Agenda Item B:  Responses to Hearing Officer’s Certified Questions for the Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility Contested Case Proceeding 

  Enclosures:   

‐ Applicant’s Comments to EFSC on Certified Questions ‐ Gilbert Response to Questions Posed to EFSC ‐ Umatilla Electric Cooperative Additional Written Argument on Certified 

Questions ‐ ODOE’s Response to Certification of Questions 

                         

         

Applicant’s Comments to EFSC on Certified Questions                                          

1

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: Rita Bell <rita.bell@tonkon.com>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:59 PMTo: CORNETT Todd * ODOECc: David Petersen; 'wheatridgecontestedhrg@gmail.com'; 'tgrim@cablehuston.com';

'cstokes@cablehuston.com'; ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE; 'ott.irene@frontier.com'; RATCLIFFE Jesse D

Subject: Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC [IWOV-PDX.FID959071]Attachments: 2017-02-10 Applicant's Comments to EFSC on Certified Questions.PDF

Please see the attached Applicant's Argument on Certified Questions.  Thank you,   Rita Bell for David Petersen Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 

BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCILFOR THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Application for SiteCertificate for the Wheatridge WindEnergy Facility

APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT ONCERTIFIED QUESTIONS

On February 3, 2017, Todd Cornett, Assistant Director, Siting Division, Oregon

Department of Energy ("Department") requested written argument in response to the Hearings

Officer's Transmittal and Certification of Questions to the Oregon Energy Facility Siting

Council dated February 3, 2017 (the "Certification"). This brief constitutes the response of the

applicant Wheatridge Wind Energy LLC ("Applicant").

The Hearings Officer has certified three questions to the Council:

1. How does OAR 345-001-0010(51) modify, explain, [or] expand (if at all) the

phrase "proposed by the applicant" as set forth in ORS 469.300(24)?

2. Did the Council intend, in drafting the OAR 345-001-0010(51) phrase "but forconstruction or operation of the energy facility," to include as "related orsupporting facilities" any structures not requested by an applicant to be reviewedand approved in a site certificate application?

3. Does the requirement in ORS 469.200(24) that a structure must be "proposed by

the applicant" in order to be considered a "related or supporting facility" mean

that the applicant must choose to request review of the structure in the application

for site certificate, or may a structure also be a "related or supporting facility" ifthe applicant has a level of involvement with the proposed structure sufficient to

consider it to be proposed by the applicant?

I. OAR 345-001-0010(51) has no bearing on the phrase "proposed by the

applicant" in ORS 469.300(24).

In response to questions 1 and 2, Applicant incorporates Applicant's Comment in

Response to Notice of Intent to Certify Questions dated February 1, 2017, a copy of which was

transmitted to the Council by the Hearings Officer with his Certification. As explained in more

detail therein, the plain language and the legislative history of ORS 469.200(24) and OAR 345-

001-0010(51) unequivocally show the following:

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 1

• The definition of "related or supporting facility" is plainly written in theconjunctive with two parts, both of which must be satisfied for a structure to be arelated or supporting facility. One of those is that the structure must be "proposedby the applicant."

• The requirement that a related or supporting facility must be proposed by theapplicant was added to the definition by the Legislature by Senate Bill (SB) 951in 1995. Previously, there was no requirement that a related or supporting facilitybe proposed by the applicant.1

• OAR 345-001-0010(51) cannot possibly modify or interpret "proposed by theapplicant," since it interprets a pre-1995 definition of related or supporting

facility. Thus, in drafting OAR 345-001-0010(51) the Council may or may nothave contemplated structures proposed by someone other than the applicant, but

that possibility was rendered moot by the subsequent decision of the Legislature

to add the "proposed by the applicant" requirement.

The only reasonable interpretation of ORS 469.300(24) is that a related or

supporting facility must be actually proposed by the applicant in its application for site

certificate (ASC).

Question 3 poses a simple problem rendered unnecessarily complex by excessive

discussion. Common sense alone dictates that "proposed by the applicant" is unambiguous and

means what it says. Only a tortured and unreasonable reading of the language can extend

"proposed by the applicant" to mean something not proposed by the applicant. Fortunately, the

law agrees. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 172 (2009) (in interpreting a statute, it is a difficult task

to overcome seemingly plain and unambiguous text).

The legislative history of the definition of related or supporting facility bolsters this

conclusion. Gaines, supra at 171 (legislative history may be used to interpret a statute even in

See also "Section-by-Section Analysis of A-Engrossed Senate Bill 951" prepared by the Department dated May 12,

1995, pp. 2-3, which states:"In subsection (23), the term "related or supporting facilities" is defined more

clearly. Such facilities must be proposed by the applicant, and must be

constructed or substantially modified in connection with construction of the

energy facility itself in order to come within the EFSC's jurisdiction. This

definition conforms with the EFSC's recent rulemaking which also refined this

definition.This analysis was submitted by the Department as part of its testimony to the House Committee on Legislative Rules

at a hearing on SB 951 on May 17, 1995. The final language of the bill was unchanged from the language evaluated

by the Department. A copy of the Department's May 17, 1995 testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 2

the absence of an ambiguity). Before 1995, any structure could be a related or supporting facility

regardless of who proposed it.2 SB 951 changed that, but to interpret the statute the same way

today as before SB 951 would improperly render the 1995 change to the definition meaningless.

ORS 174.010; Arken v. City of Portland, 351 Or 113, 156 (2011) (it is a cardinal rule of statutory

construction that effect shall be given to every section, clause, word or part of an act). The better

interpretation is to give meaning to the 1995 addition of the words "proposed by the applicant"

by limiting related or supporting facilities to those proposed by the applicant in the ASC.

The practical challenges of expanding the meaning of "proposed by the applicant" to

mean some structures not proposed by the applicant should also be considered, as it could lead to

absurd results. To name just a few:

• How would the applicant obtain the information necessary to prepare an ASCshowing compliance with approval criteria for structures on land it does notcontrol, and for a structure to be planned and designed by a third party?

• How would the Council enforce the conditions of the site certificate against anon-party to the site certificate, regarding a structure on land not subject to thesite certificate and not under the control of the site certificate holder?

• Where does the extension of the definition stop? If UEC's gen-tie line is a relatedor supporting facility, what about the BPA substation that will be modified toaccommodate the power generated by the wind project? What about a new,privately-owned rock quarry looking for business from the project, or RV park toattract construction workers? New restaurants in town to feed those workers?

If the definition is expanded to include some structures not actually proposed by the

applicant in the ASC, the consequences quickly become preposterous and make it impossible to

adequately define the line between proposed and not proposed. This certainly cannot be what the

Legislature intended in adopting the "proposed by the applicant" requirement. The only

See Oregon Laws 1995, Chap. 505, p. 1300, attached to Applicant's February 1 Comments as Exhibit B.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 3

reasonable interpretation is that "proposed by the applicant" means what it says — a structure

must be actually proposed by the applicant in its ASC to be a related or supporting facility.

III. There is no risk that the wind project will be built without adequate reviewof the impacts of the gen-tie line.

Organizational Expertise Condition 8 of the Proposed Order for the Wheatridge proj ect

provides:

Before beginning construction on any phase of the facility, thecertificate holder must provide evidence to the department andMorrow and Umatilla counties that the third party that willconstruct, own and operate the [gen-tie] line has obtained allnecessary approvals and permits for the [gen-tie] line and that thecertificate holder has a contract with the third party for use of thetransmission line. Proposed Order, 31:29-34.

The condition is supported by findings based on the evidence in the record that it is reasonably

likely these things will occur. See Proposed Order, 31:2-6 and 31:15-21. Those findings have

not been challenged in the contested case.

With Organizational Expertise Condition 8 in place, construction of the Project cannot

possibly commence without a properly permitted and approved gen-tie line and a contract for use

of that gen-tie line by the Applicant. Thus, UEC (or anyone else) will need to go through the

proper permitting and approval process for the gen-tie line, either before the Council or the

applicable local jurisdictions. In the course of those proceedings, the impacts of the proposed

gen-tie line will be properly evaluated and, if possible, mitigated according to applicable

standards.3 Under Organizational Expertise Condition 8, there is no risk of the construction of

an unpermitted structure with unevaluated impacts, and there is no risk that the wind project will

be built without a properly permitted gen-tie line ready for construction.

3 Similarly, before being built, other structures like a rock quarry, RV park or restaurant will need to get whatever

state or local permits are required. As a federal facility, improvements to BPA's substation would be approved as

required by federal law.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 4

IV. The Department's varied positions on question 3 have been inconsistent

during this contested case, and are also inconsistent with long-standing Department policy.

The Department's long-standing policy since at least 2011 and continuing through

December 2016 has been that if a structure is not described by the applicant in the ASC, then it

cannot be a related or supporting facility. This is evident from an exchange of letters between

the Department and UEC in March 2011, when in response to an inquiry from UEC regarding a

gen-tie line in substantially the same location, but to serve a different proposed wind project in

central Morrow County, the Department wrote:

[b]ecause Umatilla Electric is not proposing to construct a generating facility in

connection with this line, the proposed [wind] project is not a related and

supporting facility.4

The determinative factor in 2011 was that UEC was not proposing to construct the wind

project that would be served by its gen-tie line. Thus, the reverse is also true — the gen-tie line

here is not a related or supporting facility because it is not proposed to be built by the developer

of the wind project.5

Beginning with the Applicant's filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in March 2013, the

Department maintained this interpretation throughout the NOI, preliminary ASC, ASC, Draft

Proposed Order and Proposed Order processes for Wheatridge, confirming the 2011

4 UEC's letter to the Department is dated March 28, 2011. The Department's response on March 30 refers to UEC's

letter of March 3, but it is clear from the context that the Department is in fact responding to the March 28 letter.

