Letters to the Editor: I wanted to go solar. Then California passed its new solar rules

To the editor: On Dec. 15, the California Public Utilities Fee (CPUC) took an ax to my photo voltaic panel plans.

I’m a retiree nearing 80 who had hoped to put in a solar energy system on our small house the place my spouse and I’ve lived for 4 a long time. We have been relying on web metering charges that will have made it extra doubtless that we’d have paid off the upfront prices earlier than I die or my spouse dies.

Now, by decreasing the quantity photo voltaic clients are paid for the vitality they ship into the grid, the CPUC has added years to interrupt even. However they haven’t prolonged life expectancy.

Can I give you the price of an array within the four-month grace interval? Unlikely. The CPUC has pushed middle-class people out of the market who want that additional share of net-metering advantages.

The CPUC has harmed lower-income households, which it claims to be serving to with this new plan. How about aligning charges with earnings and subsidizing photo voltaic for these close to the underside?

Carl Selkin, Pasadena

..

To the editor: It’s shortsighted to disincentivize photo voltaic as a lot as the brand new guidelines handed by the CPUC do, drastically decreasing compensation for vitality that photo voltaic house owners export to the grid. This may prolong the payback interval for brand spanking new photo voltaic to about 9 years, which is just too lengthy for a lot of.

When the utilities set up their grid-scale batteries, the place will that renewable vitality come from? Will it come from big photo voltaic farms and transmission strains that ratepayers pays for?

As a substitute of disincentivizing rooftop photo voltaic, we must always put money into native, distributed sources that can scale back the quantity the utilities might want to put money into transmission strains and distant sources. This may save all ratepayers cash.

Wayne Morgan, Ventura