Power company extends deadline for co...

Power company extends deadline for comment on north state high-...

There are 12 comments on the Chico Enterprise-Record story from Apr 28, 2009, titled Power company extends deadline for comment on north state high-.... In it, Chico Enterprise-Record reports that:

Though many people are just beginning to hear about it, the public still has time - until May 31 - to weigh in on a high-voltage power line project that could be built along one of three proposed routes through Glenn and Butte counties.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chico Enterprise-Record.

sparky

United States

#1 Apr 28, 2009
I am all for electicity...but why go "around Chico", but thru the "center of Oroville"... there are plenty of alternative routs. We don't need more wires going thru town. Not to mention the traffic problems caused by the actual construction.
sparky

United States

#2 Apr 28, 2009
I mean "routes".. too early, not enough coffee!
Kurt Jorgensen

United States

#3 Apr 28, 2009
Here's the letter I just sent; please send one too:

Mr. David Young
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager
Western Area Power Administration
Sierra Nevada Region
114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630

Mr. Young,

I am opposed to the proposed eastern route that skirts the east side of Chico. We are a young family dwelling on the northeast side of Chico in a peaceful neighborhood facing the foothills. If the eastern route were chosen, I am concerned about that:

1. The construction activities would be disruptive to us and our neighbors
2. The towers and lines would mar our view of mountains
3. The lines would create a buzzing noise as do the other towers further up in the hills; this is very noticeable when passing under them in Bidwell Upper Park. An additional set of lines over the park would further degrade residentís experience of the park.
4. The lines will have a negative effect on wildlife.
5. The electrical field generated by the power transmission so close to large populations would have a deleterious health effect on my family, our neighborhood, and the residents of Chico.

I am also opposed to the central route that goes through the heartland of Sacramento Valley agriculture. The western route seems to be disruptive to the least amount of people, therefore I favor that route.

Thanks for your consideration,

Kurt A. Jorgensen
address
John

Chico, CA

#4 Apr 28, 2009
It doesn't matter where they put them people will cry..

Fact is they put them down or they raise the rates to keep people from wasting or still have options of rolling black outs..

grow up people...
Paradise motorcyclist

Yolo, CA

#5 Apr 28, 2009
If the West side has established right-of-way, access and towers, why not keep the project there. Minimize the environmental, infrastructure disturbances, I-5 provides an excellent transportation base. Avoid the bird/flyway issues and litigation that an East side project will certainly bring. Are we missing some undertone agenda here?
Harry in Chico

Menlo Park, CA

#6 Apr 28, 2009
Could this be a case of offering two terrible alternatives so the one you really want gets pushed through?? It's the only reason I can think of for such a hair-brained plan.
steveg

Amity, OR

#7 Apr 28, 2009
Much better solution. Power seems to be for the bay area south. Build a nuke plant where SF city hall is. Then go south. Problem solved.
Russ

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#8 Apr 28, 2009
I agree with Harry. Let's back up and look at the basic premise. Is this really "green power" and why don't we put the power production where it is used (Distributed Generation/DG)? How can this be "green" when they are planning to clearcut (forever) forests, orchards and habitat on over 50,000 acres? How many fragile high desert acres around Susanville will be affected/destroyed? Why is it OK to lose a significant portion of this power by transmitting it so far? Silicon Valley is trying to remake itself as the "solar capitol". Why not put solar panels on roofs, etc there? How is putting a 600 mile transmission line going to make our power more secure? Last time I checked it out, the best way to secure something is to not put it all in one spot and keep it close to where it is needed. I believe strongly in renewable power. This whole plan is stupid.
steveg

Amity, OR

#9 Apr 28, 2009
Russ wrote:
I agree with Harry. Let's back up and look at the basic premise. Is this really "green power" and why don't we put the power production where it is used (Distributed Generation/DG)? How can this be "green" when they are planning to clearcut (forever) forests, orchards and habitat on over 50,000 acres? How many fragile high desert acres around Susanville will be affected/destroyed? Why is it OK to lose a significant portion of this power by transmitting it so far? Silicon Valley is trying to remake itself as the "solar capitol". Why not put solar panels on roofs, etc there? How is putting a 600 mile transmission line going to make our power more secure? Last time I checked it out, the best way to secure something is to not put it all in one spot and keep it close to where it is needed. I believe strongly in renewable power. This whole plan is stupid.
Right on...
Wolfmanjohn

San Francisco, CA

#10 Apr 28, 2009
Not on the east side of Chico you don't! We already have one set of power lines running through our neighborhood. Put it on the western route with the established right-of-way and keep it away from populated areas.

Or as stated above, let the majority who would benefit from the power build a generating facility in their own backyard (the stinking bay area).
Michael Robinson

Chico, CA

#11 Apr 28, 2009
I think it should be near the 5. It there someone I can call to make it on the central route mailing list. I live near the proposed route.
Russ

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#12 Apr 29, 2009
First let me say that I live in Winters, CA not IL. The joys of technology! Another option if the powers that be (who are "they" anyway?)really think that we need Mega renewable power facilities is to place it on land that is not good farm land around San Luis Dam. If this land is irrigated, then that water could become available for other farms. The land is already environmentally impacted. The dam is designed and already built as a gigantic battery to balance power needs for this part of CA. The transmission lines, substations, switch yards, etc. are already there. All that is missing are the "solar farms". These could be built and maintained by the workers who are struggling due to the water shortage. The landowners could either rent the land to solar developers or do it themselves and develope an on-going source of revenue and jobs. The power generation is close to where the load is. This could be done NOW, with very few negative impacts. We would stimulate the solar panel industry NOW, creating more jobs and helping our economy. We could have this renewable power within a very short time (less than a year?)instead of the many years (if ever) before TANC comes on-line. I have struggled to find a negative, but so far have not been able to, other than it is not distributed generation and keeps the power in the hands of a few and it doesn't benefit the Susanville area. This is a viable option that needs to be proposed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stanislaus County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stanislaus County Mugshots and Criminal Arrest ... (Sep '16) May '17 Sixty 3
News Oakdale man arrested for allegedly sneaking awa... (Jun '07) Dec '16 Your Service Prov... 8
News North Valley leaders fuel bipartisan fast track... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Lucy Jane 1
News Modesto Elects New Mayor (Feb '16) Feb '16 Kent 3
News Suspect in fatal Oakdale shooting dies in Stani... (Jan '13) Sep '15 Yourewrongasshole 23
News Ryan Neal Mazzariello, 25, of Oakdale suspected... (Nov '12) May '15 Emily 48
News Diablo Grande closes course, defaults on loan (Feb '08) Feb '15 Ricky1 25
More from around the web