Category Archives: Green Energy

City Of Our Dreams, Economic Development, Environment, Ethics, Green Energy, Health, Public Policy, Safety, Social Capital

Add Your Name To Riverside Neighbors Demanding Underground RTRP Transmission Lines

3 Comments

RTRP Route Map

At June’s UNA meeting, we will take a vote to submit the following letter on behalf of our neighborhood group, and joining groups from across the city who are demanding a safer, transmission line project.

Thousands of Riverside residents will be affected by higher insurance rates, lower property values, viewshed  destruction, enhanced wildfire risk, other public safety risks, plus the theft of generational equity from some of our most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Dear City Council Members,  I am writing to you on behalf of the University Neighborhood Association with a request to reconsider the  vote to stop the working group from obtaining the  information needed to proceed with a request to  underground the power lines in our city.

As a concerned citizen,  who has witnessed both past and  present  Councils echoing the Community’s voice,  saying that we do  not have enough information or cost data regarding this project, I remain dismayed at the refusal to get that information.

Yet we persist in a course of action we all know is fraught with peril and foreseeable public health and safety risks. The very risks you swore an oath to put foremost in your elected stewardship duties. This is a risk to current and future residents as well as a dire risk to our regional neighbors who expect more from a city always eager to take leadership for innovation.

It is especially dismaying that we are proceeding in spite of State requirements that all new transmission line projects shall be underground. Did we not get the memo?

This is information we do have. We also know the easement needed to proceed is not forthcoming unless this project is underground. We know the longer we delay the greater the fire danger and the costs.

I am wondering if any of you have considered the possibility of having a shovel-ready project in three years and built in five?

What is needed is the political will to request a new EIR or Supplemental EIR to include current conditions. I know that if there was political will, time frames can be shortened.

We also have a mayor who is an expert in this arena and I am urging you Mayor Dawson, to bring the best of your considerable talents, experience, and demonstrated love for Riverside to show up on this.  Your legacy is at risk. Have you considered the optics of having an environmental expert as mayor and proceeding with this monstrosity of a project? Even Edison is telling us to underground everywhere except for the City of Riverside apparently.

Political will  gives us all the information we need and the project ready to submit in less than a year – if we require it. And if this project is as critical to our future as Staff, Edison, SEIU, the Chamber and a host of paid performers, shilling during Council deliberations, have said it is, then it is equally critical to listen to your community.

One of you needs to step up and request a reconsideration to get this rolling. If we are serious about need and the speed, then the shortest time frame starts with a new EIR process. One or all of you newly elected has an opportunity to step up and demonstrate the kind of leadership we have seen from Councilmen Conder, Hemenway and Councilwoman Cervantes.

We expect you to do your jobs and due diligence on this or risk the likely result of being a one term councilman.

Gurumantra Khalsa
Co Chair, University Neighborhood Assn.
951-640-3868

 

 

 

Economic Development, Environment, Green Energy, Parks, Resoration Economy, Safety

RTRP Reconsideration Request To City Council

1 Comment

Our council needs to hear from you on this issue. Thousands of Riverside residents will be affected by insurance rates, viewshed  destruction, enhanced wildfire risk, and a host of forseeable public health and safety issues.

Here’s a sample request from another neighborhood group:

Hi Neighbor,

High Power Transmission Line Tower

I’m asking you to request the City Council reconsider the motion to stop the undergrounding working group.

Click here to send email

Please watch the video and then click on the link above.  This will send an email to all of the City Council Members. All you have to do is click on the link and sign your name.

You can also sign the Petition LINK to have them research putting the power lines underground.

