Utility rate plan positives outweigh negatives
In response to Max Sherman (“Utility bills will rise,” Letters to the Editor, Oct. 24): The electricity rate redesign is not intended to raise more revenue, as Sherman stated, but rather to collect less revenue from the poorest customers, the ones facing the greatest burden from skyrocketing bills.
Bills for everyone will increase in the coming years, not because of this rate change but to pay for policies associated with the climate emergency, such as grid hardening, wildfire control and electric vehicle charging stations.
While this rate redesign would reduce the benefits that solar households receive, their savings would still be much greater than their systems cost them.
In response to Eric Arens (“Rate proposal from California utilities discourages energy conservation. Here’s why,” Letters to the Editor, SFChronicle.com, Oct. 25): The rate redesign would still leave the price per kilowatt-hour far higher than could be justified based on all supply costs, including even the highest estimated societal cost of carbon emissions. There would still be plenty of incentive to appropriately conserve electricity.
The change would, however, increase incentives to use electricity instead of natural gas (for space heating and hot water heating) and gasoline (for vehicles). The current high price per kilowatt-hour is undermining those incentives.
As Arens pointed out, the Energy Institute at Haas does indeed receive funding from utilities, amounting to less than 4% of its budget. Neither the utilities nor the foundations, state agencies, nonprofits and other donors providing the other 96% of our budget have any control over the research at the institute or its conclusions.
Severin Borenstein, professor, UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business; faculty director, Energ y Institute at Haas