Third ‘energy challenge’: PG&E policy on solar

CalMatters cites negotiations over trying to meet mandates for clean energy (“Effort to cut electric bills is scaled back,” Sentinel Sept. 1) and, at the same time, reducing electricity bills for consumers. They call these “twin clean energy challenges.”

There is a third ugly sibling, the greedy electric utility, PG&E in our case, which resists the change to clean energy by making it more expensive for local residents to install and use rooftop solar. The utility also makes it less attractive to conserve energy by charging a higher fixed fee per house and only slightly less for each kilowatt hour we use.

Why turn out lights or insulate the house if I have to pay the same fixed fee, regardless of how much electricity I save? Guess what. The utility gets reimbursed for every kilowatt hour they sell, plus a percentage. Sell more, make more money.

If our utilities were really on board for achieving a carbon-free future, they wouldn’t keep standing in our way. That’s the “Clean Energy Challenge” we truly face.

— Alice Levine, Santa Cruz

New Santa Cruz aquatics center needed — now

I, along with several others, have been actively campaigning for a new aquatics center to replace the dilapidated Harvey West Pool. It was disheartening to learn that the city has already spent $150,000 repairing the old pool. I was disappointed with the City Council’s decision to appropriate $400,000 for opening and operating Harvey West Pool next year. I do applaud our city officials for acknowledging our city is in dire need for a facility for our kids to learn how to swim as well as for our large community of swimming citizens.

Let’s face it, would you still be repairing a car you bought in 1960? There comes a point when repairs no longer make financial sense, and the time has come to buy a new (improved) vehicle. This is the state of affairs with our current pool. We deserve better. Let’s build a new aquatics center now!

— Robert Orrizzi, Santa Cruz

Harris has no courage on Israel’s war funding

Vice President Kamala Harris’s interview on CNN proves yet again that if you’re in the market for a leader of courage, don’t look to the political class. Given the opportunity to differentiate herself from Joe Biden’s disastrous, unequivocal support for Israel, Harris chose political expediency over principle.

Repeatedly calling for an immediate cease-fire — without success — while continuing to feed the Israeli war machine is worse than hypocrisy, it’s a mendacious attempt to garner votes while sitting on the fence. Which is somewhat understandable, given the felonious election-denier she’s up against. But unless and until she promises to end America’s complicity in the killing of Gaza’s children, I will be voting my conscience by voting for neither candidate.

— Tim Rudolph, Santa Cruz

‘Consider the moral stance’ of your vote

Knowing that it’s unlikely I’ll ever understand the point of view of those among us who will cast their vote for Trump, I wish to propose one or two simple questions: How do you justify voting for someone who cannot serve as a positive example for children? Do you really believe a felon, a serial philanderer and sex offender, a bully, compulsive liar and career con artist can be an inspiration for our young people?

If you are comfortable choosing as leader of the free world someone who has led a life devoid of the principles of common decency, then by all means, make 45 your choice. But I ask you to consider the moral stance implied by your vote.

— Joel Leivick, Santa Cruz

How can Christians support Trump?

I’m old — 79 — and there have been many changes in my lifetime, so there are lots of things I don’t really understand, like the latest technology and especially what happened to Evangelical Christians.

Although I do not regularly attend church, I have always tried to live by Christian values, which I understood to be:

• Humility

• Kindness

• Honesty

• Integrity

• Love

• Honoring women

• Generosity

• Forgiveness

So, I just don’t understand how so many Christians can support the current Republican candidate for president. I am honestly perplexed. Perhaps some readers can explain?

— Don Eggleston, Aptos