PSEG Long Island's assertion we do not need a new power plant is puzzling ["New plant not needed," News, Aug. 1]. Every month, significant "power supply charges" make up about half of my bill. The explanation of those charges can be found on PSEG's website: The power supply charge "recovers the cost of the electricity we buy from various electric power providers on behalf of our customers. In addition, the charge includes the cost of power purchased by us from independent power producers both on and off Long Island."
PSEG said it has enough power for Long Island for the next five years, but what the company failed to mention is it is buying power from other utilities, and this cost is passed on to Long Islanders. Would providing our own power in the long run make the cost cheaper and the supply more reliable?
The Long Island Power Authority had the same issues, but wasn't PSEG supposed to be an improvement? I wonder how invested PSEG is in Long Island. Its origin is not on Long Island, and the company has a 12-year contract that could expire. PSEG's appointment seems like a utility shell game in which Long Islanders lose, because a major issue like supplying reliable and cheap power to all Long Islanders is no more a priority to PSEG then it was to LIPA.
John Chiappino, Smithtown
I read with delight about PSEG Long Island's decision that Caithness II is not needed, and I hope the company sticks with that decision. The burning of fossil fuels for energy must slow down and eventually end for the future of our species.
I am employed by a Long Island solar installation company, and I am pleased to report the increased interest and demand we have seen. Many homeowners and businesses are getting on board with renewable energy.
I am also a member of Citizens Climate Lobby, which seeks to pass national legislation to put a tax on carbon energy at its source and return that money to homeowners all over the country. This could provide incentives for more renewables.
PSEG's use of on-bill financing will make the transition to solar power even easier ["Home energy loans powering up," News, Aug. 1].
Robert Meinke, Shirley
Reasons for anger over border kids
People who oppose illegal immigration are indeed "feeling it at home" ["Immigrant kids and American vitriol," Opinion, July 31].
In June 2012, President Barack Obama by executive action suspended deportation of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States illegally before they were 16, and who today are younger than 30.
Today, Central Americans are pouring into the United States without any background checks -- to find out whether they are part of murderous gangs such as MS-13 or have serious illnesses such as tuberculosis. Under the Obama administration, these people are being flown to states such as Massachusetts, Tennessee and Indiana without state or local governments, or police, being notified by the federal government.
Consider that these young people will possibly be admitted to public schools without additional federal funding or local planning and coordination. The potential for overcrowding threatens to diminish the quality of public education for all children.
With more than 60 percent of property taxes funding public education, assimilating these students could require homeowners to absorb even higher taxes. A recent poll indicated that 56 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. One can easily conclude why taxpayers are so deeply dissatisfied with our feckless federal government.
Michael P. Mulhall, Rockville Centre
This column was right on the mark! Since the election of Barack Obama, the bigots have come out of the woodwork in full force. There seems to be a consensus that long-suppressed hatred may now be expressed without danger of being "politically incorrect." When people see their elected officials being disrespectful of the president, they take it as permission to act in kind -- in public.
Even the most liberal of newspeople have been reluctant to use the term "racism" for fear they will be called politically incorrect.
This country has a long history of discrimination toward people who are different -- barring Irish immigrants from certain jobs and neighborhoods, internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Latinos are just the latest to add to the list.
Perhaps if Americans stood up against the disrespect that is directed toward the president simply because he is black, and stood up against the hatred aimed at minorities, the country might emerge from the darkness of bigotry and racism.
Eleanor Wereley, Blue Point
Swastika, flag are both hate symbols
Letters on July 30 correctly stated that the swastika is a symbol of hate ["Swastika should remain a reminder."]
At the Great South Bay Music Festival in July, a booth displayed the Confederate flag. When my African-American wife took exception to the flag, the booth operators immediately removed it and apologized.
However, another attendee then took exception to my wife's comments, saying the Confederate flag was the flag of those who fought in a war. The swastika is also the flag of those who fought in a war. Both are hate symbols and are unacceptable for public display.
Kenneth Fehling, Selden