Hate it all you want, but state needs PG&E
Regarding “Why California’s plan to let PG&E charge you a fixed monthly fee is as flawed as it sounds” (Editorial, SFChronicle.com, May 8): The Chronicle’s editorial criticism of the new fixed charge for utility ratepayers misses the mark, and the critique is yet another tirade against PG&E. Hey, “don’t forget that PG&E last year was America’s most hated utility,” the editorial board reminded its readers.
So, what else is new?
Six weeks before PG&E’s first bankruptcy filing in 2001, the New York Times profiled the utility, and it declared that “Pacific Gas and Electric has long been a company that Californians love to hate.” With good reason, I would add. But that’s hardly the point regarding the fixed charge.
The Chronicle editorial board laments that the fixed-charge proposal’s “premise is that everyone should stay on a mass grid largely run by private utilities, forever. But is that really what we want … or need?”
It won’t be “forever” but do the math. Even ardent supporters of rooftop solar acknowledge that, at least in the foreseeable future, about 80% of solar power will be (cheaper) utility-scale. Therefore, we need the incremental ratepayer equity that the fixed charge provides.
Kurt Schuparra, Moraga