Johnboy wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:24 AM:We need to be cutting our energy consumption by 20%, not increasing our supply. The Sunrise project is just Sempra Corporations attempt to keep us addicted to excessive power use.

Reality wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:44 AM:Even if everyone cut thier use by 20%, which by the way I'm down almost 50% from 5yrs ago, the population is going to continue grow, as will the housing and so will the job base, so we will still need extra capacity. The nimbys just need to face reality, that they can't stop progress.

Nothing will work wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:48 AM:Lindsay isn't trying to find a solution. To her there is no solution except her way. Environmentalist brought this on themsleves by dictating so much power be developed from natural sources. Oh my gosh you mean I might see a Power line tower. We spend most of the winter weekends at Ocotilla Wells. There are already power lines there. One more is not going to hurt a thing.

Won't Matter wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:01 AM:It's clear that the core people that oppose the powerlink will oppose it no matter what Sempra does. They'll use whatever excuse is easiest, but in the end it just won't matter. If Sempra found a way to magically beam the electricity to the coast, the opponents would still find something wrong with it. The first post here represents that way of thinking. That's just the way these "activists" work. It's their "religion".

Sempra puppet wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:20 AM: Sempra is desperate to build the power link, their Costa Azul's LNG plant is 3 months away from its first dump of imported fossil fuel from Malaysia. Well, not desperate enough to actually pay for the line with corporate larder. That's the job of fool ratepayers, while they plow through the "free" land of our state park. Sunrise has never been about renewable energy, merely a disguise for our addiction to oil while sending LNG-based electricity to LA. Sempra has gone to great lengths to avoid US environmental laws; so much so that Mexico and Malaysia will be able to cut our energy flow at their whims. Sunrise supporters' greatest challenge will be explaining the greenhouse gas disaster to their grandchildren.

Oh brother! wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:25 AM:Don't these bloggers and the utility know that people are trying to preserve the quality of life for ALL citizens? Activist is not a dirty name anyway no matter how you stretch it. Jefferson and Galileo were activists. Think where we'd be without them. Probably dead of the plague in an overcrowded continent elsewhere.

PK wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:50 AM:Blah, blah, blah. Environment needs to be protected, beauty of nature needs to be protected, we need to have pretty scenery. If you want to see open spaces without power lines and population, move to Montana. You live in Southern California, a highly condensed population and with that comes buildings in place of valleys and power lines in place of trees. I wonder if these activists run thier A/C in the summer and then complain when there is a black out?

Backcountry wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:02 PM:PK - perhaps you should take a drive to the back country and experience first hand what this line will destroy.

The back country ranchers have always conserved energy, most have gravity flow springs, few have air conditioning. Most heat with wood stoves and fireplaces.

The townsite of Santa Ysabel boost a population of 400 and that takes in about a 7 mile radius. "highly condensed population" not so.

Don't generalize. It is not only the environmentalist opposed to the line, but many long time ranching families as well.

Dane wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:50 PM:If you want power in Carmel Valley build a power plant in Carmel Valley instead of 150 miles away. If they really want to bring in power from that far away, supposedly for geothermal power but likely for Mexican power, then run it along I-8 rather than destroying more natural land. What's the point of protecting land by having a state park only to destroy it?

PK wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:45 PM:Backcountry...I take a drive in that area all the time and yes, it is pretty, but it is still Southern California. I moved to Temecula when there were 35K people and now there are over 100K. The appeal of SoCal causes growth and it is everywhere. Because that area happens to be less populated, everybody else is suppose to go out of thier way to keep those 400 people happy? As far as back country ranchers conserving energy, wood stoves and fireplaces use trees (are they having them shipped in from other areas?) and release polution. I have heard rumor they are trying to outlow wood fireplaces, what are they going to do then? Like I said, if you want vast country without having to see signs of civilization, move to Montana. That's where I intend on going.

MtnResident wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:20 PM:I agree 100% with Backcountry. It's not just Anza Borrego, but other sensitive areas like the Santa Ysabel Valley (an incredibly beautiful and historically important place) that will be adversly impacted by the Sunrise Powerlink.

-I live in the SD mountains and I use FAR LESS energy now than when I lived on the coast, despite much hotter summers and colder winters. Like most of my neighbors, I keep the thermostat set at 80 in the summer and heat with wood stoves in the winter (and only when it's really cold). I'm quite conscientious of how much I consume. It's something that came natural once I moved out of the city. It's a shame most in the city haven't figured this out yet. Conservation is part of the solution, not more construction and wasteful consumption.

-When the power goes out, I don't complain. In fact, I get by just fine.

-Just because it's So Cal doesn't automatically give us the green light to errect giant towers in state parks or continue to build build build until there is no more open space to build on. Yes, we can move to Montana, but what about our local endangered species? They can't go anywhere. San Diego county claims more endangered species than any county in the lower 48 states. Some of these endagered species can only be found in places where Sunrise is to be built. These last remaining open spaces are incredibly important to San Diego... let's not destroy them simply because "It's Southern California." These open spaces are part of the draw of So Cal, not just the weather. If we allow these lines to be constructed in state parks and wildlife preserves... then where? Do we route giant powerlines through Yosemite?

GoSolar wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:41 PM:SDG&E could outfit 150,000 homes with solar for the same amount of money!! The benefits would be increased jobs for installation of solar, increased jobs for Californians that build solar and do research on Solar. A return of Electricity to SDGE with ZERO inpact on the desert enviroment.
We are long overdue to begin thinking outside the box. We need freedom from foreign oil countries and new thinking. GO SOLAR!!!

Backcountry wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:20 AM:PK - the point is the people whos land is being destroyed by this powerlink are the very people who conserve energy. I do not understand about shipping trees. You will find that ranchers cut down wood for wood stoves and fireplaces, which results in less fuel during a wildfire.

The area this powerlink is going through is not Temecula and is zoned in such a way that it will never be densly populated without San Diego County changing their general plan.

I am sure the 400 people in Santa Ysabel do no feel it is right to give up their private land to facilitate the greed of Sempra and the waste of city dwellers.

Bill wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:17 PM:Have you ever flown over San Diego County, and looked at all the acreage of industrial park roofs, not to mention home roofs? Make SDG&E put solar panels on all those roofs, and they'll meet their renewable energy requirements and won't need the Powerlink.