Copies of the letters, which are already in the record as WRWAppDoc148, are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

5 The letters also demonstrate that UEC was independently considering a gen-tie line to serve wind projects in

central Morrow County as early as 2011, two years before the Wheatridge project was proposed in 2013, disproving

Ms. Gilberts theory that the gen-tie line proposal originated with the Applicant. See also WRWAppDoc42 (copy

attached as Exhibit C), which includes a copy of an August 31, 2015 letter from Morrow County indicating that the

gen-tie line at issue here in fact originated with Morrow County's request in 2011 that wind project applicants seek a

solution to limit the proliferation of gen-tie lines to serve anticipated multiple wind projects in the area.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 5

interpretation dozens of times, both to the Applicant and the public. That interpretation is

reflected as late as August 5, 2016 in the Proposed Order for Wheatridge, which states:

It is the Council's responsibility to review, evaluate and issueorders either approving or denying ASCs submitted by anapplicant. The Council does not have authority to evaluatestructures that are not proposed by the applicant. An amendmentto the site certificate would be required if a certificate holderproposes related and supporting facilities [sic] to the energyfacility not included in or evaluated in the ASC. Because the[gen-tie] line is not proposed by the applicant and would not beconstructed, owned or operated by the applicant, it is not a relatedor supporting facility for purposes of the proposed facility ASC.Proposed Order, 30:15-23 (emphasis added); see also ProposedOrder, 90:31-34 and 134:28-135:2.

Further, in response to assertions made by Umatilla County identical to those now made

by Ms. Gilbert and FGRV, the Department in the Proposed Order states:

The majority of the [County's] findings are premised on a beliefthat the applicant is required to identify and include a [gen-tie] linein its ASC, and that the site certificate cannot be approved unless a[gen-tie] line is identified and included in the ASC. Thedepartment generally agrees with the response provided by theapplicant, and as described below, recommends that the Councilfind that the [County's] position related to the [gen-tie] line is notsupported by either state law or the county's own code. ProposedOrder, 133:6-12.6

This analysis makes sense because it is the applicant for a site certificate that decides

what to include in its proposed facility. The Council's responsibility is only to evaluate that

proposed facility for compliance with the applicable criteria. If something is missing that

prevents compliance with the criteria, the Council cannot change the proposal. It can only either

deny the proposal or impose conditions of approval as necessary to ensure compliance (i.e.,

Organizational Expertise Condition 8).

6 Umatilla County did not file a petition for party status in this contested case seeking review of this analysis, or

raising any other issue.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 6

The first sign of a change in the Department's position appears in its December 5, 2016

response to Applicant's motion for summary judgment in the contested case, where on page 3 the

Department argued:

[T]he Department relied upon the statement of the Applicant that athird-party would build, own and operate the gen-tie transmissionline and conditions the development of the transmission line as athird-party permit. If evidence were introduced into the recordindicating that the Applicant were proposing to independentlybuild, own and operate the gen-tie transmission line, theDepartment would need to reevaluate the applicable definitions ofa related or supporting facility in light of the new facts and couldmake a different recommendation regarding the gen-tietransmission line. (Emphasis added.)

The Applicant vigorously contested the suggestion that it might have misrepresented the

facts in the ASC, a suggestion that was supported by no evidence whatsoever and accordingly

could not be the basis for denying summary judgment. For purposes of certified question 3,

however, the Department in its December 5 pleading still disagreed with Ms. Gilbert/FGRV's

theory that if an applicant coordinates with a third party regarding a structure, the structure can

constitute a related or supporting facility. The Department stated in footnote 8:

The Department also agrees with the Applicant that the applicablestatutes and rules do not state than when the developer participatesin planning, operating and maintaining the line, it is part of thedevelopment as Ms. Gilbert/FGRV argued in the petition for partystatus.

In its most recent comments dated February 1, 2017, however, the Department has

completely changed its position and requested certification of question 3. In those comments,

the Department did not again suggest possible misrepresentation by the Applicant, but for the

first time asserted that if a developer participates with a third party in planning, operating and

maintaining a structure, the structure could be "proposed by the applicant." Specifically, the

Department argued that to be proposed by the applicant:

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 7

The applicant [must] have some involvement in the proposal. Butbecause the text [of ORS 469.300(24)] is silent as to the questionsof to whom the proposal is made and the process by which it ismade, the text is necessarily ambiguous as to the level ofinvolvement by the applicant sufficient to consider a structure to be"proposed by the applicant." (Emphasis in original.)

This argument is directly contrary to the Department's position as expressed in the 2011

letters, throughout the ASC process including the August 2016 Proposed Order and even

footnote 8 of its December 5, 2016 pleading. At all previous opportunities, the Department

asserted that a structure is not "proposed by the applicant" unless it was to be constructed, owned

or operated by the applicant. See, e.g., Proposed Order, 30:15-23. This unsupported reversal of

position at this late stage of the process is grossly unfair to the Applicant and should not be

tolerated.

The Department's argument also is incorrect, as the text of ORS 469.300(24) is most

certainly not ambiguous — "proposed by the applicant" means what it says and does not extend to

some other structure to be proposed in the future by someone else. The Department cites no

authority justifying its change of heart except the Gaines case and a dictionary, and Gaines does

not support the Department's position, as discussed above.

The Department was correct before and is wrong now, and its longstanding interpretation

should be upheld. Certified question 3 should be answered that applicant must choose to request

review of a structure in its ASC for the structure to constitute a related or supporting facility

under ORS 469.300(24). And accordingly, the Hearings Officer should grant Applicant's

motion.

V. Conclusion

Applicant respectfully requests that:

• The first certified question should be answered that OAR 345-001-0010(51) hasno bearing on the phrase "proposed by the applicant" in ORS 469.300(24).

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 8

• The second certified question should be dismissed as moot.

• The third certified question should be answered that applicant must choose torequest review of the structure in the application for site certificate for it toconstitute a related or supporting facility under ORS 469.300(24).

DATED: February 10, 2017.

TONKON TORP LLP

By.

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 9

David J. PetersenOSB #034220Counsel for Applicant Wheatridge WindEnergy, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 10, 2017, I served a true and correct copy of the

foregoing APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS by first class mail

(and e-mail where indicated) on all of the persons listed on the attached service list.

DATED: February 10, 2017.

David J. PetersenOSB #034220Counsel for Applicant Wheatridge WindEnergy, LLC

Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplicant's Argument On Certified QuestionsPage 10

SERVICE LIST

Gregory J. Frank, Hearings OfficerOregon Department of Energy550 Capitol Street NESalem, Oregon 97301E-mail: wheatridgecontestedhrg@gmail.com

Sarah T. Esterson, Siting AnalystOregon Department of Energy550 Capitol Street NESalem, Oregon 97301E-mail: sarah.esterson@oregon.gov

Jesse D. Ratcliffe, Assistant Attorney GeneralOregon Department of Justice1162 Court Street NESalem, Oregon 97301E-mail: jesse.d.ratcliffe@doj.state.or.us

Todd R. CornettAssistant Director, Siting DivisionOregon Department of Energy550 Capitol Street NE, 1st FloorSalem, OR 97301E-mail: todd.cornett@oregon.gov

036541/00002/7856819v1

Thomas M. Grim and Chad M. StokesCable Huston LLP1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200Portland, Oregon 97204E-mail: tgrim@cablehuston.comE-mail: cstokes@cablehuston.com

Irene W. Gilbert2310 Adams AvenueLa Grande, Oregon 97850E-mail: ott. i re ne@fronti er.com

Friends of the Grande Ronde Valleyc/o Irene W. GilbertP.O. Box 864Union, Oregon 97883E-mail: ott.irene@frontier.com

EXHIBIT A

BILL NO.: St 4:LS-1 HOUSE LEG. RULES COMM.

EXHIBIT: C-DATE:Shiciss PAGES: 1 14 SUBMITTED BY: Inv. .c

Testimony Before theHouse Legislative Rules Committee

on Senate Bill 951

John Savage, Acting DirectorOregon Department of Energy

May 17, 1995

onDEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

The Oregon Department of Energy believes a strong state role in energy facility siting isvital to maintaining Oregon's quality of life.

Senate Bill 951, as originally introduced, contained many changes to Oregon's currentsiting process that we strongly opposed. The amended bill before you has resolved most of ourconcerns and, as a result, we do not object to the passage of SB 951.

Two issues have not been fully resolved. One is whether or not the state should have astandard to determine whether a new energy facility is needed or not. The other is whether theEnergy Facility Siting Council should have the ability to enact new standards as appropriate toreflect changing times and conditions. The original bill eliminated both those components. Webelieve they are essential to Oregon's siting process. The amended bill imposes a two-yearmoratorium on these two issues while an interim task force selected by the Governor, the HouseSpeaker, and Senate President, examines the overall state interest in energy facility siting andmakes recommendations to the 1997 Legislature. We expect few applications for new energyfacilities in the next two years, so suspending a need standard during the interim should notcause undo consequences. If there is no legislative action next session addressing these twoissues, the Siting Council's current authority to determine need and to enact new standards willbe automatically reinstated.

