Edison plan ignores public safety

Southern California Edison (SCE) wants to provide clarity to the comments contained in Senator Bob Huff and Assemblyman Curt Hagman’s opinion piece (“Edison plan ignores public safety,” October 12, 2009).
SCE’s long record of safely building and operating transmission infrastructure includes transmission lines that have run through Chino Hills for more than 60 years.
The utility takes very seriously its responsibility to safely construct all of its infrastructure projects for the public and its employees. To suggest otherwise is just untrue. The company goes to great lengths in designing and building its infrastructure system to ensure safe and proper operation, and the protection of public health and safety. Both the California Public Utilities Commission and SCE have performed extensive engineering evaluations on every aspect of the project.
Edison’s efforts to construct the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project are critical to California meeting its renewable energy goals to our customers and the communities we serve, as well as to state and national renewable energy policies. The challenge is balancing how best to meet that need while addressing questions and concerns from local affected communities. SCE continues working hard to achieve that balance.

It seems clear that even though it is safer, more environmentally kind, and even a shorter route that Edison wants to do it the way they want to do it. Does it cost them more money to do the shorter route? Would they be giving up a right of way that they know is valuable real estate? With so many positives, it seems odd that Edison would want to disregard the public that pays for their services. If there were an alternative to Edison, I would switch companies just to make a point.

Dave Greene
Chino Hills

If taxpayers had wanted electric lines in State Parks instead of on city owned property or existing right of ways, then the state voters would have provided for electric lines to cover all state parks within the state. State parks are not to convenience city officials who want to recover granted easements. State parks are for the people of the State of California not for the convenience of city officials. That's why it is not the City of CHino Hills Park, it is a State of California Park, Let the State Parks Commission assume jurisdiction over the city's desires to plant electric lines through a state park instead of on existing easements.

And isn't the City of Chino Hills suing Edison in the attempts to require the State of California Parks Commission to plant electric lines throughout Chino Hills State Park, instead of on City of Chino Hills electric and utility easements? Why isn't the State Parks Commission a party to this action? Who represents the interests of the State of California in this action? Is it the City of Chino Hills representing the State of California? Or are the State interests merely deminimus in a deposition of State property?

A very good op-ed piece - thank you. In the city of La Habra Heights we are dealing with this issue as well. For those that argue that the lines should go on existing easements - in our city, SCE is pushing for a 100' extension of their existing easement so they can fit the massive new poles in. The new easement would actually put the lines closer to the homes that have been there for 60+ years. There is an alternative route for SCE next to the railroad through the city of Industry on an existing easement, away from the residential areas. Please visit our website www.NoNewTowers.com for more information.

what if we get hurt and you get sued.

man ffdbht

gsdye to you

let's SUE the city of LA HABRA HEIGHTS because they want sce to place power lines next to my home next to the railroad tracks in the city of industry

chino hills wants power but no power lines. sce should remove all power lines from chino hills. buy some candles chino hills