Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for April 5, 2024

PG&E’s plan to soften summer spikes is unfair

In my opinion, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has once again demonstrated its inability to run its business in a responsible fashion.

It is going to the state to request changing the way it bills customers by adding a fixed fee onto bills rather than base billing only on the energy customers use (“Proposal would change how California power bills are calculated, aiming to relieve summer spikes,” March 30). In effect, PG&E is asking those of us who live near the coast to subsidize ratepayers in higher-temperature inland areas who need to run air conditioning all summer long. So much for saving from my solar-panel installation, which I sized to completely offset the electricity used during the year.

PG&E ratepayers are already paying three times the national average for electricity, yet it still can’t figure out how to make its business work. It’s time for the state to take over this loser utility, throw out its entire leadership and get this utility’s act together.

— Tom Short, San Rafael

Program helps landlords install free EV chargers

I am writing in response to David L. Fiol’s recently published letter with the headline, “San Anselmo makes public EV chargers too expensive.”

As a San Anselmo resident, I know my town charges $3 per hour for electric vehicles to park and fuel at a public station. San Rafael’s rates are between $1 and $2 per hour. Novato’s fee is $1.50 per hour after the first free hour for EV charging. I wish San Anselmo’s small-town budget could afford to charge less.

Fiol brings up a valid issue. As he states, homeowners can install a home charger and pay a fraction of what people pay for gas. There is also the drastically reduced cost to maintain an EV, but people in multifamily housing need to have access to the same low cost charging that homeowners do.

There is some relief for renters if their building owner applies to be part of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. program that helps install EV chargers at zero cost in multifamily housing sites, nonprofits and small businesses. This is only for priority areas in West Marin, San Rafael, Marin City, Greenbrae and Novato.

If you are a person who lives or works in one of these areas in Marin, ask your property or workplace site owner to look into applying for this free program. If you are a property owner and have questions about the application you can contact Ecology Action, a Bay Area-based nonprofit organization. It is overseeing this opportunity from PG&E.

— Susannah Saunders, San Anselmo

Voters receptive to canvasser’s message

I was a canvasser for the No on Measure A campaign effort that defeated the Tamalpais Union High School District’s overly expensive bond measure on March 5.

Some people quoted in a recently published article (“Tam Union Measure A supporters blame poor turnout, ‘untruths’ in loss,” March 28) characterized our activities as presenting voters with “misconceptions” and “untruths.” I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to voters. Voters have the right to accept, ignore or disagree with whatever I say. Voters spoke loudly on Election Day. It’s a fact, not a lie or misrepresentation, that we won, sour grapes on the other side notwithstanding.

I spent several days canvassing and believe I have a ground-level understanding of how we won. Much of what I heard was concern, mainly about not being heard, from dozens of concerned citizens. In San Anselmo and Fairfax, people are still upset about changing the name of the high school from Sir Francis Drake to Archie Williams. They were also keenly aware that the Ross Valley campus was slated for fewer projects for the same amount of taxpayer dollars.

In Mill Valley, I encountered parents and a couple of teachers who were concerned about how children at Tamalpais High School are being educated. It’s true that one glance at test scores on the California School Dashboard website showed issues in student performance.

Both sides of this campaign offered arguments and persuasion. I believe we won because we offered the best of both. From the comments at that recent TUHSD board meeting, it seems the other side may be hellbent for a rematch in November. I think the district should pull back, listen to parents, students, seniors, neighbors and others who have real concerns. 2026 is plenty of time to get it right.

— Kingston Cole, San Rafael