For the Committee's information, I have attached both an overall summary and asection-by-section summary of the amended bill.

John A. KitzhaberGovernor

625 Marion Street NESalem, OR 97310(503) 378-4040FAX (503) 373-7806Toll-Free 1-800-221-8035

THEODORE R. KULONGOSKIATTORNEY GENERAL

THOMAS A. BALMER, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEGENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 11, 1995

TO: Energy Facility Siting Council Members

FROM: Meg Reeves 1,1,_sz_96P2-12--Assistant Attorney GeneralNatural Resources Section

SUBJECT: A-Engrossed Senate Bill 951

100 Justice Building1162 Court Street NESalem, Oregon 97310FAX: (503) 378-3802TDD: (503) 378-5938

Telephone: (503) 378-6986

Attached is a section-by-section analysis of A-Engrossed Senate 951, which amendsthe statutes governing the siting of energy facilities in Oregon. The analysis borrowsextensively from that prepared by the bill's sponsors for the benefit of the legislativecommittee that first heard the bill. It discusses each section of the bill in some detail.

In addition, I have prepared the following summary highlighting the significantchanges made by the bill.

I. State energy policy/EFSC authority to adopt standards

(A) The state energy policy remains intact;

(B) An interim task force is created to review the public's interest in the siting ofenergy facilities and to report to the Governor and the next session of the legislature;

(C) Until the adjournment of the next session of the legislature (by which time thetask force will have made its report), the council may not:

(i) apply any standard on a subject not listed in ORS 469.501 (whichwould include all of the council's existing standards except need for facility);

(ii) apply any need for facility standard; or

(iii) waive compliance with any of its standards;

Energy Facility Siting Council MembersPage 2May 11, 1995

(D) ORS 469.501, which authorizes council adoption of standards, remainsessentially unchanged from its current form, except that:

(i) the council's discretion with respect to standards is clarified;

the requirement that the council consider global warming in its adoptionof standards is eliminated; and

(iii) council is expressly authorized to waive its standards if the overallbenefits of the facility outweigh the harm to the resource protected by the standardthe facility does not meet (the council currently has such a provision in its rules);

(E) The net effect of these changes is that, although the council maintainsconsiderable discretion under the statutes, it may not exercise that discretion beyond thesubjects listed in ORS 469.501, may not apply a need for facility standard, and may notwaive a standard, until after the adjournment of the next session.

II. Land Use

The existing system is maintained, except that the council is authorized -- but notrequired -- to apply the statewide land use goals directly (rather than applying the applicablesubstantive criteria from the local government) in three circumstances:

(A) The affected local government fails to provide EFSC with the applicable localcriteria;

(B) EFSC finds that one or more of the local criteria are not met; or

(C) The facility passes through more than one jurisdiction or more than threezoning districts in one jurisdiction.

Ell. Process

(A) Standing/Raise It or Waive It

Only those who appeared, in person or in writing, at the public informationhearing on an application may participate in the contested case on an application. Issues inthe contested case, or before EFSC, are limited to those raised at the public informationhearing. New issues may be raised only if they relate to a material change to the

Energy Facility Siting Council MembersPage 3May 11, 1995

application, proposed conditions of approval, or proposed agency action, that were madeafter the public hearing.

(B) Judicial Review/Automatic Stay

(i) Jurisdiction remains in the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court for judicial review of approval orrejection of an application for a site certificate, an amendment to a sitecertificate, an order determining that a facility does not need a site certificateunder ORS 469.320, or a council rule is in the Supreme Court. Issues andparties are limited to those in the contested case. Rules must be appealedwithin 60 days of their effective date.

(ii) The automatic stay is retained in its current form.

IV. Global warming

The requirement is that the department prepare a strategy for reducing the emission ofgases that contribute to global warming by at least 20 percent below 1988 levels by 2005 iseliminated.

Also eliminated is the requirement that the council ''consider" that global warmingstrategy in conducting its rulemaking, and the requirement that the council consider the costsof the emission from energy facilities of gases that contribute to global warming in adoptionof a need for facility standard.

V. Trojan regulation

The state's existing enforcement authority with respect to the Trojan facility, as wellas other facilities licensed before 1975, is continued.

Several amendments are intended to clarify the current law with respect to storage on-site at Trojan of radioactive waste from the plant, i.e. that such storage is lawful until apermanent repository is made available by the federal government.

Energy Facility Siting Council MembersPage 4May 11, 1995

VI. Delegation of authority to review fulfillment of site certificateconditions

The council is authorized, in its discretion, to delegate to the Department of Energyfinal review and action on the fulfillment of site certificate conditions.

VII. Reimbursement of local government expenses

The council is authorized to reimburse local governments for their work on sitecertificate applications through fees paid by applicants.

MRR0140.MEM

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSISOF A-ENGROSSED SENATE BILL 951

Prepared by the Oregon Department of Energy

SECTION 2

May 12, 1995

Section 2 expressly provides for amendments to site certificates and that EFSC maydetermine when a contested case on an amendment is appropriate. It provides that anyappeal of an EFSC order approving or denying an amendment will be heard by the SupremeCourt in the same manner as an appeal of a site certificate, regardless whether the EFSCconsidered the amendment through a contested case or non-contested case.

SECTION 3

In this section, the Legislature finds that the energy industry has become increasinglycompetitive and that other changes have occurred since the energy facility siting statutes werefirst enacted. It directs the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of theHouse to appoint a task force to assess energy facility siting, including the "need for facility"standard, in light of these changes. The task force is directed to identify the public interestin energy facility siting and to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislaturefor any needed changes to the statutes, consistent with the public interest. The task force isnot intended to engage in a broad review of the state energy policy, except as it relates toenergy facility siting, or to duplicate the ongoing work on energy conservation strategies nowin process elsewhere. Section 26 (discussed below) suspends the EFSC's authority to adoptstandards addressing issues beyond those listed in ORS 469.501, to apply its need for facilitystandard, and to waive its standards, until the adjournment, sine die, of the Sixty-NinthLegislature.

SECTION 4

ORS 469.020 contains definitions generally applicable to energy programs other thanthe EFSC's siting process. Changes in the ORS 469.020 definitions are made to confdrmthem with changes to 469.300, where appropriate.

SECTION 5

This section amends ORS 469.060 to eliminate subsections (3)(e) and (5). Theseprovisions required the Department of Energy to prepare a strategy to reduce the emission ofgasses believed to contribute to global warming. The department prepared that strategy, andpresented it to the Energy Policy Review Committee (EPRC) and to the EFSC.

MRR0139.LEG 1 5/12/95

The requirement that a global warming strategy be prepared is also cross-referencedin ORS 469.470 (the EFSC's authority to adopt rules), ORS 469.501 (1)(L) (the EFSC'sauthorization for a need for power standard), and ORS 469.501(2) (the EFSC's authority togrant exemptions from a need for power standard). These cross-references require the EFSCto "consider the implementation of" the global warming strategy in adopting its rules andstandards. The elimination of these cross-references along with ORS 469.060(3)(e) and (5) isintended to make it clear that the EFSC need not consider the Department of Energy'sstrategy or its implementation in adopting rules, siting standards, or exemptions from a needfor power standard. These amendments do not eliminate the EFSC's authority to considerglobal warming to the extent appropriate, consistent with section 26 below.

SECTION 6

The purpose of this section is to clarify, as well as supplement, the definitions ofcertain terms contained in ORS 469.300 that are applicable to energy facility siting. Themain substantive revisions to ORS 469.300 are as follows:

(a) Subsection (5) clarifies that "construction," which cannot commence until asite certificate is issued, does not include on-site work such as surveying or geotechnicalinvestigation necessary to characterize the site.

(b) The definitions of solar and wind energy facilities are consolidated withgeothermal in subsection (10)(a)(A). The EFSC's jurisdiction with regard to all three ofthese types of facilities is determined by whether the facility has a capacity of 25MW ormore in a single energy generation area.

(c) In subsection (13), the term "facility", which encompasses both a jurisdictionalenergy facility and its related or supporting facilities, is added to the definitions. "Facility"is a term of art used throughout the siting law.

(d) In subsection (16), the term "nominal electric generating capacity" isredefined. This term is used primarily in connection with the determination of the EFSC'sjurisdiction (see ORS 469-300(1)(a)(A)). It is intended to provide a more uniform andrealistic test of the expected output of an energy facility than the manufacturer's nameplaterating, which may be calculated in different ways by different manufacturers.

(e) In subsection (21) another term of art used in siting, "Project Order," isdefined. The project order sets forth the applicable criteria for approval of an energyfacility.

(f) In subsection (23), the term "related or supporting facilities" is defined moreclearly. Such facilities must be proposed by the applicant, and must be constructed orsubstantially modified in connection with construction of the energy facility itself in order to

MR110139.LEG 2 5/12/95

come within the EFSC's jurisdiction. This definition conforms with the EFSC's recentrulemaking which also refined this definition.

