« San Mateo council chaos as a harbinger | Main | Stanfoolery and "bad words" »

December 19, 2022


Paloma Ave

Utility companies should have never been forced to buy excess power in the first place.

That was another bad law passed in California.


Newsom killing green jobs. That will not play well with the BernieBros.


They just can't help themselves. The do one thing not realizing that the reaction is counter to what they really want. Take rent control for instance. Enact rent control and landlords always raise the rent the max allowed. Or they leave the unit empty as a low maintenance saving account that pays better than the bank. Then it inhibits developers from building more housing.

When it comes to roof solar and batteries, we will see Reagan's quip come true: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”


Wanna bet whether more "American" people will die this weekend from cold than will die all year from global warming?

Peter Garrison

Oops. They call it climate change now.

An even hazier definition so that you can’t fix the problem and just have to keep throwing money at it.

Also, climate change is what we used to call weather back in the good old days.


(The State of) Maine notes in a plan sub­mit­ted to the Fed­eral High­way Ad­min­is­tra­tion this sum­mer that “cold tem­per­a­tures will re­main a top chal-lenge” for adop­tion, since “cold weather re­duces EV range and in­creases charg­ing times.” When tem­per-a­tures drop to 5 de-grees Fahren­heit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A ve­hi­cle that’s sup-posed to be able to go 250 miles be­tween charges will make it only 135 miles on av­er­age. At 32 de-grees—a typ­i­cal win­ter day in much of the coun­try—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal con­di­tions can go 282 miles be­tween charges will make it only 173 miles. WSJ 12/27/22

Imagine people stranded in the blizzard this week…

Head of Toyota knows this EV thing is only a virtue-trend that is not only silly, but potentially lethal.

Vote for folks who are careful with our lives and money.


The solar deadline approaches. The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to kick in:

The financial incentives that helped spur more than 1.6 million Californians to put solar panels on their homes will end this week.

A rush to go solar leading up to the April 14 deadline has sent installation companies and utilities into overdrive. But many in the industry expect this boom will be followed by a more sluggish era for rooftop solar in California.

The new rules, called net energy billing, only apply to new solar customers served by the state’s three major investor-owned utilities — including PG&E. They still offer savings but at lower rates. They are meant to encourage property owners to also install battery systems so that excess energy can be stored even after the sun goes down, when demand for electricity continues to be high.

The California Solar and Storage Association estimates customers will be credited at a rate of about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the energy their arrays send back to the grid, compared to about $0.30 per kilowatt hour under the previous system.
Ouch. Cut the rate by 83%. What could go wrong?
Under net metering, solar customers on average saw bill reductions of about $216 per month. After Friday, average solar customers are expected to save $100 each month on their electric bills, whereas those with batteries will save at least $136 per month, according to the commission.
And the math smells a bit. Cut the rate by 83% but the reduction only drops the "savings" by 46%. By the way, when you sell someone something you made (or generated) that is not called "savings".
Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association called the commission's policy “reckless” because it opted against phasing in the changes and instead installed an abrupt shift.

“It’s created a boom-bust dynamic,” she said.


That's us---boom and bust.


It's like they really want to kill residential rooftop solar. If you up the breakeven point from 6 years to 10 years there will be much less investment. That is like an intended consequence!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to [email protected] with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.