Here is what the email says:  (if you could add a few words of your own at the beginning, that would be great)

Dear City Council Members, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you with a friendly request to reconsider the recent vote on stopping the working group for undergrounding the power lines in our city. As a concerned citizen, I believe that allowing the working group to continue its efforts could greatly benefit our community. By exploring the possibility of undergrounding the power lines, we have the opportunity to enhance the safety, aesthetics, and overall quality of life for our residents. One of the primary advantages of undergrounding power lines is the reduced risk of outages caused by severe weather conditions, falling trees, or other external factors. This increased reliability can be particularly beneficial for businesses and essential services, ensuring uninterrupted operations and minimizing economic losses. Additionally, undergrounding power lines can significantly improve the visual appeal of our neighborhoods and public spaces. Removing the unsightly overhead lines and poles can contribute to a more attractive and inviting environment, potentially increasing property values and fostering a sense of community pride. While I understand that there may be concerns regarding the costs associated with undergrounding power lines, it is important to note that Edison’s quoted figures of $40-50 million per mile seem to be significantly higher than the estimates provided by PG&E and the Federal Government, which range from $2-6 million per mile. It would be prudent for the City Council to demand a detailed explanation from Edison regarding this discrepancy. Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention the new PG&E pilot program called the Ground-Level Distribution System. This innovative approach not only offers cost savings but also promises a quicker installation process compared to traditional undergrounding methods. By allowing the working group to continue its efforts, we can thoroughly explore these alternative options and potentially find a solution that balances the benefits of undergrounding with cost-effectiveness. It is important to note that Edison does not yet possess the necessary easements to proceed with the installation of new towers. This presents an opportune moment for our city to carefully evaluate all available options before committing to a course of action. I kindly request that the City Council reconsider the decision to stop the working group and instead encourage their continued exploration of undergrounding possibilities. By doing so, we can ensure that our city remains at the forefront of progress, prioritizing the well-being and satisfaction of our residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to a productive dialogue and a collaborative effort toward finding the best solution for our community.

Residents for Responsible Representation

RRR.LaSierra@gmail.com

951.217.7966

In collaboration with:

Mission Grove Neighborhood Alliance

missiongrovena@gmail.com

https://www.missiongrovena.org/

951-394-2526

 

 

 

City Of Our Dreams, Economic Development, Environment, Green Energy, Public Policy, Resoration Economy, Safety

Raise Your Voice Against SCE Lawsuit Threat For Transmission Lines

Leave a comment

Hi Power Transmission Tower

Ask for a new EIR with underground option  included

Our city and our region will be severely endangered from building high voltage transmission  lines above ground in a severe fire risk area.

The State has mandated all new lines be built underground. SCE is threatening to sue Riverside for protecting our future generations.

Take Action. Here’s  How  Sign the Petition. Here’s the link to the petition https://chng.it/TtdYgZNdmf   

My ask of YOU…as many of you as can do 😊

  • SHOW UP if possible Tuesday May 14th at the CC meeting; RTRP is on the Agenda. 6 pm, Item 25,  Council Chambers.

 

  • Write and CALL ALL Council Members NOW and state your position on a new EIR for undergrounding the RTRP  If they are unsure or unwilling, ask for the issue to be added as a ballot initiative for November. (Include Mayor,  City Manager and DEFINITELY the City Clerk) asking that your emails become public record.

Clarissa Cervantes  Chuck Conder  Jim Perry  Steve Hemenway  Philip Falcone  Steve Robillard  Sean Mill        Mayor Lock Dawson   City Manager Mike Futrell    Donesia Gause City Clerk

  • e-Comment – Agenda item 25
  • Zoom participation:https://zoom.us/j/92696991265
    Select the “raise hand” function to request to speak.
    An on-screen message will prompt you to “unmute” and speak.
  • Phone participation: Call (951) 826-8686, and follow the prompts to access your language of preference.Press *9 to be placed in the queue to speak.Individuals in the queue will be prompted to unmute by pressing *6 to speak. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes.

City Of Our Dreams, Economic Development, Environment, Green Energy, Public Policy, Resoration Economy

Leave A Voicemail At CPUC – Underground RTRP – Voting Thursday

Leave a comment

Hi Power Transmission Tower

The CPUC is voting Thurs. Mar 21st whether or not to underground the RTRP.  This is a pivotal moment to take action and share the call to action. Your voice for your future.

What can I do to support undergrounding the RTRP?

  • Email the Commissioners

    • If the link above does not work correctly, copy the following email addresses into a new email and use subject “Proceeding A1504013 – Underground RTRP”
      • alice.reynolds@cpuc.ca.gov;
      • genevieve.shiroma@cpuc.ca.gov;
      • darcie.houck@cpuc.ca.gov;
      • john.reynolds@cpuc.ca.gov;
      • karen.douglas@cpuc.ca.gov

  • Call and provide one minute of public comment at this week’s upcoming CPUC meeting

  • What To Say

Subject: “Proceeding A1504013 – Underground RTRP”

Dear Commissioners,

I am asking that you accept Norco’s Petition for further consideration to underground the RTRP (Riverside Transmission Reliability Project).