(g) In subsection (25), a deletion is made to reflect the fact that the state is relyingon site certificate conditions, rather than warranties, to protect public interest.

(h) In subsection (26), "thermal power plant" is amended to clarify that the Trojanpower plant, although no longer operating, is still a thermal power plant under ORS Chapter469.

(i) In subsection (30), "waste disposal facility" is amended to clarify that the"temporary storage" exempted from the definition of waste disposal facility includes on-sitestorage at Trojan of radioactive waste from the plant, until a permanent storage site is madeavailable by the federal government. The Attorney General's office has advised, by letter ofSeptember 20, 1990, that existing law allows the continued storage on-site of this type ofwaste. This change, as well as several others described below, are intended to eliminate anyuncertainty in this area.

SECTION 7

ORS 469.320(2)(a)(13) is amended to eliminate the requirement that need bedemonstrated pursuant to ORS 469.501 for the type of energy facility described in ORS469 .320(2) .

ORS 469.320(2)(d) is added to provide that a new site certificate is not required fortemporary storage at the Trojan site of radioactive waste from the plant. Like the change tothe definition of "waste disposal facility" in ORS 469.300(30), this change is intended toeliminate any uncertainty regarding the continued lawful storage on-site of radioactive waste.

ORS 469.320(3) modifies the efficiency standard to be used by the EFSC in decidingwhat levels of high-efficiency cogeneration warrant an exemption from the siting process.

ORS 469.320(4) is amended to clarify that the Supreme Court will review an EFSCdecision on an exemption based upon the record developed by the agency, rather thandeveloping its own record, regardless whether the agency took its action through a contestedcase or otherwise.

In addition, ORS 469.320(6) is amended to allow an exempt cogeneration facility thatloses its steam host one year to file an application for a site certificate.

SECTION 8

ORS 469.330 contains the requirements for the first (preapplication) stage of siting anenergy facility: the submission and review of a Notice of Intent, and the issuance of a

MRR0139.LEG 3 5/12/95

Project Order setting forth the applicable study requirements and substantive criteria forreview of the project.

Subsection (1) is amended to clarify that the purposes of the Notice of Intent are: (a)to put the EFSC on notice that an application may be submitted for a particular facility; and(b) to give the Department of Energy enough information about the facility and site for theDepartment to prepare a Project Order.

Subsection (2) of ORS 469.330 is amended to require early public notice for publiccomment on the Notice of Intent.

Subsection (3) of ORS 469.330 is amended to clarify that the Department of Energymay hold a preapplication conference if it believes the conference would expedite thepreparation of its Project Order, and to delete the current requirement that an applicationmay not be submitted until after the Project Order is completed.

Finally, subsection (4) of ORS 469.330 is added to clarify that the Project Order maybe amended at any time.

SECTION 9

ORS 469.350 is the statute governing the timing of submission of applications forenergy facilities. Subsection (1) amends this statute to conform to Section (8), eliminatingthe prohibition on submission of an application prior to the issuance of a Project Order.

Subsection (2) eliminates the requirement that copies of the application be circulatedto the Health Division, the Department of Transportation, and the Economic DevelopmentDepartment. In cases where the Department of Energy determines that these agencies may beinterested in a particular application, the Department would still circulate the application tothem.

Finally, in accordance with recent revisions to the EFSC rules, subsection (3) requiresthat public notice of the application be given once the Department determines that theapplication is complete. This notice would be in accord with current notice procedures,which provide for notice to the EFSC's general mailing list, and to persons who haverequested notice of actions regarding the particular energy facility.

SECTION 10

Under current law, the EFSC may reimburse other state agencies for their costs inreviewing an application. Reimbursement is from the review fees collected from applicants.The changes to ORS 469.360 allow reimbursement of cities and counties for their costs in thesame manner as state agencies.

MitR0139.LEG 4 5/12/95

SECTION 11

ORS 469.370 is the principal statute governing the procedures for review of anapplication for a site certificate. This statute is amended in part to reflect recent changes inthe EFSC's rules for the processing of application, and to make the following majorprocedural changes:

(a) To require notice of a public hearing on the application in a manner similar tothe notice given in land use proceedings (in addition to the EFSC's regular notice to itsmailing lists), e.g. notice to all affected landowners in the vicinity of the proposed facility,(Subsection (2)).

(b) To require that all issues of fact and law be raised prior to the close of therecord of the public hearing on an application, again in the same manner as in land useproceedings (Subsections (2)(e) and (3)).

(c) To make a contested case on an application for a site certificate mandatory,but also to: (i) limit participation in the contested case to parties who appear at the publichearing (orally or in writing); and (ii) limit the issues in the contested case to those issuesraised with specificity at the public hearing (Subsections (4) and (5)). This would eliminatethe 30-day period under current law during which the EFSC must wait to see if a contestedcase is requested. However, if no person challenges the Department's proposed order, thecontested case could be concluded and the Department's proposed order would be forwardeddirectly to the EFSC for it to act on a final order.

(d) New issues could be raised at the contested case, or before the EFSC in itsconsideration of its final order, only if they relate to the material changes to the application,proposed conditions of approval, or the proposed agency action, which were made after thepublic hearing (Subsections (5)(b) and (7)).

(e) The process for expedited review of smaller energy facilities would also beamended to allow nine months for such reviews if there are intervenors in the contested case,and to clarify that the output of geothermal, wind and solar facilities is to be calculated interms of their delivered capacity at the point the facility is connected to the transmissionsystem rather than in terms of their nameplate rating (Subsection (10)).

(f) In addition, the requirement that the EFSC coordinate its review with theNEPA process is expanded to include all facilities that go through NEPA review, rather thanjust small renewable projects (Subsection (13)).

_/MRR0139.LEG 5 5/12/95

SECTION 12

This amendment would delete from ORS 469.401 the requirement that a sitecertificate contain "warranties" from the certificate holder to the state. The council isauthorized under ORS 469.401 and 469.501 to address by condition the subjects that werecovered by warranties.

SECTION 13

ORS 469.403 is the primary statute governing judicial review of EFSC action relatedto energy facilities. Subsection (2) is amended to clarify that only a party that participated inthe contested case may appeal to the Supreme Court, and that issues are limited to thoseraised in the contested case.

SECTION 14

Section 14 amends ORS 469.421 to specify that cities and counties are to bereimbursed for their costs in reviewing an application for an energy facility in the samemanner as state agencies.

SECTION 15

The intent of the amendments in subsections (3), (4) and (5) is to ensure that energyfacilities that were licensed or under construction at the time of the creation of the EFSC in1975, including Trojan, are subject to continuing regulation by ODOE and the EFSC inorder to assure compliance with site certificate conditions and all applicable health and safetyrequirements. The language reinforces what has always been implicit -- that the EFSC canestablish monitoring programs for the decommissioning of all energy facilities (includingTrojan), as well as for the operation of all energy facilities.

SECTIONS 16 and 17

ORS 469.430 and 469.440 are amended to make it clear that site certificates for newenergy facilities are to be self-contained. That is, each certificate will identify all applicablehealth, safety and environmental regulations with which the facility must comply.References to warranties are deleted, consistent with the revision described earlier. ForTrojan, which holds a certificate issued prior to July 2, 1975, new subsection (3) of ORS469.440 describes the applicable standards.

MRR0139.LECI 6 5112/95

SECTION 18

ORS 469.470(2) contains the EFSC's general authorization to adopt standards andrules. Section (18) amends this statute in the following manner: (i) it makes the EFSC'sauthority subject to Section 26 of this Act, which suspends the EFSC's authority to apply aneed for facility standard as well as the authority to adopt siting standards on any subject notlisted in ORS 469.501, or to waive those standards; (ii) it eliminates the requirement that theEFSC consider (in its adoption of siting standards and rules) tax relief for renewableresources (through ORS 469.190); and (iii) it eliminates the requirement that the EFSCconsider the implementation of the Department of Energy global warming strategy, for thereasons discussed in connection with Section 5.

SECTION 19

Section 19 amends ORS 469.490 to specify that the validity of an EFSC rule may bechallenged only through direct review of the rule before the Supreme Court within 60 days ofthe adoption of the rule. This provision is intended to require that appeals of EFSC rules bemade in a timely fashion following the adoption of the rule, rather than through contestedcases ,which may occur years after a particular rule was adopted.

SECTION 20

ORS 469.501 contains the Legislative direction to the EFSC regarding siting standardsfor energy facilities. Section 20 provides that the EFSC may adopt standards on subjectsother than those listed in the statute.

In addition, the nature of certain standards is clarified. Specifically: (i) any standardrelated to impacts to fish, wildlife or plant species must take into account mitigation; (ii) thestandard on socio-economic impacts is clarified by listing the specific types of impacts thatmay be considered; and (iii) the need for facility standard and the authority for exemptionsfrom that standard are amended to eliminate references to global warming and to the taxrelief provisions for renewables in ORS 469.190.

Subsection (3) authorizes the EFSC to waive compliance with one or more of itsstandards if the EFSC determines that the overall public benefits of the facility outweigh thedamage to the resources protected by the standards the facility does not meet.

Note that although the EFSC's discretion with regard to adoption and waiver ofstandards is preserved in this section, exercise of that discretion is limited until theadjournment of the next session of the Legislature. See discussion of Section 26 below.

