Author Topic: March 5, 2019 Board Meeting (Read 68689 times)

tlc · « **Reply #40 on:** Mar 06, 19, 06:24:10 PM »

In the future could everyone please post items and comments regarding this project on the two Wrightwood Facebook pages in addition to the Forum.

That would be The Real Wrightwood page and the Wrightwood page with combined members of 10,000. This promotional avenue is another way to reach out to our community whose input is needed on this topic and all CSD issues.

tcaarabians · « **Reply #41 on:** Mar 06, 19, 06:45:36 PM »

You can also just post the link to this discussion on the other pages. I've done that on Next Door for some of the crime issues like the picture of that guy from yesterday. It's easier than reconstructing a post multiple times.

Wrightwood · « **Reply #42 on:** Mar 06, 19, 06:56:30 PM »

Audio March 5, 2019 WCSD Board Meeting
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/CSD/WCSD.3.5.19.MP3

Index (recording minutes of time)
03:38 to 20:40 Public comments
30:04 to 80:08 Support letter wind energy project

tlc · « **Reply #43 on:** Mar 06, 19, 08:34:33 PM »

RE: Posting Link

It won't provide the visual needed to spark interest as much as a copy and paste of the post.

ak7v · « **Reply #44 on:** Mar 07, 19, 12:38:37 AM »

Thanks for posting the audio.

Why does One Town need CSD support to explore? Why not explore, present the details to CSD, and then ask for support? Is someone stopping them from doing the studies?

It looks like their estimate on how much money they can get selling power is several years old. I've heard stories recently that Southern California is over-producing power on sunny days now due to solar adoption and "peak pricing" hours might switch to promote using more power during the day. This makes me think there may be less demand for purchasing electricity and less money to be made. Would be nice to get a current quote from SCE on what that power is worth.

Also, in the letter they asked CSD to sign, they mentioned power outages twice -- in two out of the three sentences that comprise the letter. The very first sentence implies that because we have had frequent power outages, we need to explore sustainable energy. Seems to me they're making power outage mitigation the prime selling point, and I don't know how it can be read otherwise. This was likely done to try and make it time relevant (why now? Why again?) and to attract people who aren't as swayed by the environmental benefits.

So, in my mind it's more than fair to request elaboration on how that would work. And I think it's unwise for CSD to sign the letter as written because it's so heavily selling something (power outage mitigation) that I can't see support for in the document.

Glad it was tabled pending more information. Sounds like the people there raised good questions.

KW · « **Reply #45 on:** Mar 07, 19, 01:57:44 AM »

Exactly, agreed on all points.

Cheapskate · « **Reply #46 on:** Mar 08, 19, 05:08:55 AM »

Quote from Wes Zuber: "Right now there is no competition at all, only SCE and what they decide. I would prefer competition as it does wonders in solving so many problems exactly like this one."

The Forum will enlighten me: does the local power company have competition anywhere in the USA? I thought home solar or windmill provides real-time power plus a pittance for your contribution to the grid at that moment, but you pay for your nighttime/zero wind use since virtually no energy is stored. And the high ridge windmills One Town proposes will be linked to SCE, not "competition".

Also: Mr. Zuber, the composition of a CSD board reflects the view of the community in the most recent election. Y'all should consider how your actions will influence the next one.

Nolena · « **Reply #47 on:** Mar 08, 19, 01:00:43 PM »

It's good to read or reread Blount's letter from page 1. Many interesting points there.

The Boys Dad · « **Reply #48 on:** Mar 09, 19, 12:11:38 AM »

Wow. After reading the letter it seems someone didn't do any research into the basics of what is required before proceeding with such a project. If it was looked into, it would be almost impossible to deal with the scenic aspects that would not allow such development.

ChrisLynnet · « **Reply #49 on:** Mar 09, 19, 01:50:57 AM »

Quote from: The Boys Dad on Mar 09, 19, 12:11:38 AM

Wow. After reading the letter it seems someone didn't do any research into the basics of what is required before proceeding with such a project. If it was looked into, it would be almost impossible to deal with the scenic aspects that would not allow such development.

That's exactly what I thought when I read it. Pretty final letter.

lwt42 · « **Reply #50 on:** Mar 09, 19, 03:53:16 AM »

Quote from: Cheapskate on Mar 08, 19, 05:08:55 AM

The Forum will enlighten me: does the local power company have competition anywhere in the USA? I thought home solar or windmill provides real-time power plus a pittance for your contribution to the grid at that moment, but you pay for your nighttime/zero wind use since virtually no energy is stored. And the high ridge windmills One Town proposes will be linked to SCE, not "competition".

Once upon a time, you could buy power from anyone, and SCE would deliver it to you. You could buy cheaper power, or green power, or whatever.

I'm not sure that really survived California's deregulation.

SCE is in a very real sense a monopoly, and therefore subject to the will of the California Public Utilities Commission, which (theoretically) prevents them from running amok. Power and telephone companies are usually granted a monopoly so that there is one set of power lines and not several sets. Same for plain old telephone service and CATV. There are now exceptions, especially for telecoms.

Wes might say that the CPUC is in Edison's pocket, and I cannot argue that.

I'm doing this from memory, so feel free to double check.

SCE gets (according to my power bill) $0.03 per day and just under $0.12 per kilowatt to deliver energy to our homes. That covers the cost of running the grid, fixing outages, etc.

