Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Solar rule proposalthreatens climate goals
The CPUC’s proposed regulations reducing the incentives for people to put solar panels on their roofs are incompatible with the Air Resources Board’s climate change plan. Both will be voted on Dec. 15. Achieving deep decarbonization will cost at least $18 billion in 2035 and more later. California will need to double its existing electricity generation capacity and quadruple solar.
Hawaii has shown a better way by following the example of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District. Hawaii’s “Smart Rate” consumer bills have three components: 1. A fixed fee for utility bookkeeping, etc., (that everyone pays); 2. a connection fee that depends on the maximum draw from the grid; and 3. a steep mandatory “time of use” wattage charge that encourages folks to draw power in the sunniest times, but also pays them equally to recharge the grid. This encourages productive behaviors … and investments. Bring those incentives here.
Marc-David LevensonSaratoga
GOP directs angerat the wrong man
Imagine how much better our political system would be if the first investigation conducted by the Republicans was on the vicious attack on Paul Pelosi.
If Republicans were as angry about the man who savagely beat Pelosi as they are about Hunter Biden’s laptop, it would be a much better Congress.
Ralph NicholsSan Jose
Accurate labels wouldhelp abortion debate
After reading “Court reinstates ban on abortions” (Page A6, Nov. 24), I have questions.
Where is the logic in the entire “pro-life” debate? It makes no logical sense that any pro-life advocate should stand by while Congress repeatedly funds a military force. Military engagement categorically kills people. What about the killing in capital punishment? Where is “pro-life” when a government enforces pregnancy, which assigns responsibility to the mother but authority to a government that is then conveniently relieved of the financial and social responsibility of lifetime upkeep for the children they are enforcing be born? One wonders where “pro-life” is when the children of those enforced births are left in poverty and with a lack of educational opportunity.
It clarifies the concepts for more useful debate if we accurately label the discussion “pro-birth,” not pro-life.
Jill ZahnerCampbell
Clinton, Pelosi havemoved nation forward
In our lifetimes we have had front-row seats in the display of courage, sacrifice, persistence and class. No two individuals have stood taller, absorbed more abuse, and lived under more threats of violence and death; yet, managed to advance their causes.
In the last 40 years, more myths have been debunked, walls breached, doors opened, glass shattered, all within our nasty political norms, by these two individuals than all their male counterparts combined.
Thank you, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Your lives have moved us toward forming “a more perfect union.”
Jim HammLos Gatos
Reinstating CTCwould alleviate poverty
The Child Tax Credit (CTC) has been one of the most effective programs for alleviating childhood poverty. It elevated over 2.9 million children out of poverty in 2021.
Sadly, the CTC expansion has lapsed. It is incumbent upon Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, and Reps. Ro Khanna, Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo to push hard during the lame-duck session for reinstating the expansion in the next budget cycle.
There are few federal programs that have this level of “bang for the buck.”
Pravin SoniSunnyvale
Government must pricecarbon to hit net-zero
The headline of the Nov. 17 Mercury News article (“COP27 highlights confusion, finger-pointing over climate“) on the COP27 summit gives us little hope for reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
There is only one way to do this with the urgency that is required. The United States must put a price on emitted carbon that increases over time, and charge a border adjustment fee for world products bought into the United States based on the amount of carbon emitted when making the product. We can use the revenue generated by these fees to pay a dividend that compensates Americans for energy costs incurred until we reach net-zero emissions.
If you’re not sure, tell us your concerns about such a policy. Let’s discuss it. Let’s recognize that fossil fuel companies control the debate about climate change policy and that voters and consumers can’t get the immediate action on climate change they want.
Rob HogueMenlo Park
