Matthew Lickona 11:49 p.m., Dec. 10
ADVISORY: Sending Sunrise Powerlink Comments to Forest Service
See Onell Soto's article entitled "Forest Service holds up Powerlink permit: Cleveland National Forest chief wants 45 days of comment" at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/16/forest-service-holds-up-powerlink-permit/
Background: Construction of SDG&E’s Sunrise Powerlink between San Diego and the Imperial Valley can’t begin until the company gets U.S. Forest Service approval for a 19-mile stretch inside the Cleveland National Forest.
What’s changing: A year and a half after SDG&E applied for a permit, Forest Supervisor William Metz said he still doesn’t have enough information and wants to hear from the public about possible impacts on the forest.
What’s next: Construction, which was supposed to begin in June, will be delayed until after Metz analyzes the comments and decides whether to approve the permit or undertake an even more thorough environmental review.
TO COMMENT WITHIN 45 DAYS
Mail: Send written comments to William Metz, Forest Supervisor, 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92127, ATTN: Sunrise Powerlink Comments
Fax: (858) 673-6192
E-mail: email@example.com, with a subject line of “Sunrise Powerlink Comments”
Phone: (858) 673-6180
In person: At the address above
It's time to prepare some comments worth making.
Personally, Supervisor Metz should approve crossing into the Cleveland National Forest by SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink project AS LONG AS ALL OF THAT ENCROACHING PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS UNDERGROUND AT ALL TIMES, ALONG WITH ALL UTILITY ACCESS TO ALL UNDERGROUND PORTIONS to comply with the Forest Service's "standards for scenic integrity."
When I send Metz my comments, I'll include citations to an applicable California Public Utility Commission decision that says no matter what the cost for required undergounding, Sempra Energy and its shareholders need to foot that bill before coming to SDG&E ratepayers for us to pay for it. CC to Supervisor Metz' boss at the White House.
There is a reason why Proposition 16 is on the June primary ballot as a means of stifling massive consumer dissatisfaction with investor owned public utilities, where those utilities are owned by holding companies that make billion$ each year. On that profit basis, PG&E has no complaint kicking in only $28-$35 million to get Prop. 16 passed by unsuspecting California voters.