Name: City: State: Zip Code: Agenda Item Number or Non-Agenda Public Comment Please use this portion to submit your written public comment.
Kip Weinbaum Jacumba Ca 91934 Item 13 While I understand the need for more alternative sources of energy, and I also understand that residents typically do not want this in their own backyard Kip Weinbaum Ca 91934 Item 13 While I understand the need for more green sources of energy I believe it would be a mistake to put the solar field in Jacumba. I understand that the panel is used to residents opposing development because the resident does not want what they perceive to be an unsightly project in their own backyard. I strongly believe that there are more advantageous sites to place this project that would not impact the lives of a community so severely. The people of this community who will be severely impacted do not have the financial means to relocate. This is a very low income community and it is important to recognize that residents in Jacumba have experienced a great deal of hardship with what has been previously imposed upon them. There are so many power projects and energy installations that have been placed in what is considered the back country. I know that Ocotillo, which already has miles of solar panels has ample space to expand their profile. Should Jacumba be the eventual choice of the panel I would humbly urge a far greater setback, so that the people who live within a few hundred feet of the solar field, will not have to suffer the effects of the project, psychologically and physically. I would urge members of the panel who are considering the decision to put in the solar project to make a trip to Jacumba. See what the destruction of the natural habitat wi take away from citizens all over San Diego County.
Micah Lang Boulevard CA 91905 Item 13 I believe solar should be a decision that every person can choose. They can install on their own property if they want cheaper cleaner power. It is not fair to Jacumba to put in a huge solar field, and ruin the landscape near the town, just to provide electricity 3% cheaper. I hope the installation of this solar field can be stopped. ky ngo dennis san diego ca 92103 Item 12 Climate goals have gone unmet for decades too long, and now we face a planetary crisis. We urgently need major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, an end to fossil fuel expansion, and investment in renewable energy sources immediately. please vote yes on 12! David Robertson San Diego CA 92129 Item 12 I urge the Board of Directors to vote yes on Item #12. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis and need to act accordingly. One way to do that is to create a much more binding commitment to reaching 100% renewable energy by 2035. Thank you.
David Peterson San Diego California 92129 Non-Agenda Public Comment I am submitting a 3 page Power Point document per the instructions Kara Ballester San Diego 92104 Item 12 As a resident of San Diego and the parent of two small children, I want San Diego Community Power to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2035. SDCP was created to better advance San Diego's clean energy goals. By strengthening the commitment to 2035, SDCP will have the authority and the tools to achieve this goal, which will pay off for San Diegans for decades to come.
Katrina Westley Jacumba Hot Springs CA 91934 Item 13 As a 5th generation San Diegan and long term Jacumba Hot Springs resident, it is appalling the SDCP is considering signing another premature contract with JVR Solar. What kind of values does SDCP stand for when they have not considered the actual community of people who live in the historic district of Jacumba. SDCP claims to be for the people but has not ONCE reached out to the community for our input or included us in the decision process of this power hungry agreement. This is a prime example of the continuing historical inequities between small diverse communities like Jacumba and wealthier communities. Why aren’t these huge destructive power projects placed in the backyards of these cities that will be served by this power? Destroying a small community is a contradiction to the SDCP’s mission statement of clean affordable energy. SDCP’s Green energy is at a cost of an underserved community. IT IS NOT CLEAN or GREEN. It’s covered with the blood of our rural communities and green greed.
Lon Poliner San Diego California 92131 Item 12 Good afternoon, My name is Lon Poliner and I am a resident of Scripps Ranch within the city of San Diego. I am asking the SDCP board to approve Resolution 12 and commit to offering only Power 100 in their electric generation menu. Without that commitment, the climate action plan will fail to be adequately implemented, and the risks to our children and grandchildren will worsen dramatically. The real risk to the climate action plan is the corporate agenda and profit motives of SDGE. SDCP has made admirable strides in providing a 100% renewable option for customers at affordable rates. But, those efforts are damaged by the public relation barrage from SDGE, the monopoly that controls the infrastructure in San Diego County and wishes SDCP to fail. SDCP needs to partner with the city and county of San Diego to acquire the infrastructure and distribution network of SDGE by eminent domain. Only then can the ratepayers have financial relief (2/3 of our bills are transmission fees) and be provided with locally generated renewable electricity that is critical to our transition to electrified homes, business, and transportation. We need control of the infrastructure and transmission in the hands of SDCP and our local government, not a for-profit entity committed to natural gas infrastructure projects and long distance transmission of electricity that increases the risk of wildfires. SDGE is not acting in good faith, punishing locally sourced rooftop solar at the same time taking credit for a renewable mix of electricity that comes predominantly from the same rooftop solar. The city and county need to assume control of the infrastructure, stop the investment in natural gas pipelines, build out local battery storage facilities, and depend on residential and commercial rooftop solar to become a renewable beacon for the state and our nation. We can do this! The longer we wait, the more likely we are to fail our children and grandchildren.
