I too agree "that more support is essential for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation".

Before looking at a solar tax, how about doing all we can to make (or keep) electricity more affordable than its alternatives.

Next month, PG&E and SVCE (and other CCCAs) will raise their electricity generation rates by 8-10%. PG&E justifies that increase by its reliance on natural gas to produce electricity. SVCE doesn't even bother to justify their increase, it seems to be done because they can.

We agree. However, it's not enough to fund the solar roof program if new house flip rebuilds by contractors who are looking for a quick buck are allowed to shade the legacy solar panel investments. The Solar program needs to protect access to the sun. These new monster homes are not green and not affordable so why are we allowing them?

Josh, two things:
1) if nearly half of recent solar growth occurred with working/middle income neighborhoods, do we really need to focus on "more support ... for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation"? This seems a red herring issue by CPUC change supporters.
2) I'd really like to see more support for low carbon energy of all types, especially nuclear which should be replacing hydrocarbons as reliable base load.

I second the motion for non-exclusionary support of zero
carbon energy production, such as nuclear fission.

And to make our intentions clearer, avoid loaded, ambiguous
terms like “clean” and “green” in favor of unambiguous language
such as “carbon-free”.