I WANT THIS PROJECT UNDERGROUND; I do not want overhead transmission lines for the following reasons:

  • This area is designated as a high fire zone
  • This would go through a Wildlife Nature Habitat
  • This would negatively impact a socioeconomically disadvantaged population (~ 82% Hispanic families) affecting their:
    • Generational Wealth
    • Their property value
    • Their quality of life
  • Towers that reach almost 200’ would impede helicopters and small planes from fighting fires with retardants subjecting residents to property loss and loss of lives
  • This land is used for the “recreation and enjoyment of the people” as this land was purchased with State Funding through California Department of Fish & Wildlife

There are more reasons than there is time for you to read, please know that Riverside residents, Norco residents, Jurupa Valley residents, Eastvale residents, and many more DO NOT WANT OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES.

Please review the entire comment file on this project. Almost all our elected officials have voiced their support for undergrounding this project.

(your name)

How do I learn more about the City of Norco’s request to underground the RTRP?

Green Energy, Public Policy, Resoration Economy

Judge Rules Against NORCO Pettition To Underground RTRP

Leave a comment

Hi Power Transmission Tower

 THE CPUC MEETS TOMORROW, Thursday Feb 15th, 11 a.m.

IN ORANGE COUNTY and can reverse the Judge’s decision

PLEASE CAN CALL IN – Your Voice Is Needed. Details Below

Date: 02/15/2024
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630;

also available via webcast or phone
Call-in-Number: (800) 857-1917
Participant PASSCODE: 9899501#
Contact: VotingMeetingHelp@cpuc.ca.gov or call (415) 703-5263
Webcast: http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc

Additional information including agenda can be found here.

Providing Public Comments:

If you would like to speak during the public comment period at the start of the meeting, you may comment in-person or participate by phone. We encourage you to call in or sign-up by 11 a.m. however you may make a public comment until the public comment period has ended.

Reminder: parties to a proceeding cannot speak to issues related to the proceeding to which they are a party, nor can the public comment on matters outside the CPUC’s jurisdiction or on adjudicatory matters.

Phone line:

Instructions:

  • If you are attending in-person and wish to make a public comment, please sign-up at the Public Advisor’s table.
  • To make a comment by phone, dial 1-800-857-1917 and enter the passcode for the English or Spanish phone line, as indicated above. To make a public comment, unmute your phone, and press *1 (star one) when prompted by the operator. Once you press *1 you will be prompted to state your name and/or organization, please do so slowly and clearly. The operator will call on you when it is your turn to speak.

If you experience difficulty calling into the Public Comment line, please send an email to VotingMeetingHelp@cpuc.ca.gov or call (415) 703-1496

Additional information on public comments and voting meetings can be found here.

Talking Points:

RE: A.15-04-013 – Full undergrounding of Riverside Transmission Reliability Project as proposed by Petition from the City of Norco in Riverside County

Edison has distributed false information about this project to everyone, including the City of Riverside. Such as:
1. The cost, Edison overstated the cost to be ~4.7 times greater, this was confirmed by an
independent consultant hired by Riverside and confirmed by Edison rep at a CC meeting
2. Edison misrepresented the additional time to build underground by almost 5 fold or greater which caused the City of Riverside to not consider underground in the initial
EIR…confirmed at city council meeting with both Edison Rep and Consultant hired by city in attendance.
3. Edison told the City of Riverside they were shovel ready…not true as the easements to build have not been purchased and one land owner was at the city council meeting and said he has made no arrangements to sell his property for an easement.
4. The fire risk; Edison has said the fire risk is minimal at best, this is a 2 Tier Fire rated area, possibly soon to be rated a 3 Tier Fire area
5. Governor Newsom signed legislation in 2023 declaring that NO OVERHEAD transmission lines will be built in California due to the fire risk. Edison is pushing to go forward as the project was approved prior to this safety legislation being signed.
6. Riverside residents DO NOT WANT overhead transmission lines
7. These lines are behind homes
8. These lines would go through a wildlife habitat
9. Norco residents do not want overhead transmission lines
10.Jurupa Valley did not want overhead transmission lines and the CPUC allowed Jurupa Valley to do a supplemental EIR and the CPUC voted to have Edison UNDERGROUND
the lines through Jurupa Valley, a contiguous neighbor of Riverside

