‘A betrayal’: California bill would break solar contracts, blindsiding families | Opinion
AB 942 is a betrayal
“Rooftop solar subsidies raise electricity costs in California” (sacbee.com, May 16)
Assembly Bill 942 isn’t just bad policy, it’s a betrayal. Millions of Californians installed rooftop solar based on 20-year Net Energy Metering agreements approved by the state. AB 942 would retroactively change those terms, slashing the value of solar credits and blindsiding families who made long-term financial decisions in good faith.
This sets a dangerous precedent: If the state can tear up contracts after the fact, why would anyone trust future clean energy programs? Rooftop solar saved all ratepayers $1.5 billion in 2024. What’s really driving utility rates up is PG&E’s unchecked spending.
AB 942 breaks trust, punishes solar users and protects monopoly profits. Lawmakers must reject it.
Lee Miller
Sacramento
Newsom must fund Prop. 36
“Gov. Gavin Newsom puts onus on California counties to fund Prop. 36,” (sacbee.com, May 14)
If Gov. Gavin Newsom has future aspirations to hold an elected position, he should listen to California voters — who passed Proposition 36 — and allocate adequate funding toward this measure.
Walter Shaffer
Elk Grove
Poorly written proposal
“Gov. Gavin Newsom puts onus on California counties to fund Prop. 36,” (sacbee.com, May 14)
Proposition 36 is what happens when voters either don’t read or don’t understand the text of a proposition. Unfunded, feel-good legislation almost never works.
The effects of passing this proposition were forecasted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and other analysts as unworkable for several reasons, including the costs to implement, turning people into felons for minor drug infractions.
Blaming the governor because he warned us about a poorly written proposition won’t fix this.
Bill Adelman
Galt
Ban forever chemicals
“‘Forever chemicals’ are in our bodies and drinking water. We must stop using them | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 11, 2023)
Toxic “forever chemicals” are silently building up in our environment, harming public health and saddling communities with massive cleanup bills. More than $500 million has already been spent addressing Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination in our state, with another $1.13 billion in planned projects. Drinking water cleanup of PFAS could cost utilities between $161 million to $217 million annually to meet federal drinking water standards finalized last year.
PFAS-related healthcare burdens are staggering, conservatively estimated to cost Californians between $5.5 and $8.7 billion annually.
Senate Bill 682 is a practical and urgently needed solution to this growing crisis. The bill would ban the unnecessary use of PFAS in consumer products, while creating a process for unavoidable uses to continue. It would reduce public exposure, protect water quality and ease the financial burdens on local governments and ultimately California residents.
Dr. Anna Reade
San Francisco
Rancho’s spending troubles resident
“Rancho Cordova’s $1M rocket mascot idea heard at council” (sacbee.com, April 3)
I am troubled by the significant spending planned even as the city’s own documents point to economic uncertainty and concerning revenue trends, including anticipated declines in some areas. This raises questions about fiscal stability and prioritizing essential services and maintenance.
Our neighbors in Folsom, Sacramento and Citrus Heights have faced budget deficits. Rancho Cordova must learn from these regional challenges and prioritize fiscal caution now to avoid future problems.
Essential services, including public safety and maintaining our roads and infrastructure, must be fully funded, and deferred maintenance must be addressed first. Delaying repairs costs more later.
Jonathan Armstrong
Rancho Cordova
Use of AI in schools
“AI’s role at CSU: empowering education or hindering it?” (sacbee.com, April 9)
As a high school student growing up with the rise of AI, I agree that we need to think critically before we invest in tools like ChatGPT, but banning them isn’t the answer. AI is a tool, not a replacement for thinking. Similar to how calculators didn’t ruin math, AI doesn’t have to ruin reading and writing; it just depends on how it is used.
Banning and restricting AI usage would create an unintentional knowledge gap. If some students receive their support while others are restricted from it, this separation will grow.
Accepting AI can level the playing field: It could help students overcome learning disadvantages, such as language barriers and limited access to tutors. Academic integrity needs to evolve, and education needs to adapt. Plagiarism and cheating are serious issues, but pretending AI doesn’t exist isn’t a solution.
Wyatt Hoyt
San Diego