NIRR0139.LEG 7 5/12195

SECTION 21

ORS 469.503 sets forth the ultimate findings that the EFSC must make in order toapprove an application for an energy facility. Subsection (1)(a) clarifies that the EFSC maywaive its own standards if it finds that the public benefits of the project outweigh negativeeffects on the resource(s) protected by its standard, corresponding to the changes made toORS 469.501. Amendments to subsection (2) and (6) allow the EFSC to evaluate the landuse impacts of a facility under the statewide planning goals rather than local land use criteriaif: (i) the relevant local government fails to provide EFSC with the applicable local criteria;(ii) EFSC finds that one or more of the local criteria are not inet; or (iii) the facility passesthrough more than one jurisdiction or more than three zoning districts in one jurisdiction. Indeciding whether to apply the goals or local criteria to facilities that pass through multiplejurisdictions or zoning districts, EFSC must consult with the relevant local governments andconsider certain factors, including the degree to which the applicable substantive criteriareflect local government consideration of energy facilities in the planning process, and theconsistency of the criteria from the various zones and jurisdictions.

SECTION 22

This section amends ORS 469.507 to place responsibility on the site certificate holderto develop and operate environmental monitoring programs for the construction and operationof its energy facility, all subject to oversight by the EFSC and ODOE.

SECTION 23

This section provides that the site certificate holder is subject to injunctive relief froma circuit court for violating either the terms and conditions of its site certificate, or forviolating specific statutes relevant to siting, plant operation and the storage and transportationof radioactive materials.

SECTIONS 24 and 25

These are conforming amendments made by legislative counsel.

SECTION 26

Section 26 suspends the EFSC's authority to do any of the following until theadjournment, sine die, of the Sixty-Ninth Legislative Assembly:

(a) adopt a siting standard on any subject not listed in ORS 469.501(1);

(b) apply any form of a need for facility standard to any application, other than for acoal or nuclear facility, or apply any cost-effectiveness determination to any application (ascost-effectiveness is defined in ORS 469.020); or

IvIRR0139.LEG 8 5/12/95

(c) waive compliance with any EFSC standard pursuant to ORS 469.501(3) and469.503(1)(a).

This section is not intended to interfere with the EFSC's authority to amend itsexisting siting standards, so long as the amendments do not constitute the adoption of astandard on a subject not listed in ORS 469.501. This section is not intended to otherwisealter the EFSC's authority to consider costs in agency decision-making.

SECTION 27

Site certificates often contain conditions that require further action by the applicant,and subsequent review and approval of that action. Final development of monitoring ormitigation plans and programs are just one example of this type of condition. There hasbeen continuing uncertainty under existing law regarding whether the EFSC may delegate theapproval of the fulfillment of conditions to a site certificate. These reviews commonlyrequire relatively little discretion, or require the expertise of particular state agencies otherthan the EFSC. Some site certificates contain a relatively large number of these types ofconditions, and at the same time there is often a need for quick action in order to avoidproject delays. This section clarifies that the Council may, where it deems it appropriate,delegate the final review and action on the fulfillment of conditions to the Department ofEnergy.

SECTION 28

Section 28 clarifies that this Act would apply to any action taken on an applicationfiled (submitted and deemed complete) after January 1, 1995. This is a savings provisionsfor applications that have already been filed.

SECTION 29

Section 29 is a housekeeping measure. It repeals Sections 3 and 26 of this Act,effective January 1, 1998. Section 3 requires the establishment of a task force to review theenergy facility siting statutes, and. Section 26 suspends the EFSC's applications for a need forpower standard and its authority to adopt new siting standards.

SECTION 30

Section 30 repeals ORS 469.380. ORS 469.380 sets forth the standing requirementsfor participation in a contested case hearing on an application for site certificate, and forappeal of the decision resulting from a contested case. The new standing requirements forparticipation in a contested case, and for appeal of a contested case decision, are contained inthe amended ORS 469.370(5) and ORS 469.403(2) (Sections 11 and 13 of this Act). Onlythose persons who appeared at the public hearing on the application are allowed to participatein a contested case (and appeal a contested case order).

SECTION 31

An emergency clause is included.

MRR0139.LEG 9 5/12/95

EXHIBIT B

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: Robert Friedel <robertfriedelconsulting@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:07 AM

To: Esterson, Sarah

Subject: Re: Request for Copy of ODOE Letter

Attachments: UEC County Permit Confirmation.pdf

Sarah,

Sorry this took so long to get to you.

Rob

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Esterson, Sarah <sarah.esterson(1,state.or.us> wrote:

Morning Rob,

Hope all is well!

I have a small request — during our meeting on July 16, Andrew brought a hard copy of a letter issued by

ODOE from Tom Stupes regarding interpretation of "related and supporting facilities." I would like to review

this letter and ensure it is part of the record, if it was issued after the NOI was filed. Would it be possible to

request a copy of the letter from Andrew, or if you have a copy, could you send via email?

Thanks in advance,Sarah

Sarah T. Esterson

Energy Facility Siting Analyst

Oregon Department of Energy

625 Marion Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

P: Direct: (503) 373-7945

C: (503) 385-6128

1

Oregon.gov/energy

OREGON

NERGY

Robert Friedel

(541) 231 — 9990

215 SE 30th Place

Portland, OR 97214

robertfriedelconsulting@gmail.com

2

rUMATILLAELECTRIC

400 COOPERATIVE

March 28, 2011

Mr. Thomas Stoops

Energy Facility Siting Manager

Oregon Department of Energy

625 Marion Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-3737

Re: Confirmation on Morrow County Jurisdiction for 2 Morrow Energy Project

Dear Mr. Stoops

2 Morrow Energy is in the process of planning a 1012 MW wind farm in Morrow County. As part of the

project, Umatilla Electric Cooperative (UEC) is planning a 230 KV transmission line to connect the

project's collector substation to a new BPA 500KV/230KV substation at the Port of Morrow.

The potential routes of this line are wholly within a single jurisdiction, Morrow County. The length of the

line is approximately 26 miles. The route follows an existing 69 KV BPA line for the majority, but not all,

of the route.

UEC is requesting confirmation that that Morrow County has jurisdiction for the permitting process.

Thank you for your help on this project. If you need any other information, please call me at (541) 564-

4348.

Sincerely;

-

DavidDavid Gottula, P.E.

c.c. Ms. Carla McLane, Morrow County

Phone: (541) 567-6414

750 W OM Street • PO Box 1148 • Hermiston OR 97838

Fax: (541) 567-8142 Toll Free: 800-452-2273

regonJohn A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor

March 30, 2011

David Gottula, P.E.

Umatilla Electric Cooperative

750 Elm Street

PO Box 1148

Hermiston, OR 97838

!OREGON11 DEPARTMENT OF

— , ;ENERGY625 Marion St. NE

Salem, OR 97301-3737

Phone: (503) 378-4040

Toll Free: 1-800-221-8035

FAX: (503) 373-7806

www.Oregon.gov/ENERGY

Re: Request to Define Jurisdiction on a Transmission Line

Dear Mr. Gottula,

We have reviewed your letter of March 3, 2011 regarding the construction of a transmission line

approximately 26 miles in length, in Morrow County, following an existing BPA 69kV transmission route.

We offer the following analysis of the information presented.

To assist the analysis, we offer the following information;

ORS 469.300(11)(a)"Energy facility" means any of the following:

(C) A high voltage transmission line of more than 10 miles in length with a capacity of 230,000 volts or

more to be constructed in more than one city or county in this state, but excluding:

(i) Lines proposed for construction entirely within 500 feet of an existing corridor occupied by high

voltage transmission lines with a capacity of 230,000 volts or more; and

(ii) Lines of 57,000 volts or more that are rebuilt and upgraded to 230,000 volts along the same right

of way.

Based on this definition, the electrical transmission line that you propose is not an Energy Facility Siting

Council jurisdictional due to it being located solely within Morrow County. We understand that this

facility will be built to integrate wind facilities planned for Morrow County. Thus, we have also reviewed

the definition of "Related and supporting facilities," ORS 469.300(24). A related and supporting facility

is "any structure, proposed by the applicant, to be constructed or substantially modified in connection

with the construction of an energy facility, including associated transmission lines, reservoirs, storage

facilities, intake structures, road and rail access, pipelines, barge basins, office or public buildings, and

commercial and industrial structures." However, because Umatilla Electric is not proposing to construct

a generating facility in conjunction with this line, the proposed project is not a related and supporting

facility. As such, we concur with your conclusion that the project proposed by Umatilla Electric would

be appropriately sited under the Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Thank you for the question, and let me know if you have additional concerns.

Respe f Ity,

Thomas M. Stoops

Energy Facility Siting Division Administrator

Letter tt2011-017

EXHIBIT C

WRWAPPDoc042

Esterson, Sarah

From: Carla McLane <CMclane@co.morrow.or.us>Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:40 PMTo: Esterson, Sarah; Goodwin, AndreaCc: andrew@diversifiedwinds.com; Jerry Rietmann; Burke O'Brien; Sandra Putman; dave

pranger; Terry Tallman; Don Russell; Leann Rea; Karen Wolff; Roberta LutcherSubject: Morrow County/WRW ACS/Comment Letter

Attachments: ASC Comment letter 083115.pdf

Sarah and Andrea,

Please find our comment letter attached. Let me know if you have any questions.

