Members of the Menlo Park City council,
I am unable to attend the meeting this evening regarding the proposal to eliminate natural gas as a source of energy for the residents of our city. I write to provide my input.
I am absolutely opposed to the recommendation to prohibit natural gas. My reasons are as follows:
The current rates we pay for electricity are the highest in the country. That’s true whether your vendor is P G & E or one of the sources promoting themselves as the “green” alternative. It is strategically short sited, indeed folly, to cut off alternative sources of energy and leave the citizens of Menlo Park at the economic mercy of P G & E.
I installed solar panels on my house in 2009. The mathematic payback based on the electric rates at that time was barely justified, with a pay-back period of 20 + years. My decision to invest was based on my expectation that P G & E electric rates would balloon in future years. That was based on their past track record and that of the complicit California PUC. My expectations were not only right, they were exceeded. Given P G & E’s management track record of the past 2 decades, we can expect them to accelerate rate increases in the next decade, leaving Menlo Park residents with no options if natural gas is eliminated. Think if this drought condition persists and P G & E loses a portion or all of its cheap and clean hydroelectric resources. And who do you think will be asked to pay for the damage of the wildfires started by under-investment by P G & E?
In reading the consultant’s report justifying their call for having the Council establish regulations to eliminate natural gas I note their calculations are based using an academic measurement of the cost of gas rather than the current market level of gas costs. This academic measurement includes the exogenous costs they assign related to greenhouse gas. I don’t doubt there are some exogenous costs, but the assignment of these costs are arbitrary and subjective. What happens if the “assigned” costs are less than these arbitrary levels? A sensitivity analysis should be included. Many of the cost comparisons show electricity barely winning out over gas even with the inclusion of these arbitrary costs. And who wants to bet the cost of electricity will not skyrocket in the next ten years, making the consultant’s comparative figures useless.
The recommendation to increase the city’s utility tax to pay for any portion of our city should be eliminated from your agenda. Any tax increase requires a vote with 2/3’s approval by the citizens. Past suggestions to add to the utility tax have met with fierce opposition, and even provided reason for the eventual replacement of Council members
I view the recommendation to establish regulations to force future appliance replacements to be electric as a form of tax. In fact, a very steep tax. The pay-back periods provided by the consultant assumes the citizens who have to make the immediate investment will get it back in 10 to 20 years, or longer. The average house is owned for about 10 to 11 years. So current owners are not likely to recapture the initial capital cost
I suggest you spend time talking to all your constituents before any further consideration is given to this proposal. The only apparent beneficiary of this proposal is P G & E.
Edward Moritz