Glenda Poliner San Diego California 92131 Item 12 Good afternoon. My name is Glenda Poliner, and I live in the Scripps Ranch section of San Diego. The climate crisis is happening now. The extremes are worse than we ever imagined, severe drought followed by uncontrollable floods, heat waves that kill hundreds of people, and fires that destroy entire communities such as our community in Scripps Ranch in 2003. I am an optimist, and I believe that we still have the chance to reverse this crisis, but we need to act immediately by ending our use of fossil fuels and fully transitioning to renewable energy as rapidly as possible. I enthusiastically supported the formation of SDCP and urge you to transition to 100% renewable energy by voting yes on Agenda Item #12. Because San Diego has not fulfilled its first climate action plan, much of its citizenry is skeptical that any goals will be achieved. I further urge you to provide yearly reports of the progress toward meeting the goal of 100% renewable energy by 2035 to demonstrate that SDCP is achieving its commitment. Finally, let’s all face the fact that we are systematically destroying the Earth. I ask you this question, if we don’t act immediately, how can we face our children when they ask us why we did not act decisively? Thank you.
Cherry Diefenbach, Chair, Jacumba Community Sponsor Group Jacumba Hot Springs CA 91934 Item 13 Today, Jacumba residents remain as opposed to the proposed 500-acre JVR facility as they were before the BayWa r.e. promise of $4 million dollars of “Hush money” aka community benefits. While a 900-foot setback north of HWY 80 next to residences may have been applied since the project was approved by the BOS in 2021, project setbacks next our Senior Center and Community Park which we consider to be integral parts of our community, are only 300-feet. Residents still object to the placement of 25 plus highly-flammable lithium battery storage containers and a multitude of other associated electrical components in our area which is already identified by the State’s Fire Marshall as a “high” fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ). The project developer previously rejected our request that the JVR facility use non-flammable iron-flow batteries which do cost more than the lithium batteries but are far safer for the environment and the community. (Iron flow batteries have been used at other renewable energy facilities in our county including at Campo.) This agenda item states that BayWa has committed the conservation of 435 acres land to be managed by the San Diego Foundation. The Foundation seems to be a questionable choice over a more knowledgeable environmental organization like Rivers Partners or the Anza Borrego Foundation, etc. There are a large number of similarly-sized renewable energy facilities projected to come on line within the same timeframe as the JVR Solar Park. Those facilities, which do not face resistance from nearby communities, could provide the SDCP with the clean power it is seeking. If the SDCP is truly concerned with the environment, community choice, and equity, then the SDCP would not enter into a new JVR PPA. It is not too late for the SDCP Board of Directors to respect Jacumba’s “choice” for a viable and sustainable future, one that does not include a solar facility that is five times larger than our small village.
Neil Besse San Diego CA 92115 Item 12 Please accept that 100% clean energy may be inconvenient, costly or controversial in the short run. But there is no denying how crucial this goal is. True leadership often means doing things the hard way. Thank you for your courage to insist on this goal. Nothing is less important.
Steven Gelb San Diego California 92111 Item 12 The recently released UN report makes clear how urgent it is for us to pivot from the use of fossil fuels. Please vote to make a binding commitment for SDCP to be using 100% renewable energy by 2035.
