People, not just politicians, pay a lot of lipservice to clean energy. Are they serious?
Take California’s three-year running battle over proposed new transmission lines to
carry more renewable energy to the San Diego area. The route proposed
by the utility, San Diego Gas & Electric, would go through a
national park—which has sparked plenty of opposition by
environmentalists and local residents.
Where do things stand? The environment seems to be trumping energy, according to the draft conclusions just
published by the California Public Utility Commission. Far from
endorsing SDG&E’s transmission plan, California officials say the “environmentally superior” alternative
would be to build five new fossil-fuel power plants at “already
disturbed sites”; SDG&E’s proposals are at the bottom of the
commission’s list of eight viable alternatives.
That’s frustrating for the power company, which says the only way to
comply with state requirements to build more renewable energy is to
build new lines to carry the juice. It’s also frustrating for local
businessmen, who say they’d like to see more power to keep their
businesses running.
But most of the hundreds of public comments collected on the
proposed “Sunrise Power Link” express strong opposition. People said
they’re worried downed power lines will mean more wildfires, will wreck
home values, or fear the plan is a smokescreen to transmit fossil
energy from plants in Mexico. Most, though, are simple variations of
old-fashioned NIMBYism. Tim Larson of Sonoma County, Ca., wrote via email:
Political rhetoric over clean energy is only going to heat up, even
if oil prices are settling down. Expect the fight to shift from vague
yearnings for alternative energy to the nitty-gritty details of how to
actually get that new energy into people’s homes.
