Signatures 174 total
-
1
Name: Gail Getzwiller on Jun 24, 2010Comments: This is a good cause and as Arizona has been on other issues - now a Pioneer on the Front Line of Solar Energy!! Good Luck!!!Flag
-
2
Name: Alexander J. Dita on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Alison Bunting on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Tom Karas on Jun 24, 2010Comments: It is a sad fact that electric co-ops all across this country are trampling over their own members to serve the interests of others. This case however can serve as an excellent opportunity for a member-led sustainable energy plan that is both cleaner and less expensive. Good Luck.Flag
-
5
Name: Alegria Hayes on Jun 24, 2010Comments: We want to be a model of renewable solar energy in this state as supported by the DOE initiative for Clean Air and the house bill for renewable energy districts: HB 2574 renewable energy districts This bill will allows counties and municipalities to create a renewable energy district in order to utilize various solar, renewable and efficient energy equipment and water conservation units and finance them through a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 47 to 13. We do not want to support the coal industry or the mining industry. We want to protect our environment for the future of our families and our children. As member of the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, I am asking for the sake of our members and the thousands of people from all over the globe who visit our center to say no to this power line and to help find a more efficient solar solution. Alegria Hayes Creative Director gabrielcousens.comFlag
-
6
Name: Matilda Essig on Jun 24, 2010Comments: Now, more than ever, is the time to empower citizens to make the change away from dirty energy and towards clean renewable energy. The future of our communities and our planet depend upon this. The leaking abyss in the Gulf of Mexico speaks louder than anything to the importance of this change. Similar to the nuclear bomb, we cannot control what we have unleashed. Our ancestors made it across the ocean to this continent without internal combustion engines or electricity. Surely we have got the wisdom and the ingenuity to find our way back to a way of living that does not destroy the very garden we depend upon. Listen to the voices of the people - whose values lie in the wellbeing of the environment they call home. There you will find a more longterm integrity. You will not find that kind of integrity in the objectives of the utility company, whose goals revolve qround survival and promotion of economic profit based on environmental exploration. Its time for change - bold and brave.Flag
-
7
Name: Deborah Fain on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Diane Tegarden on Jun 24, 2010Comments: Wind, solar, geothermal and biomass are viable renewable energy options that have little to no negative effects on our environment. Let's start supporting clean energy, for a change!Flag
-
9
Name: Anne Gibson on Jun 24, 2010Comments: Rosemont Mining Company, parent of Wildcat Mining, should pay for the line AND it should be routed along the EXISTING power line that runs West along Hwy 82. That is ENTIRELY pheasable within the prescribed easement.Flag
-
10
Name: Sandra S. Wolf on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Adrienne M Halpert on Jun 24, 2010Comments: Dear Chairman Mayes and Commissioners: As a business owner in Patagonia, and a SSVEC co-op member for 16 years I strongly support establishing the Mountain Empire of Southern Arizona; including, Patagonia, Sonoita and Elgin as a model of clean, renewable and sustainable energy. My business is dependent on tourism, which is the future of our communities economy. The fallout from the proposed 69KV line are many; it is hazardous to our economic health, the health of our selves, our children our livestock and our future! I am including an excerpt from a recent article in the Huffington Post which elucidates succinctly my feelings about the shortsightedness of the proposed 69KV line "Seeking to shift away from Arizona's dependence on dirty coal, a remarkable Mountain Empire Energy Project citizens movement sprang up in the ranching area for clean energy development and energy efficiency with extraordinary success. Thanks to local efforts to explain the rebate incentive program, SSVEC was recently crowned the nation's "top utility in terms of increased utilization of solar power based on watts per customer." Last month, in fact, the Solar Electric Power Association conferred the national honor on SSVEC for being a leader in the "utility industry's transition to a future that includes solar power as an important part of the solution to the nation's energy issues." The multimillion price tag for the 69KV line will be paid by us, the co-op members, on average a minimum increase of $30.00 per month I object to that expenditure in outdated and non-renewable energy. Let's take that investment and put it into a solution that will sustain our future, not ruin it for us, our environment, our economy and for our future generations. Sincerely, Adrienne Halpert Global Arts Gallery Patagonia, ArizonaFlag
-
12
Name: Annie McGreevy on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Diane Chamberlain on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Scarlett Fahrenson on Jun 24, 2010Comments: we don't want to pay for something we don't need and don't want. Leave Sonoita/Patagonia a residential and ranchning community.Flag
-
15
Name: Elen Kentnor on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Lynn DeLane on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: David H. Budd on Jun 24, 2010Comments: Reliable people are telling me that any expansion of energy needs in this area (and this area is growing slowly, if at all) can be met by renewable energy sources. Therefore, I oppose any costly expansion of capacity at this time.Flag
-
18
Name: Darby Getzwiller on Jun 24, 2010Comments: I live in Benson, AZ and I think that a 69 line in the Sonoita area is excessive and I would be one to have to bear the burden of cost! I have a real issue with that! We live in AZ and we should be the solor capital of the US. IF we are to believe what our president is saying, we are suppose to be TRYING to go green! We are trying and yet, we have the big companys still trying to overrun us for the coal companies. I think tht there is something very wrong here!! If they were a housing company, they would be EXPECTED to put in their own infrastructure at their own cost - not at the cost of the current land holders. IF Wildcat and Rosemount need the electricty, than they need to pay for it!!!Flag
-
19
Name: Gail Bernstein on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Stuart Moyle on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Mark Bahti on Jun 24, 2010Comments: We need to take the lead in green energy and should not be building speculative capacity that subsidizes large corporate interest at the expense of citizens.Flag
-
22