Lori Saldaña San Diego california 92117 Item 13 MAIN POINTS: The project area is designated as Zone D (FEMA 1997) in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for eastern San Diego County, indicating that the area has possible but undetermined flood risks AND the impact evaluation does not address flooding since the potential for flooding is expected to be low due to the absence of significant watercourses within or in the near vicinity of the alternative corridors. Has an updated hydrology study been conducted for the Jacumba/BayWa project site? A 2012 document found re:the Jacumba EIS (https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0414-final-environmental-impact-statement) states: "Other environmental review requirements are being implemented in coordination with or integrated with the NEPA process to the fullest extent possible, namely, floodplains and wetlands assessments, in accordance with E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990, respectively (both signed on May 24, 1977) and 10 CFR Part 1022; Clean Air Act Conformity requirements; threatened and endangered species consultation required under the Endangered Species Act; and consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act." It noted: "No surface water features traverse the U.S.-Mexico border in the project area, and there is no apparent evidence of historical flash flooding or significant surface flows such that transmission facilities on either side of the border would be exposed to flood damage risks. Therefore, construction and operation activities in Mexico would not result in effects in the U.S. related to surface water hydrology and water quality. No impacts to surface water or groundwater are anticipated during the operation of the transmission line." Under “3.11 WATER RESOURCES This section analyzes the potential impacts of the project on surface water and groundwater resources, including wetlands and floodplains." "3.11.1.5 Floodplains Floodplains and flood control in San Diego County are managed by the County of San Diego Flood Control District. Floodplains in the eastern portion of the county, which includes the alternative corridors, are associated with ephemeral creeks such as Potrero Creek and Carrizo Creek. The project area is designated as Zone D (FEMA 1997) in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for eastern San Diego County, indicating that the area has possible but undetermined flood risks. Since no significant watercourses are situated within or in the near vicinity of the corridors, the potential for flooding is expected to be low." 3.11.2 Environmental Impacts 3.11.2.1 Methodology As previously discussed, no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within or near the alternative corridors. The three drainage features that were identified during the jurisdictional waters survey conducted in April 2009 (EDAW, Inc. 2009a) appear to convey runoff for only a short distance over a short duration and lack evidence of a definable bed, bank, or ordinary high water mark (EDAW, Inc. 2009a). Accordingly, the impact analysis did not address potential impacts to jurisdictional waters. In addition, impacts to wetland resources were not addressed since no wetlands are present in the vicinity of either alternative route. DOE reviewed the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance – Hydrology (2007h) during its evaluation of potential impacts to surface water which deals primarily with flood risk. However, although the FEMA floodplain designation indicates that the area has “possible but undetermined flood risks,” the impact evaluation does not address flooding since the potential for flooding is expected to be low due to the absence of significant watercourses within or in the near vicinity of the alternative corridors. This evaluation addresses the potential to alter existing drainage patterns of the site. With regard to potential impacts to groundwater, DOE reviewed the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance – Groundwater Resources (2007f) and consulted with Cou Natalie Richards Jacumba CA 91934 Item 13 Please take the time to look through all of the specifics of this project and the negative impact it has on the community of Jacumba. I am all for clean energy and apprecaite the options you are striving to offer, however it doesn't seem right that it would have to come with the consequence of a a community that already has several other projects in use around the area. Please opt out! Lori Saldaña San Diego ca 92117 Non-Agenda Public Comment SUMMARY: Please focus on PPAs for locally generated power. I have heard that your agency is concerned people are choosing to “opt out” of SDCP as utility bills continue to skyrocket. As a California Assemblymember, I voted in support of legislation to create “Community Power” in our state, in the belief it would create cleaner, sustainable, renewable and LOCALLY GENERATED energy for consumers, at equal or lower costs than for-profit utilities. So it is discouraging to see SDCP contributing to record-breaking profits for investor owned private SDG&E/Sempra utilities by entering into Power Purchase Agreements with generation facilities far from San Diego end-users, such as one in New Mexico. Ratepayers are beginning to understand that most of SDGE/Sempra corporate profits are due to the costs of TRANSMISSION of electricity over long distance power lines. These profits provide record levels of shareholder value and Executive Bonuses- but offer little value to consumers. And since SDG&E/Sempra charges San Diego ratepayers the highest utility rates in the nation, it's now estimated that 300K SDG&E residents cannot pay their monthly bills- the highest rate of non-payment in California. If the SDCP Board continues approving PPAs at out of state locations, far from end users, you will be contributing to higher costs for ratepayers, and adding to already-record breaking corporate profits. Likewise, by supporting consgtruction of large scale projects requiring 100s of workers in communities that lack sufficient onsite housing, you are contributing to more “Vehicle Miles Traveled” and related impacts on transportation systems and air quality. I encourage you to work on supporting local, renewable energy projects- e.g. partnering with public agencies to support large-scale rooftop & parking lot solar installations.