Carla

1

1.1."...,,,

411. 111),I.-

fflaelmtesETEIPPLANNING DEPARTMENT

40, Bebe 'ems:: 4

\.>,..„_ jit' P. O. Box 40 • lrrigon, Oregon 97844‘aityz44$; (541) 922-4624 or (541)676-9061 x 5503

,„........

FAX: (541) 922-3472

August 31, 2015

Sarah Esterson, Energy Facility Siting AnalystOregon Department of Energy625 Marion Street NESalem, OR 97301

RE: Wheatridge Wind Energy FacilityApplication for Site Certificate Comments

Dear Ms. Esterson:

The following comments are on behalf of the Morrow County Court serving as a SpecialAdvisory Group for this project. Please see the attached December 5, 2012, letter authorizingCarla McLane, Planning Director, to act on behalf of the Court. The purpose of this letter is toaddress specific criteria, include appropriate requests for conditions of approval.

Exhibit B

The project is defined within Exhibit B and includes a description of an intraconnection linedesigned to move the power from either VVheatridge West or East to the other side, dependingupon the final location of a transmission line. Morrow County finds that the interconnection lineis a project component, and would not treat it as a transmission line as it does not ultimatelymove the power generated to the grid. It simply moves it from one side of the project to theother.

Exhibit B also describes the developers approach to transmission, or the process of moving theentirety of the energy generated to the electrical grid. The applicant presents several conceptualoptions, but no specific corridor is defined or proposed. As a bit of history several years ago theapplicant approached Morrow County and requested input about the project and inquired if theCounty had any questions or concerns. At that time, anticipating additional wind energyprojects, Morrow County requested that the applicant identify mechanisms to limit theproliferation of project specific "gen-tie" lines. As a response to that concern the applicant didtwo specific things: 1) approached Umatilla and Columbia Basin electric cooperatives to build,own and maintain the needed transmission facilities, and 2) inquired of the Oregon Departmentof Energy, through Umatilla Electric, the ability to treat transmission as a discreet energy facilitythat could be approved by a local jurisdiction. Attached to this letter is the Department of Energyresponse indicating two important facts. The first is that the transmission proposal anticipatedfrom Umatilla Electric is an Energy Facility and can be permitted by a local jurisdiction, and thenthe letter further discusses "related and supporting facilities" and determines again thattransmission can be reviewed and approved separately.

vvww.morrowcountyoregon.com

Exhibit K

The substantive criteria as presented within the Application for Site Certificate relative to MorrowCounty are complete and are generally responded to by the applicant in a manner consistentwith Morrow County process; more so since changes made after Morrow County commented onthe preliminary Application for Site Certificate. Following are additional comments:

Morrow County Comprehensive Plan: Through the Comprehensive Plan polices identifiedMorrow County finds that the Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility has integrated the proposeddevelopment into existing farm operations in a way that allows the continuation of farmingalongside wind energy development, augmenting the farming operation. The twoComprehensive Plan Energy Policies specifically relate to the development of solar and wind

facilities, and encouragement to use renewable resources. This development is in alignment

with those policies.

The Agricultural Policy identified above is further implemented as part of the Exclusive Farm

Use policy statement encouraging activities compatible with farm use, which the applicant has

accomplished.

In Morrow County any energy facility proposed on Exclusive Farm Use zoned land must obtain

a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally State of Oregon statutes not incorporated into the Morrow

County Zoning Ordinance, would be applicable, There is also a requirement, based on the

number of high value acres impacted by the development, that an exception to Goal 3 be taken.

Based on the agricultural and energy policies identified in the Application for Site Certificate and

discussed here, Morrow County supports the proposed and applied for Goal 3 Exception.

Within Exhibit K the applicant discusses Limitation on Conditional Uses, Site Plan Review, and

Conditional Use Criteria. Possibly the most important analysis within this section is that about

impacts and changes to farm practices based on the installation of the wind energy facility. The

narrative provided by the applicant addresses those concerns often raised during evaluation of

wind energy projects in Morrow County. Morrow County would find that the applicant has met

this requirement.

Based on Morrow County practice, and to reinforce our request in our comment to the

preliminary Application for Site Certificate, Morrow County requests the following Conditions of

Approval be incorporated into the Draft Proposed Order, specific to land use, for application

under the Site Certificate:• Underground installation of components should be done in locations so as to not impact

future farming operations.• Areas of temporary disturbance will be rehabilitated to pre-construction condition.

• Changes in access on County roads will require a new Access Permit.

• Improvement or development of private access roads impacting intersections with

County roads will be built to meet County access standards.• All turbines be placed a distance of at least 110 percent of turbine height from all project

boundaries.• Within the project boundaries turbines be placed at least 100 feet from property

boundaries.• The applicant provide to the County an as built survey when the project is complete and

operational.

• The applicant pay the requisite fee and obtain a Conditional Use Permit as required

under Morrow County Zoning Ordinance Article 6 Section 6.015.• The applicant pay the requisite fee and obtain a Zoning Permit for all of the project

components including, but not limited to, turbines, substations and O & M buildings sited

within Morrow County• The applicant obtain other necessary local permits, including building permits.

• The applicant obtain a Rural Address for any substations and O & M buildings sited

within Morrow County.• Adequate parking, meeting both the Morrow County Zoning Ordinance requirements and

all building code requirements, including ADA accessible parking, be available at any O

& M buildings sited within Morrow County.• The applicant shall meet with Morrow County Planning and Public Works and, based on

those discussions, make improvements, preferably prior to construction to any County

roads impacted by the development of the wind energy facility.

• The applicant produce, prior to issuance of any local permits, authorization to use

adequate transmission facilities to support the approved project.• The O & M building and similar project components sited in Morrow County shall be

fenced and any landscaping shall be done so that it blends with the nature of the

surrounding area.

Exhibit P

Morrow County had requested in our comment letter to the preliminary Application for Site

Certificate that information concerning the Morrow County weed program be incorporated into

Exhibit P and that habitat restoration and control of weeds be accomplished through a Weed

Control Plan and a Revegetation Plan. It appears the applicant prefers to use a Revegetation

Plan, but there is not adequate inclusion or consultation with the Morrow County Weed

Manager. And should the Revegetation Plan not adequately address weed management, then

Morrow County would require an additional Weed Control Plan. Based on these comments

Morrow County would request the following Conditions of Approval be incorporated into the

Draft Proposed Order, particular to Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Species:

• Provide for inclusion of the Morrow County Weed Manager in the review process of the

Revegetation Plan.• Implementation of a project Weed Control Plan in accordance with Morrow County

requirements and benefitting the underlying landowner.These plans are to manage project impacts, and are not intended to be applicable to lands

outside of the project boundary.

Exhibit V

Morrow County would find that the applicant has adequately addressed the Morrow County

Solid Waste Management Ordinance as part of Exhibit V. We would request the following

Condition of Approval assuring the applicants willingness to support Morrow County waste shed

reporting and goals as part of the Draft Proposed Order particular to Generation of Solid Waste

and Wastewater:• The applicant shall report either through a solid waste handler, or directly, solid waste

redirected to an approved recycling facility to benefit the Morrow County waste shed.

Exhibit DD

This exhibit implements Oregon Administrative Rule 345-024-0015 Cumulative Effects Standard

for Wind Energy Facilities. Morrow County, upon review of this exhibit, finds that the applicant

has, to the best of their ability, proposed a number of actions that will have the effect of limiting

impacts of the project to underlying landowners and neighbors, habitat and wildlife, and MorrowCounty infrastructure.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment to the Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility Application forSite Certificate. It has been a pleasure working with you and Andrea Goodwin to date, and Ianticipate that will continue. Should you have any questions about this comment letter, previouscomment letters, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cordially,

(Carla McLanePlanning Directo

attachment:December 5, 2012, Letter to the Oregon Department of Energy from the Morrow CountyCourt appointing Carla McLane to act on their behalf in their role as the Special Advisory

GroupMarch 31, 2011, Letter to Umatilla Electric from Thomas Stoops defining jurisdiction on atransmission line

cc: Andrew O'ConnellJerry RietmannMorrow County CourtBurke O'Brien, Morrow County Public WorksSandra Putman, Morrow County Public WorksDave Pranger, Morrow County Weed Program

COUNTY COURT

P. O. Box 788 • Heppner, Oregon 97836(541) 676-5620 • FAX (541) 676-5621

December 5, 2012

Oregon Department of EnergyTodd Cornett, Siting Officer625 Marion Street NESalem, OR 97301

RE: Wheatridge Wind Energy

Dear Mr. Cornett:

TERRY K. TALLMAN, Judgeemail: ttallman@co.morrow.or.us

Boardman, OregonLEANN REA, Commissioneremail: Irea@co.morrow.or.us

Heppner, OregonKEN GRIEB, Commissioneremail: kgrieb@co.morrow.or.us

Heppner, Oregon

Morrow County has been identified as a Special Advisory Group for the above referencedproject currently under review by the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) acting as staff tothe Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC). For the duration of this project correspondence withMorrow County can be directed to Carla McLane, Planning Director, (541) 922-4624, PO Box40, Irrigon, OR 97838. Additionally the Morrow County Court has authorized Ms. McLane to acton behalf of the County Court providing the necessary information, data, consultation and inputto both ODOE and EFSC.