Facts:
 Project will not cost a “billion dollars”
 Project is not shovel ready
 The project regardless of above or below ground will be spread out over every rate payer in the state – either way will cost approximately $1.00 additional per year. (Cal
Strategies: Steve Larson & Hope Christman/CPUC)
 We will be petitioning for the entire length of line: under river, Norco, County, La Sierra
(we are correcting the press release)
 No Riverside residents’ rates will go up more then a dollar per year due to this project
 Norco has hired the same attorney and consultant who undergrounded Jurupa Valley and Chino Hills
 Undergrounding in the EIR was deemed the superior way to go but it was not explored.
 In the short term undergrounding disturbs the area but in the long term is better for the environment
 When high transmission lines go up, it impedes the ability for helicopters to drop water on fires – that is exactly what saved Norco during the two large fires on our SW and SE quadrant – without those helicopters Norco would have been in trouble.
 The center of Norco is rated highest for fire danger.
 The river bottom is an urban forest – the EIR downplays the vegetation
 The EIR was completed prior to the devastating Paradise Fire, Norco’s two major fires and Lahaina.
 The Santa Ana winds reach a higher wind speed than the hurricane winds that caused the Lahaina fire.

City Of Our Dreams, Environment, Green Energy, Social Capital

RTRP Transmission Lines Along River Vote

Leave a comment

Attention Please Sign

 

 

 

 

 

URGENT City Council to vote on this TUESDAY Nov 15

We have a chance to get these underground!

New consultant finds it is AFFORDABLE!

Do you care about transmission lines being placed overhead at Hidden Valley and behind the homes of many Ward 7 residents?

Independent consultants have found that under grounding can be AFFORDABLE!  SCE said lines would cost ~ $57 million per mile;

Los Angeles and San Diego placed lines in a similar project for $11 million a mile.

Every rate payer in Riverside has been paying for these for 12/18 years on RPU bill (Reliability Project)…we have the money.  Also, consultants say grants are available to minimize the cost.

Speak Now! It is time to be heard!

Our City Council will be voting on this project on TUESDAY November 15th! What you can do:

  1. Write to EVERY council member and express your thoughts. You can address one email to all members and include the city clerk.
  2. You can call every council member NOW! You can THANK Councilman Hemenway for giving us this opportunity.
  3. You can attend the meeting and speak if you would like or support those who do speak. (I will get the time to you this week)
  4. You can call into the meeting, if you can’t attend, and speak

If you want these lines underground, NOW IS THE TIME to write, call and be heard! Here’s a link to make an e Comment for agenda Item #20

This is a critical juncture; you must speak up NOW!  We have a chance of under grounding based on the findings of the Independent Consultants brought in by Councilman Steven Hemenway.

Chuck Conder – cconder@riversideca.gov

Phone: (951) 826-5991

Mobile: (951) 990-9718

Clarissa Cervantes  ccervantes@riversideca.gov

Phone: (951) 826-5991

Erin Edwards  eedwards@riversideca.gov

Phone: (951) 826-5242

Gaby Plascencia  GPlascencia13@gmail.com

(951) 782-0330

Perry, Jim J.  JPerry@riversideca.gov

(951) 826-5991

Ronaldo Fierro  RonaldoForRiverside@gmail.com

(951) 826-5905

Steve Hemenway (shemenway@riversideca.gov)

(951) 826-5024

Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson  2mayor@riversideca.gov

(951 826 5551)

City Clerk  city_clerk@riversideca.gov

Donesia Gause, MMC

Transmission Tower

 

 

 

Neighborhood Issues & Resources

Neighbors Better Together

Follow Our Courts

US Covid Atlas

Riverside Neighborhood Partnership

 

City Of Our Dreams, Economic Development, Green Building, Green Energy, Public Policy, Resoration Economy

Save California Solar

Leave a comment

Save Solar California Logo

Hi Friends,

I signed this petition to Governor Newsom to keep rooftop solar growing in California. Will you consider signing it too?

https://www.savecaliforniasolar.org/sign-petition

Utilities are lobbying the state to make it harder and more expensive for people to get solar. They are trying to gut net metering, which lets solar users share their extra solar energy with the neighbors for a bill credit.

