Submit your letter to the editor by way of this type. Learn extra Letters to the Editor.
Let’s hold incentives
for solar energy
The California Public Utilities Fee is as soon as once more proposing to tax photo voltaic customers and slash the credit score that they get for sending photo voltaic power again to the grid. This disastrous coverage will make the change to rooftop photo voltaic a lot much less economically possible and hurts our means to considerably scale back greenhouse gasoline emissions in California.
California, working along side the federal authorities, needs to be doing what we are able to to make the change to renewable power sources a actuality. Congress handed a historic invoice allocating billions of dollars for renewable power. The CPUC’s proposed motion makes it tougher for Californians who need to change to photo voltaic.
Lastly, rooftop photo voltaic helps construct resiliency into our electrical grid. Reasonably than relying closely on main energy crops to provide the power we'd like, rooftop photo voltaic is an efficient means for communities to offer their very own distributed sources of power era.
Vincent Casalaina
Berkeley
State in search of to scare
cities into compliance
Gov. Newsom’s inquiry into San Francisco housing insurance policies isn't about figuring out limitations to new residential growth (“State to assessment San Francisco housing insurance policies,” Web page A1, Aug. 10). Many research have finished this already, together with my very own, “How you can Restore the California Dream.”
Make no mistake, Newsom’s housing division is looking for current, particular actions by San Francisco officers that violate state housing legal guidelines. If profitable, that data might be turned over to Lawyer Normal Rob Bonta for attainable prosecution. It’s a prison fishing expedition disguised as a analysis venture meant to scare native authorities officers throughout California into following housing legal guidelines.
Lawrence McQuillan
Oakland
We are able to deal with
our nuclear waste
In her Letter to the Editor, Shirley McGrath describes nuclear waste as being a “plague” (“Waste is nuclear energy’s poison capsule,” Web page A6, Aug. 16). I don’t imagine that's true.
1) Plutonium 239 isn't probably the most poisonous substance on earth. Acquainted issues like fentanyl, ricin, and botulinium (Botox) are extra poisonous. We all know how one can deal with such substances.
2) We are actually designing reactors, referred to as “quick breeder reactors,” that may use the waste from reactors like Diablo Canyon as gas. So, waste will turn into invaluable, and we'll use it up.
3) The casks the waste is saved in are very secure. Take a look at movies like YouTube’s “Nuclear Flask Endurance Testing in USA.”
The underside line is that the local weather change disaster now occurring is simply too vital to go away options like nuclear energy off the desk.
Cliff Gold
Fremont
Human error makes
nuclear energy untenable
In at the moment’s East Bay Occasions Letters to the Editor, two individuals wrote that the issue with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste (“Waste is nuclear energy’s poison capsule,” and “Danger too nice to maintain Diablo Canyon open,” Web page A6, Aug. 16).
There may be one other drawback — people run nuclear crops. People make errors. A mistake in such a harmful scenario is unacceptable.
Carol Solomon
Oakland
Prop. 1 may carry
unintended outcomes
Re. “Vote sure on Prop. 1, defend ladies’s reproductive rights,” Web page A12, Aug. 14:
The East Bay Occasions’ editorial pontificates that the measure boldly challenges the excesses of the Supreme Courtroom, accused of eliminating the correct to abortion. However the East Bay Occasions is exhorting precisely what the Supreme Courtroom stated needs to be finished: letting the individuals resolve.
We, the Courtroom stated, didn't and shouldn't have the authority to adjudicate and primarily legislate what's for the individuals of the person states to resolve; that is federalism vis a vis states’ rights, central to our Structure. Extrapolating the “proper of privateness” from the Fourth Modification’s private property to abortion may be a little bit of a stretch; and such logic may apply to nearly something, resulting in extremely undesirable unintended penalties.
So, California, although your state Structure already is seen by the state judiciary to assist abortion entry, vote for Prop. 1 if you happen to assume it not redundant, however cautious you don’t inadvertently hobble what's already authorized.
Jack Knutson
Fremont