If you have any questions concerning this letter you may contact Judge Terry Tallman at 541-676-5624. As stated above all other correspondence should be directed to Carla McLane.

Co 'ally,

Terry K. anJudge

Ken Grieb Leann ReaCommissioner Commissioner

regonJohn A. Kitz.haber, M.D., Governor

March 30, 2011

OREGONDEPARTMENT OFEN ERGY625 Marion St. NE

Salem, OR 97301-3737

Phone: (503) 378-4040Toll Free: 1-800-221-8035

FAX: (503) 373-7806

www.Oregon,gov/ENERGY

David Gottula, P.E.Umatilla Electric Cooperative750 Elm Street

PO Box 1148

Hermiston, OR 97838

Re: Request to Define Jurisdiction on a Transmission Line

Dear Mr. Gottula,

We have reviewed your letter of March 3, 2011 regarding the construction of a transmission line

approximately 26 miles in length, in Morrow County, following an existing BPA 69kV transmission route.

We offer the following analysis of the information presented.

To assist the analysis, we offer the following information;

ORS 469.300(11)(a)"Energy facility" means any of the following:(C) A high voltage transmission line of more than 10 miles in length with a capacity of 230,000 volts or

more to be constructed in more than one city or county in this state, but excluding:

(1) Lines proposed for construction entirely within 500 feet of an existing corridor occupied by high

voltage transmission lines with a capacity of 230,000 volts or more; and

(ii) Lines of 57,000 volts or more that are rebuilt and upgraded to 230,000 volts along the same right

of way.

Based on this definition, the electrical transmission line that you propose is not an Energy Facility Siting

Council jurisdictional due to it being located solely within Morrow County, We understand that this

facility will be built to integrate wind facilities planned for Morrow County. Thus, we have also reviewed

the definition of "Related and supporting facilities," ORS 469.300(24). A related and supporting facility

is "any structure, proposed by the applicant, to be constructed or substantially modified in connection

with the construction of an energy facility, including associated transmission lines, reservoirs, storage

facilities, intake structures, road and rail access, pipelines, barge basins, office or public buildings, and

commercial and, industrial structures." However, because Umatilla Electric is not proposing to construct

a generating facility in conjunction with this line, the proposed project is not a related and supporting

facility. As such, we concur with your conclusion that the project proposed by Umatilla Electric would

be appropriately sited under the Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,

Thank you for the question, and let me know if you have additional concerns.

Respe f I

Thomas M, StoopsEnergy Facility Siting Division Administrator

Letter #2011-017

           

Gilbert Response to Questions Posed to EFSC                                           

1

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: ott.irene@frontier.comSent: Friday, February 10, 2017 10:45 AMTo: CORNETT Todd * ODOECc: Andrew O'Connell; ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE; David Petersen; tgrim@cablehuston.com;

Chad Stokes; G. Frank; RATCLIFFE Jesse D; robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com; Albert J. Farmer; Richard Jolly; Dave Price; Cindy Severe; Susan Smith

Subject: Response to questions posed to the Energy Facility Siting CouncilAttachments: wheatridge response to questions.docx

Attached is the second submission regarding the questions the Wheatridge Hearings Officer submitted to the Energy Facility Siting Council. This document is intended to suppliment rather than replace the prior submission.

1

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: ott.irene@frontier.comSent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 5:34 PMTo: G. Frank; David Petersen; tgrim@cablehuston.com; Andrew O'Connell; Chad Stokes;

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE; robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com; RATCLIFFE Jesse DSubject: attached comments per hearings officer orderAttachments: wheatridge response to january 25 order feb..docx

BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF OREGON Motion Application for a Site Certificate for the for Summary Judgment Additional Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility Comment as Allowed by Interim Case Scheduling Order I notified the hearings referee that I would be in rural Wisconsin’s Amish Country from January 24, 2017 until Feb. 4, 2017. While I did not make it a formal motion, I did request that no orders requiring a response be issued during this timeframe. My cabin has no electricity, running water, phone or internet. It was purely by accident that I went to a library during this timeframe and saw that a notice had gone out the day after I left. I apologize if this document is lacking due to the unavailability of my resources and the limited timeframes when a computer is available to me. I recently read parts of Boldt v. Clackamas Co. 107 Or App 619, 813 2d 178 (1991), where the court found that the purpose of “raise it or waive it” is to provide “fair notice” of the issue and does not require citation to the relevant code standard. This appears to indicate that limiting code references to only those I was aware of may be improper in the analysis of this contested case. I have referenced statutes which relate to the issue at hand. Questions, recommended finding and justification

1. How does OAR 345-001-0010(51) modify, explain, expand (if at all) the phrase “proposed by the applicant”” as set forth in ORS 469.300(24)?

A determination to change the definition and application of OAR 345-0010010(51) is in conflict with the supporting Oregon Statute and would appropriately be addressed through the legislature. The verbage of the statute in ORS 469300(24) is “Related or supporting facilities—Any structure proposed by the applicant, to be constructed or substantially modified in connection with the construction of an energy facility, including associated transmission lines, reservoirs, storage facilities, intake structures, roads and rail access.” The plain language of the enabling statute is that when an applicant wants something built or modified to serve the needs of a wind facility and it must be constructed or substantially modified in order to serve that need it is a related or supporting facility. The language of the statute in OR 469.300(14) brings this definition into the description of what constitutes an energy facility by defining a facility as an “energy facility” together with any related or supporting facilities. The hearings officer is correct in determining that the decision regarding the posed questions “have broad policy implications for the council, ODOE, future applicants and other participants in the energy facility project siting process.” To determine that OAR 345-001-0010(51) is intended to modify the interpretations contained in the statutes and rules to delegate the decision regarding what is evaluated by ODOE and the Council means that a developer has the option of excluding any of the items listed as related or supporting facilities by simply excluding them from the application submitted to the department. In the future the council could see applications which fail to include roads, Operation and Maintenance Structures, and all other parts of a development with the exception of the actual turbines depending upon how the council addresses this and the following question. My argument that the gen-tie line is a related and supporting facility which must be included in an application for site certificate is supported by the following documents provided previously for the record: 1. Umatilla County memorandum of February 12, 2015 from George L. Murdock, Chairman Umatilla County Board of Commissioners to Andrea Goodwin, Document WRWAPPDoc17. Page 2 of this document states “Where the transmission line is a “related and supporting facility” and an essential component of the project, the Transmission

line cannot be deferred to a condition of approval. See Petro v Umatilla County.” See also page 4 of this document which states “County believes that, regardless of the EFSC definition, an energy project cannot be approved unless a gen-tie line is part of the application. See UCDO 152.616(HHH)(a)(5)(6) Standards/Criteria of Approval. See also attached legal analysis provided by Wendie Kellington, Attorney at Law. Findings for the transmission line should address UCDO 152.059(c) Land Use Decision and 152.617(H)(7) Standards.” 2. In the Umatilla Electric Cooperative’s Petition for Party Status in Contested Case, they make compelling statement regarding the fact that the gen-tie line is a related or supporting facility by stating the following: “WHEATRIDGE HAS MADE APPLICATION TO UEC, AND THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR THE ROUTING, EASEMENT ACQUISITION AND DESIGN OF A 230Kv TRANSMISSION LINE CONNECTING THE PROJECT TO A BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION(“BPA”) SUBSTATION. THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE IS TO FACILITATE WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS BY WHEATRIDGE OF THE PROJECT OUTPUT TO THIRD PARTIES.” This covers every requirement that makes it mandatory to include the gen-tie line as a related or supporting development. This document alone clearly shows the development meets the definition of a related or supporting facility which should have been included in the application and evaluation. The Department of Energy in their Party Status Document (page 7) stated, “department also recommends that the Hearings Officer find that Issue 1 is within EFSC’s jurisdiction for purposes of determining issues for the contested case.”

2. Did the Council intend in drafting the OAR 345-001-0010(51) phrase ”but for construction or operation of the energy facility” to include as “related or supporting facilities” any structures not requested by an applicant to be reviewed and approved in a site certificate application?