What we actually pay for power is supposed to be near break-even for SCE. They buy power on the open market, and sell it to us at their tariffed rate. If this part isn't break even, the tariff is adjusted.

The open market is managed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Nearly all of the generators are owned by for-profit generating companies, exceptions being hydroelectric and nuclear.

Yes, there are times when SCE is buying power at more than their selling cost, but there are also times when they're paying a lot less and it's supposed to balance out.

Best place to read up on this is probably the CAISO web site.

I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification, and the whole system is even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Bob C · « **Reply #51 on:** Mar 09, 19, 04:34:45 PM »

Quote from: lwt42 on Mar 09, 19, 03:53:16 AM

Once upon a time, you could buy power from anyone, and SCE would deliver it to you. You could buy cheaper power, or green power, or whatever.

I'm not sure that really survived California's deregulation.

Some places, like the city of Lancaster (and I'm sure others), are trying.. I'm still not sure there will ever be a "better deal" for consumers.

https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/residents/lancaster-choice-energy

tcaarabians · « **Reply #52 on:** Mar 09, 19, 05:41:31 PM »

The concept of what Wrightwood (and its sister cities Pinon Hills and Phelan) can do as local communities to address energy supply and costs is worthy of its own thread here. I do recall that there was some sort of language in the proposal for the WCSD that included a future wind project. I don't know if that language was maintained in the final approval of the WCSD. I'm guessing this recent request on the WCSD agenda for a "letter of support" is the same project. Either way, the WCSD and here in P.H. the PPHCSD, are community boards that can become a focal point for such discussions. An Ad Hoc group would work too.

I do think communities need to 'explore' what can be done at the local level to address the incorporation of renewable energy into their supply systems. One Town has one such proposal. Hopefully, that group will come back to the CSD at some point to flesh out their idea for broader community discussion. I also believe that communities need to look at the issue from a perspective that incorporates solar as well as wind. We can all likely agree that hydroelectric is not likely in our neck of the woods for local generation.

The PPHCSD invested in solar a few years ago for its water dept. electrical needs. I don't know if Golden State has any such plans. For me, I would much rather see localized and discreet sources for electricity generation than the huge wind and solar installations taking over our desert. Lancaster's model is one such that can be looked at. Lancaster is an incorporated city. I don't know what the County of San Bernardino is doing on this issue. I'd certainly like to participate in future discussions - if we look at it from a Tri-Community perspective. I have the electricity bills to spur my enthusiasm. I also see the whole issues of "climate change" as a driving force.

Wes Zuber - WWCSD · « **Reply #53 on:** Mar 11, 19, 12:37:49 AM »

Quote

Mr. Zuber, the composition of a CSD board reflects the view of the community in the most recent election. Y'all should consider how your actions will influence the next one.

If I get your meaning, (and I might have missed it), please feel free to fire me through the election process if that's your intention, that's what an election is for after all. I mean no animus by this, I really mean it and believe in the principle of elections and a representational government.

Wes Zuber - WWCSD · « **Reply #54 on:** Mar 11, 19, 01:01:14 AM »

Quote

The Forum will enlighten me: does the local power company have competition anywhere in the USA? I thought home solar or windmill provides real-time power plus a pittance for your contribution to the grid at that moment, but you pay for your nighttime/zero wind use since virtually no energy is stored. And the high ridge windmills One Town proposes will be linked to SCE, not "competition".

Even the mere threat of existence of any kind of competition brings forth accountability, and therefore restraint. Right now our rates are are anchored in the political and the unholy alliance of government and business, they wink and nod at each other until something really bad happens (as in the recent fires). We are at a pivotal time in history where the cost of producing and storing electricity has come down enough to be within tantalizing reach. Although One Town's proposal did not include storage, and I wish it had, it does offer competition. SCE would know that they are not the only producer in town. That in fact storage could be added, they are no longer in total control. That was the point I was trying to make in the context of competition.

Regards,

--Wes

tcaarabians · « **Reply #55 on:** Mar 11, 19, 03:02:45 PM »

The attached is an editorial from the LATimes today. It discusses the issues surrounding San Bernardino County's move to limit development of large solar/wind projects in the desert.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-san-bernardino-solar-farm-ban-climate-change-20190311-story.html

Wrightwood · « **Reply #56 on:** Mar 11, 19, 05:25:25 PM »

lwt42 · « **Reply #57 on:** Mar 12, 19, 05:08:54 PM »

We tend to think of Wrightwood as being part of San Bernadino County, and that's mostly true.

If wind is being installed near the top of Mt. High, that's in Los Angeles County.

tcaarabians · « **Reply #58 on:** Mar 12, 19, 05:27:48 PM »

True. LA County bans 'large scale' wind farms in unincorporated areas. The One Town proposal is for one wind turbine (I think). This week's MP stated that the SBC ban is in RL zones. It mentioned PH and Phelan. It didn't mention WW.

Bob C · « **Reply #59 on:** Mar 12, 19, 06:06:08 PM »

Quote from: tcaarabians on Mar 12, 19, 05:27:48 PM

The One Town proposal is for one wind turbine (I think). ]

The last time they proposed this project back in 2011, I believe it was like 3 of them at Blue Ridge, and I don't remember how many on their private property. Even with this latest proposal, they admit to wanting these things on two different properties, so I'd say it's a safe bet that it's more than just one.

Author Topic: March 5, 2019 Board Meeting (Read 68689 times)

Wes Zuber - WWCSD

Wes Zuber - WWCSD