Even though we have Riverside Public Utilities, we can be doing so much more to lower our energy costs and raise our comfort level. Expanding city rooftop solar should maximize coverage to reduce our collective costs.

We need to make it easier for people to get rooftop solar so they can control over their energy bills and keep the power on. Will you consider signing and forwarding to others?

Green Energy, Health, Resoration Economy

Do Your Pipes Pose A Risk Or Contain Lead?

Leave a comment

Galvanized Pipe With Lead

Here’s a good overview on the problem of lead in our communities. Lead in pipes, paint and gasoline. Riverside, being a older community, should review the possible impacts.

Has RPU changed out any lead pipes? Have we ever conducted a survey of our housing stock, to understand the possible depth of exposure locally?  Should the city work with county environmental health to provide educational outreach?  Are there grants for such public health education or abatement programs?

As a point made in this discussion, the impact mostly falls upon our lower income neighborhoods who reside in older housing stock.

Also, to some degree, just as the lead industry pushed back on the science on lead impacts, the PCB industry has pushed back on the science on PCBs. Something to keep in mind when considering the AG Park.

Green Energy, Resoration Economy

It’s Actually Kinda Easy Being Green

Leave a comment

Here’s how Burlington, Vermont, realized its vision of using 100% renewable energy. Riverside is larger but we’re on our way.

Max-O-Matic Illustration Burlington Vermont Green Strategy

The city of Burlington, Vermont, has been experimenting with green energy since the early 1980s, when it replaced an old-fashioned coal-burning electric plant with one that burned wood chips—something the state’s forestry industry could provide cheaply and reliably. It wasn’t until 2004, however, when the state agreed to join a market for renewable-energy credits recently established in the Northeast that going fully green became the goal.

“That was the first time we had an inkling that this might be the right thing to do”—not just for the environment, but for the Burlington Electric Department and its customers, says Ken Nolan, who was a resource planner there at the time. The city’s long-term contract with a nearby nuclear plant had recently expired, a short-term natural-gas contract was set to expire soon, and rapid technological advances were making solar and wind power cheaper every day. Finally, says Nolan, “We actually saw a path where we could make this work.”

Last fall, Burlington became the first U.S. city to run on 100% renewable electricity. Nolan, who is now the city’s manager of power resources, acknowledges that it has benefited from some unique circumstances, including proximity to bountiful natural resources—rivers to generate hydropower, vast open spaces for wind farms—and a population of die-hard liberals who passed bond initiatives to pay for everything. A few smaller communities beat Burlington to 100% green status, including Greensburg, Kansas, population 785, which was forced to rebuild after a tornado destroyed the town in 2007. But Burlington, population 42,384, is by far the largest municipality to sever ties with traditional power.

Green energy is still more expensive than coal, but Burlington has managed to keep costs stable by selling credits to utilities in states such as Massachusetts, which requires energy producers to meet certain renewable-energy benchmarks. When utilities fall short of those mandated goals, they must buy certificates through the regional market from a place like Burlington, and Burlington then passes along that revenue to its power customers as savings, like an energy subsidy doled out via the open market.

It’s a somewhat messy process that some environmentalists criticize: If a utility can buy credit for green energy it didn’t actually produce, it isn’t making progress toward producing more green energy. But with the cost of renewables continuing to fall, Nolan says, “there are years when the prices have been low enough that we’ve considered retiring the credit.”

Meanwhile, Burlington is continuing to beef up its green-energy infrastructure. A new solar array at the city’s airport came online early this year, part of a mayoral initiative to use any available city land for solar power. And thanks to a program that offers free energy audits, technical support, and discounts on energy-efficient products, the city actually uses less power today than it did in 1989.

[Illustration: Max-o-matic]

A version of this article appeared in the September 2015 issue of Fast Company magazine.