If only structures considered in a site certificate evaluation is what the developer choses to include for evaluation, the developers and not the EFSC will be controlling the definition of what constitutes an energy development. This does not appear to be in the best interests of the processing of applications and would make the evaluation of cumulative impacts impossible, If the gen-tie line is not a related or supporting facility by virtue of the fact that the developer chose not to include information regarding the line in the application, it would follow that developers would have the authority to determine what constitutes an energy development by simply chosing to include or exclude information regarding parts of the development from their application for site certificate. This would remove from Siting Committee authority decisions regarding what is considered in site certificates and move it to the control of developers. I question that the EFSC wants to delegate that decision process. Dated this 31st day of January, 2017. Respectfully, ______________________ Irene Gilbert for myself and The Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 Telephone: 541-963-8160 E-mail: ott.irene@frontier.com

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on January 31, 2017, I filed the original and one copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgement Additional Comments as Allowed by Interim Case Scheduling Order by e-mail and first class United States Postal Service mail on: Gregory J. Frank, Hearings Officer Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St. NE Salem, OR. 97301 e-mail: wheatridgecontestedhrg@gmail.com _________________________________ Irene Gilbert as an individual and Representing the Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 Phone: 541-963-8160 e-mail: ott.irene@frontier.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 30, 2017, I served the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgement Additional Comments as Allowed by Interim Case Scheduling Order by causing a true copy of the above-listed document via email transmission and by mailing in a sealed envelope, addressed to the persons at their last known address listed below: Andrew O’Connell, President David J. Petersen Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC Tonkon Torp LLP PO Box 133 1600 Pioneer Tower 245 West Main Street, Suite 200 888 SW Fifth Avenue Ione, Oregon 97843 Portland, Oregon 97204 email: andrew@diversifiedwinds.com email: David.petersen@tonkon.com Oregon Department of Energy Jesse Ratcliffe, Assistant Attorney general Sarah Esterson, Analyst Oregon Department of Justice 625 Marion St. NE 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 96301 Salem, Oregon 97301 email: sarah.esterson@oregon.gov email: Jesse.D.RATCLIFFE@state.or.us Umatilla Electric Cooperative Thomas M. Grim Robert Echenrode, General Manager & CEO Chad M. Stokes 750 W Elm St. 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Hermiston, Oregon 97838 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 email: robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com email: tgrim@cablehuston.com email: castokes@cablehuston.com ______________________________ Irene Gilbert, individual and representing FGRV 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 email: ott.irene@frontier.com

BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF OREGON Responses Application for a Site Certificate for the to Questions before the Energy Facility Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility Siting Council Responses to Questions, recommended finding and justification

1. How does OAR 345-001-0010(51) modify, explain, expand (if at all) the phrase “proposed by the applicant”” as set forth in ORS 469.300(24)?

A plain read of OAR 345-00l-0010(51) does not modify or expand upon the language in ORS 469.300(24). It provides explanation that the term “proposed by the applicant” relate to the construction or operation of the development. OAR 345-001-001(51) removes any opportunity to isolate the term “proposed” from the action “construct”. The use of the single statement “proposed to be built in connection with” clearly indicates that the definition of a related or supporting facility involves a structure that the developer “proposes” be built as a result of a planned development. It precludes the developer’s argument that the term “proposed” is related to anything outside the actual construction of the energy development and should not be interpreted as having anything to do with what the applicant submits on a document asking for a site certificate. The language of the statute in OR 469.300(14) brings this definition into the description of what constitutes an energy facility by defining a facility as an “energy facility” together with any related or supporting facilities. The applicant is incorrect in suggesting that a facility is a fluid term that is different depending upon what an applicant includes on their request for a site certificate. The hearings officer is correct in determining that the decision regarding the posed questions “have broad policy implications for the council, ODOE, future applicants and other participants in the energy facility project siting process.” In the event that the Energy Facility Siting Council were to accept the applicant’s argument, the Energy Facility Siting council, would have to be agreeing that it is developers who determine the definition of what constitutes an energy facility through the information they provide on an application for a site certificate. In the future the council could expect applications which fail to include roads, Operation and Maintenance Structures, and other parts of a development.

2. Did the Council intend in drafting the OAR 345-001-0010(51) phrase ”but for construction or operation of the energy facility” to include as “related or supporting facilities” any structures not requested by an applicant to be reviewed and approved in a site certificate application?

I see no connection between the clear statement that a structure built due to construction or operation of an energy facility is a related or supporting facility and the applicant’s desire to determine what structures meet the definition by virtue of the information included in an application for a site certificate. The definition of an energy facility is defined in statute and rule, not by the applicant. The Oregon Department of Energy and Energy Facility Siting Council are the parties responsible for identifying the information required by the statutes an rules to be included in a site certificate application.

3. Does the requirement of ORS 469.300(24) that a structure must be “proposed by the applicant” in order to be considered a “related and supporting facility” means that the applicant must choose to request review of the structure in the application for site certificate, or may a structure also be a “related or supporting facility” if the applicant has a level of involvement with the proposed structure sufficient to consider it to be proposed by the applicant?

The statutes define what constitutes an energy development. That definition includes related and supporting facilities which is also defined by statute and rule. Acceptance of the applicant’s interpretation of the rules moves decisions regarding the evaluation of energy developments from the statutes, rules and Energy Facility Siting Council to the developer. This does not appear to be in the best interests of the processing of applications and would make the evaluation of cumulative impacts impossible. If the gen-tie line is not a related or supporting facility by virtue of the fact that the developer chose not to include information regarding the line in the application, it would follow that developers would have the authority to determine what constitutes an energy development by simply chosing to include or exclude information regarding parts of the development from their application for site certificate. I question that the legislature in writing the statute or the EFSC wants to delegate that decision process. Dated this10th day of February, 2017. Respectfully, ______________________ Irene Gilbert for myself and The Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 Telephone: 541-963-8160 E-mail: ott.irene@frontier.com

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on February 10, 2017, I filed the original and one copy of the foregoing Response to Questions Before the Energy Facility Siting Council by e-mail and first class United States Postal Service mail on: Todd R. Cornett, Assistant Director, Siting Division Oregon Department of Energy 550 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR. 97301 _________________________________ Irene Gilbert as an individual and Representing the Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 Phone: 541-963-8160 e-mail: ott.irene@frontier.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 10, 2017, I served the foregoing Response to Questions Before the Energy Facility Siting Council by causing a true copy of the above-listed document via email transmission and by mailing in a sealed envelope, addressed to the persons at their last known address listed below: Andrew O’Connell, President David J. Petersen Wheatridge Wind Energy, LLC Tonkon Torp LLP PO Box 133 1600 Pioneer Tower 245 West Main Street, Suite 200 888 SW Fifth Avenue Ione, Oregon 97843 Portland, Oregon 97204 email: andrew@diversifiedwinds.com email: David.petersen@tonkon.com Oregon Department of Energy Jesse Ratcliffe, Assistant Attorney general Sarah Esterson, Analyst Oregon Department of Justice 555 Capitol St. NE 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 96301 Salem, Oregon 97301 email: sarah.esterson@oregon.gov email: Jesse.D.RATCLIFFE@state.or.us Umatilla Electric Cooperative Thomas M. Grim Robert Echenrode, General Manager & CEO Chad M. Stokes 750 W Elm St. 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Hermiston, Oregon 97838 Portland, Oregon 97204-1136 email: robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com email: tgrim@cablehuston.com email: castokes@cablehuston.com Gregory J. Frank, Hearings Officer 555 Capitol St. NE Salem, Oregon 96301 ______________________________ Irene Gilbert, individual and representing FGRV 2310 Adams Ave. La Grande, Oregon 97850 email: ott.irene@frontier.com

           

Umatilla Electric Cooperative Additional Written Argument on Certified Questions                                           

1

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: Diana Booth <dbooth@cablehuston.com>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:07 PMTo: CORNETT Todd * ODOE; 'ott.irene@frontier.com'; 'David.petersen@tonkon.com'; Tom

Grim; 'Robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com'; 'andrew@diversifiedwinds.com'; Chad Stokes; RATCLIFFE Jesse D; ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE; 'wheatridgecontestedhrg@gmail.com'

Subject: Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility Contested Case -- Certified QuestionsAttachments: UEC's Add'l written argument on cert questions.PDF

Mr. Cornett, 

 

Attached please find Umatilla Electric Cooperative’s additional written argument on certified questions.  This 

will also be served on parties by First Class Mail.  Please let me know if you have any questions or trouble 

opening the attachment.  Thank you. 

 

 

Diana Booth  CABLE HUSTON LLP 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000  Portland, OR  97204­1136  503­224­3092  www.cablehuston.com  

  *****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****  DO NOT read, copy or disseminate this e­mail message unless you are the intended recipient. The information contained in this e­mail message is privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure, and any dissemination, distribution, reading or copying is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you think you have received this e­mail message in error, please e­mail the sender at dbooth@cablehuston.com and call Diana Booth in the United States of America at (503) 224­3092. 

 

          

 ODOE’s Response to Certification of Questions 

               

  

 

1

ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE

From: Seeley Jeffery <jeff.seeley@state.or.us>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 4:21 PMTo: CORNETT Todd * ODOECc: 'andrew@diversifiedwinds.com'; 'cstokes@cablehuston.com';

'david.petersen@tonkon.com'; RATCLIFFE Jesse D; 'ott.irene@frontier.com'; 'robert.echenrode@umatillaelectric.com'; ESTERSON Sarah * ODOE; 'tgrim@cablehuston.com'

Subject: In the Matter of the Application for a Site Certificate for the Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility: Oregon Department of Energy's Response to Certification of Questions

Attachments: Wheatridge Wind Energy Facility - ODOE's 02.10.17 Response to Certification of Questions.pdf

Attached for filing are the following documents:

1. February 10, 2017, letter to Barry Beyeler, Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council Chair; 2. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S RESPONSE TO CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS; with Certificates

of Filing and Service. Hardcopies of the above-listed documents were mailed out today via Regular U.S. Mail. Respectfully submitted, Jeffery R. Seeley Legal Secretary  

General Counsel Division | Natural Resources Section 

Oregon Department of Justice  1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR  97301‐4096  503‐947‐4520 (Main line) | 503‐947‐4590 (Direct) | FAX:  503‐378‐3784 

 

*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. ************************************