A former member
Post #: 10
"The cost would be high, $60 billion or more" Perhaps "we the people" would be better served if we focused on distributed generation, which would keep the business opportunities and green jobs local, improve the reliability, and reduce or eliminate the need for major new transmission lines.

If the $60 billion were invested in "feed-in tariffs" (California's AB 1920) businesses and homeowners would get paid for surplus renewable electrical generation, rather than gifting it to the utilities. Feed-in tariffs are what has moved Germany (which receives 50% of the sunshine of California) to become one of the world's leaders in solar installation.

$60 billion for major transmission lines would enable the electrical power industry to continue to be controlled by a relatively small number of major power players that have a history of putting corporate profits ahead of the best interests of the consumer (think Enron, Sempra, and the manipulation of the market that brought us California's "energy crisis" and the "Governator").

We have a major example in our own backyard with the SDG&E/Sempra/Carlyle Group proposal to run a massive power line through San Diego's back country and Anza Borrego state park. The pitch is to bring us Imperial County sunshine, although an increasing number of people think the real goal is to bring us LNG from Russia and Indonesia via tanker to Ensenada, and then pipeline to Mexican power plants that are across the border from the proposed eastern terminus of the Sunrise Power Link (www.sdsmartenergy.org)

I much prefer to support main street renewable energy proposals rather than the Wall Street multi-national corporation vision of a renewable energy future.

Don Christiansen
A former member
Post #: 291
"The cost would be high, $60 billion or more" Perhaps "we the people" would be better served if we focused on distributed generation, which would keep the business opportunities and green jobs local, improve the reliability, and reduce or eliminate the need for major new transmission lines.

If the $60 billion were invested in "feed-in tariffs" (California's AB 1920) businesses and homeowners would get paid for surplus renewable electrical generation, rather than gifting it to the utilities. Feed-in tariffs are what has moved Germany (which receives 50% of the sunshine of California) to become one of the world's leaders in solar installation.

$60 billion for major transmission lines would enable the electrical power industry to continue to be controlled by a relatively small number of major power players that have a history of putting corporate profits ahead of the best interests of the consumer (think Enron, Sempra, and the manipulation of the market that brought us California's "energy crisis" and the "Governator").

We have a major example in our own backyard with the SDG&E/Sempra/Carlyle Group proposal to run a massive power line through San Diego's back country and Anza Borrego state park. The pitch is to bring us Imperial County sunshine, although an increasing number of people think the real goal is to bring us LNG from Russia and Indonesia via tanker to Ensenada, and then pipeline to Mexican power plants that are across the border from the proposed eastern terminus of the Sunrise Power Link (www.sdsmartenergy.org)

I much prefer to support main street renewable energy proposals rather than the Wall Street multi-national corporation vision of a renewable energy future.

Don Christiansen

Yes! Exactly my sentiments too. I did not even write it! Maybe everybody sees things exactly like I do and I've just been wasting time trying to give information so that others would hopefully come to see things the way I do!
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy