You need to let the PUC know their current proposal is counter-productive. You need to make some noise about this.
Time is of the essence.
Richard Schmidt
1