Name: Anonymous on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Jamie Getzwiller on Jun 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Susan Scott on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Paul Berkowitz on Jun 25, 2010Comments: No more coal power!Flag
-
26
Name: Seth Grossman on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Our region is adopting solar at an unprecedented pace. It is all around us- free energy provided by the sun. Its time for our citizens to wake up and for our politicians to listen. We do not want to pay for any more infrastructure that is tied to fossil fuels. We also do not want to hear that our politicians have been aware of mining operations that are being proposed without alerting the citizens whose lives may be impacted by them. It is time for us to consider what Australia is doing- charging a 40% tax on the profits of mining corporations over a certain size. We have amazing natural resources here that can provide better long lasting jobs than mining. We must be creative and move boldly into a future where we work with and are kind to this fragile planet that gives us life.Flag
-
27
Name: Gavin Cude on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Gavin Cude on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Edie Jarolim on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Lyle Ford on Jun 25, 2010Comments: I have been a SSVEC cooperative member in Sierra Vista since 1994 and I am currently purchasing a solar-powered property in Sonoita where I will live. The property is net metered with SSVEC so my new home is a model for solar power generation, sustainable electricity, and sharing of that power with others. The Sonoita/Elgin/Patagonia area is ideal for solar power to create sustainable residential and commercial properties with little or no reliance on SSVEC power transmission. I am extremely concerned about the reasons for the 69kV power line coming from Whetstone to the Sonoita area. Not only will the power line disrupt the ecosystem and aesthetic quality (and discourage filmmakers) of the Mountain Empire region, but the power is generated by coal. The coal-fired electricity is an environmentally foul method of power generation and is archaic when there is abundant solar power available. We need to maximize the solar power potential of southeastern Arizona rather than increase and distribute more coal-based power. Let's find ways that SSVEC can become a true leader in solar power rather than continuing outdated and harmful practices. Let's make our corner of Arizona a world leader in sustainable energy! I wholeheartedly oppose the transmission line and ask that SSVEC halt this project and partner with property owners to generate solar power instead.Flag
-
31
Name: Krysa Kobryner on Jun 25, 2010Comments: I like to support solar-power and clean energy!Flag
-
32
Name: Patricia Miller on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Sonoita, AZFlag
-
33
Name: Anonymous on Jun 25, 2010Comments: A co-op utility company should be working WITH the people, not against. IF this electricity is not needed, why is this plan being implemented. In an area with so much public land, never to be developed, (Forest, BLM) Surely there will not be a need for this project which would ultimately enable a mine in Patagonia. What other reason could there be for such an excessive amount of electricity in Sonoita/Elgin areas?Flag
-
34
Name: Anonymous on Jun 25, 2010Comments: A co-op utility company should be working WITH the people, not against. IF this electricity is not needed, why is this plan being implemented. In an area with so much public land, never to be developed, (Forest, BLM) Surely there will not be a need for this project which would ultimately enable a mine in Patagonia. What other reason could there be for such an excessive amount of electricity in Sonoita/Elgin areas?Flag
-
35
Name: Kathleen James on Jun 25, 2010Comments: It would be inspiring to living in a community that fully supports locally generated "clean" energy and also avoids altering our uniquely beautiful habitat.Flag
-
36
Name: Anonymous on Jun 25, 2010Comments: It would be inspiring to living in a community that fully supports locally generated "clean" energy and also avoids altering our uniquely beautiful habitat.Flag
-
37
Name: James Rowley on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Nancy Coyne on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Patti Villa on Jun 25, 2010Comments: this line may be meant for a large mine being explored by a company that is looking for approval near Patagonia. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS!Flag
-
40
Name: Pete Daniels on Jun 25, 2010Comments: It has become obvious to many U.S. citizens, and should be to industry and political leaders, that continuing the course of "business as usual" regarding our enegy needs is a recipe for disaster in the near future. We need to aggressively support the development and usage of clean, renewable energy. The Sonoita-Elgin-Patagonia area is a wonderful area to demonstrate that this is a feasible and desirable alternative to more coal, more pollution, more profits for the wealthy at the expense of the average citizen.Flag
-
41
Name: Virginia Thiers on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Patagonia, ArizonaFlag
-
42
Name: Cale Warnecke on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Cheryl Toth on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
44
Name: John Francis DeLane on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Karen Scott on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Keith on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Sign me up.Flag
-
47
Name: James W M Carson & Karen W Carson on Jun 25, 2010Comments: SSVEC seems to take a very cavalier approach to the wishes of its members and dare I say owners. Far more so than any other EMC we have belonged to. They act like ENRON acted toward its shareholders.They have shown an extraordinary lack of candor in this issue to the point of I believe engaging in a deliberate plan of deception. Even though we are not directly impacted by the plan we oppose it for the above reasons. There are other viable alternatives to be investigated. Until SSVEC "comes clean" and engages in a sincere effort to meet the communities needs the should be denied permission to move ahead with this planFlag
-
48
Name: Mindy Sedam on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Please protect and preserve our environment. Save our beautiful mountains by NOT mining.Flag
-
49
Name: Pam Waters on Jun 25, 2010Comments: I encourage members of this commission to consider the detrimental long-term effects the proposed 69kv line will have on the communities of Patagonia, Sonoita, and Elgin with regard to degradation of local natural resources. The future need for this proposed line is unproven and building the line would unnecessarily damage pristine unique habitat for untold numbers of bird and mammal species living in the area. Now is the time to move away from our continued use of fossil fuels and focus on sustainable energy resources.Flag
-
50
Name: Carla McClain on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag