UMATILLA
Meeting of
** ** ** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Bill Hansell (Chair), Dennis Doherty, Larry Givens
PLANNING STAFF PRESENT:
Tamra Mabbott, Heather Haueter
Doug Olsen
GUESTS PRESENT:
John Pinkstaff, Dixie Echeverria, Doug Bennett, Frank
Mueller, Carleen Hottendorf, Bob Guertin, Gene Anderson, Monty Hixson, Dietmar
Kinzer, Paul Chalmers, Don Bennett, Keith Primm, Kent Madison, Glenn Ikemoto,
Brit Primm, Norm Kralman, Richard Jolly, Robert Klein, Shaun Daniel, Tim Rust,
Shannon Rust, Carla McLane, Kevan Horn, Patty Horn, Patrick Echeverria, Lee
Anderson, Jonathon Gust
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING. HOWEVER, A TAPE OF THE MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.
CALL TO ORDER:
Commissioner Hansell called the meeting to order at
Commissioner Hansell called for any abstentions or objections to the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners. There were none.
HEARING is an APPEAL of Planning Commission approval to construct and
operate approximately 9 miles of 69 Kv power transmission line over private and
public property. The transmission line
will begin on property owned by Kent & Shannon Madison 6 miles south of
Interstate 84, then travel east across county right of way, then northerly
along State Highway 207 right of way, then across Interstate 84, then
continuing north along State Highway 207 to land owned by JR Simplot Company to
the PacificCorp power substation. There
is also an
Criteria for
approval include: UCDC Section 152.766
(Appeals); 152.617(II) (7) (Utility Facilities Necessary for Public Service in
Approval of
Minutes:
Motion:
Commissioner Doherty moved approval of the minutes of
*Commissioner Doherty noted that he had has a number of ex parte contacts, but did not declare a conflict of interest.
Staff Report:
Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott presented the staff report. She referred to the proposed transmission line on a map.
Ms. Mabbott noted that many of the turbines are on the
Ms. Mabbott went through the three issues raised in the appeal:
1) The applicant had not explored alternative routes or demonstrated that reasonable alternatives were explored as required in UCDC 152.617 (II) (7) (a).
2) The county did not impose clear and objective conditions to mitigate, minimize or consider significant changes in accepted farming practices, as required in UCDC 12.617(II) (7) (d).
3) General concerns related to the conditions.
Ms. Mabbott explained that UCDC 152.617 (II) (7) lists the standards for review for Land Use Decisions for a utility facility necessary for public service.
Sub (a) requires that the applicant demonstrate reasonable
alternatives have been considered and that the facility must be sited in the
· Information provided in the technical/engineering feasibility study requires a specific location. The applicant did not submit a feasibility study so they did not rely on this factor.
·
The proposed facility is locationally dependent,
meaning that it must cross land in one or more areas zoned for
· Due to health and public safety concerns. The Planning Commission found that there is no evidence to show compliance with this particular criterion, other than the applicant’s statement that public health and safety were considered in the selection process.
· Meets requirements of federal and state agencies.
Ms. Mabbott noted that the applicant met one of the four criteria, which is all that’s necessary.
Sub (b) states that costs associated may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only reason to determine that a utility facility is necessary for public service.
Ms. Mabbott noted that there were reasons given why alternative routes were not chosen. There was also some discussion given to sharing poles and easements with existing Umatilla Electric (UEC) lines or having power wheeled, but these options were eliminated as a possibility for numerous reasons. UEC representatives testifying at the Planning Commission hearing noted that they would have to wheel power if it were requested, but agreed that it was probably impractical.
Sub (c) requires that “the owner of a facility would be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible to original condition, any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or construction of the facility.” The Planning Commission addressed this by showing that it was made a condition of approval.
Sub (d) requires that a project “mitigate and minimize the impact of the proposed facility, if any, on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, in order to prevent a significant change in accepted farm practices or a significant increase to the cost of farm practices on surrounding farm lands.” The Planning Commission found that the transmission line had been carefully sited to avoid significant disturbance by using a route mostly along farm roads in the areas where it crosses agricultural land, and the majority of the route is along county and state road rights-of-way. The Planning Commission also found that it would have minimal impact on the current uses of any of the lands which it crosses.
Item #3 of the appeal states that the appellants have concerns about conditions that have not been resolved. Ms. Mabbott explained that conditions of approval are placed on land use permits to ensure that an applicant meets conditions at a later date that they may not be able to meet at time of application because of coordination with other agencies. They are also imposed as a means to mitigate any impacts and further show compliance with the standard.
Ms. Mabbott noted that, to date, the applicants have met most of the precedent conditions. She noted email correspondence with Mike Wick of Westland Irrigation District stating that, even though they don’t have specific terms worked out, they are fairly confident that they can come to terms on a Pole Placement Agreement for the poles placed within Westland Irrigation District. Oregon Windfarms has also submitted a Weed Control Plan and Emergency Contingency Plan.
Ms. Mabbott noted the new items for the record:
Exhibit #20 - Email from Mike Wick, Westland Irrigation District
Exhibit #21 - Emergency Contingency Plan
Exhibit #22 - Weed control plan
Exhibit #23 - Letter of opposition from absentee landowner, Louise Saylor Brown.
Motion: Commissioner Givens moved to add Exhibits #1-23 to the record. Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Mabbott noted discussion at the Planning Commission hearing about the matter of co-location of the line with UEC, pointing out that it is more of an engineering and financial issue, not land use. There was also talk of the feasibility of placing all or a portion of the line underground, which was not referenced in the Final Findings, but both issues were thoroughly vetted by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hansell asked for clarification that all conditions must be met before permits will be issued. Ms. Mabbott replied that once all precedent conditions are met a Zoning Permit may be issued. The subsequent conditions are required at some point in the future. Commissioner Hansell asked what leverage the county has with regard to the subsequent conditions. Ms. Mabbott replied that it is limited, but they must be completed within one calendar year, which may be extended up to four additional years, by statute.
Commissioner Doherty asked if the applicant was still considering an alternate route. Ms. Mabbott replied that there was only one route, which was the one outlined in the Board packets.
Commissioner Doherty asked what the status or standing was of
the landowners involved. Ms. Mabbott
replied that she was uncertain of the business aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Doherty asked who is responsible
for compliance with subsequent conditions then.
Applicant/Proponent Testimony:
Bob Guertin and Glenn Ikemoto testified as partners in Oregon Windfarms, LLC. Mr. Guertin clarified the proposed route, noting the route named in the public notice for this hearing was an old route. He explained that, after crossing I-84 the line will not continue along Highway 207, but will instead continue down Stanfield Meadows Road and across a private easement for a short distance along Highway 207 and then cross 207 to the Simplot property. That is the route approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Guertin provided an overview, explaining that the wind
project which the proposed transmission line would serve was approved by both the
Morrow and Umatilla County Planning Commissions. All precedent conditions for the wind plant
approvals have been met in both counties and zoning permits for towers had been
issued. Also, in
When complete the project will have a peak capacity of over 64 megawatts and the ability to generate enough energy to power 18,500 average homes. The projects will also offset the generation of significant amounts of greenhouse gasses, and will generate significant tax revenues for the county and income for the landowners. It will also create a significant number of local jobs and income both during construction and after for maintenance and support of the facilities.
PacifiCorp will be the primary customer for the energy and
has the transmission system most easily accessible to the developing site. Mr. Guertin explained the process for
contracting with utilities and the ability to wheel power over existing
lines. While physically possible, UEC
and Oregon Windfarms both came to the conclusion that it was not a feasible
business model, because UEC does not connect directly to PacifiCorp’s
transmission system, so it would require two wheeling fees; one to UEC and one
to BPA. Also, by not delivering directly
to PacifiCorp,
When it became apparent that there was not a viable
available transmission line to deliver the power from the project to
Glenn Ikemoto explained that wind energy financing is dominated by federal tax incentives, which are based on the amount of energy generated. When structuring financing, the initial owner has to be a large corporation to utilize the level of tax benefit, which in this case is John Deere Renewables. Their ownership will continue until they have recovered their investment and ownership can then transfer to other parties.
There are nine projects, three of which are owned by
landowners. These are the first projects
in
All nine projects will share in the ownership of the transmission line, either directly through a general partnership or by an assignment of the rights. In the mean time administrative obligations pertaining to operations of the lines will be directed by John Deere. Decommissioning will be negotiated prior to operation of the line, so there will be a long term agreement governing funding of decommissioning of the line and it will be the obligation of the projects. Mr. Guertin added that John Deere will be responsible for the operation and maintenance under a long term contract for the first 10 years. At the end they will own two of the nine projects.
Mr. Guertin continued his presentation, explaining that connecting to PacifiCorp or any other utility by a different means or at a different location other than proposed in the study requires that a new study be performed. Oregon Windfarms looked at various routes, all of which required some number of easements over private property and incorporated some distance of travel either along or across county or state roadways. Discussions with a number of landowners over potential easements across their property narrowed down their choices of routes. Oregon Windfarms finally settled on an approximately 9.4 mile route that incorporated the use of public right-of-ways along county and state roads and a selected number of private easements that minimized impacts on current land usage for nearby facilities and residences. They also consulted the county codes to ensure that it would meet all of the requirements. The line takes no agricultural land out of production, and where it crosses ag land it is routed between irrigated crop circles or along farm roads.
Mr. Guertin addressed the three issues raised in the appeal, noting that the appellants provided little of substance in their appeal.
First, regarding precedent and subsequent conditions, Mr. Guertin explained that, based on input from staff and testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application with conditions. The establishment of conditions is a normal occurrence. Since approval, Oregon Windfarms has been assembling documents to meet those conditions. Mr. Guertin named all the precedent conditions, noting those that were already met. Those they are still working on include:
·
#7 Comply with recommendations of the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservations and the State Historic
Preservation Office. They have hired a
consulting firm to conduct an artifacts and archaeological survey along the
entire transmission route. They have
completed the survey and submitted a draft report, which indicates one area
crossing the
· #8 Submit a construction plan that includes at least the name and contact of the licensed contractors and personnel for the transmission line, and relevant licenses and certifications. The contract is currently out for final bid and they will submit the necessary information when they decide on a final contractor.
· #9 Submit a plan for decommissioning of the transmission line. This is in process and they expect to have a proposed document within one to two weeks.
· #11 Provide a copy of the interconnect agreement with PacifiCorp. They are in final negotiations and expect to sign a contract next week.
·
#12 Obtain a Flood Hazard Development Permit
from
· #13 Comply with recommendations of Westland Irrigation District. Mr. Guertin referred to email correspondence with the district indicating they are close to an agreement with them.
· #14 Coordinate and comply with recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)) regarding potential impacts during construction of the transmission line. There have been discussions with ODFW and Oregon Windfarms’ consultants working in the field. There appear to be no big concerns, and they expect a letter of approval from the state shortly.
Mr. Guertin explained that the subsequent conditions in general are things that apply to activity during or after construction, so for the most part, can’t be completed yet. They will submit documentation demonstrating compliance with conditions in a timely manner as conditions are met. He felt there was no merit to the claim that there were numerous conditions that have not been resolved.
The second item identified by the appellants related to UCDC
requirement to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered
and that the facility must be cited in an
The third item was with regard to the requirement to mitigate and minimize the impacts of the proposed facility on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. Mr. Guertin pointed out that, as noted in their application, the transmission line was carefully sited to avoid any significant disturbance to agricultural land, making extensive use of existing county and state rights-of-way along roads and highways.
Issues raised by the appellants at the Planning Commission
hearing included potential impacts on hoped for redevelopment of adjoining
properties for non-
Another issue raised was potential interference with aerial spraying on a 40 acre field on Stanfield Meadows Road. The transmission line will be located along a row of trees that already create limits to spraying. The new line would create little additional restriction to aerial spraying of this field. Alternative spraying options employing ground equipment also exist, which do not create substantially higher costs. Oregon Windfarms concurs with the Planning Department and Planning Commission findings that there is no significant impact on accepted farming practices or significant increase in the cost of farm practices.
Motion: Commissioner Givens moved to add the written testimony of Mr. Guertin into the record as Exhibit #24. Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ikemoto addressed a comment in the letter from Mrs. Saylor-Brown
letter that the line would be of no benefit to anyone but Kent Madison and a
few investors. He pointed out that generating
domestic energy is a big priority for us all.
It will generate energy to power 18,500 homes and avoids generation of
significant greenhouse gases. The wind
projects present no cost to the county, but would generates approximately $350,000
in the form of property taxes to the county for its general use. There will also be significant monies to
Mr. Ikemoto agreed that more renewable energy is considered good, and transmission lines are considered bad, but you can’t have one without the other. Oregon Windfarms has done everything they can to meet the concerns of neighboring property owners.
Mr. Ikemoto confirmed Mr. Guertin’s statements addressing some of the appellant’s objections.
Gene Anderson with Silvey Enterprises testified that they are the primary contractor for this project, and are contracted directly with John Deere. Their scope is complete design build for the wind farm, electrical infrastructure, and the transmission line. They are also responsible for the interconnection requirements between the project and PacifiCorp. He noted that there is recourse to enforce conditions because PacifiCorp will require them to show fulfillment of county and state requirements before they will allow them to energize.
They used a local engineering company, Stantech Engineering, to do the detail design. They prepared a bid package that went out for contractors to bid for construction. The three finalists are Hinkles and McCoy, Hawkeye Construction, and H & H Line Contractors.
They are already buying materials for the transmission line in order to meet schedule and have a mandate to be ready for energization by December 15th. He described the construction materials of the lines.
Mr. Anderson noted that they have an agreement with UEC to share one pole where it crosses Highway 207 in order to prevent the need for a special pole.
The interconnection to PacifiCorp is being handled by PacifiCorp, and Silvey will just be bringing the line to the substation. Mr. Ikemoto added that they will be subject to the same engineering and safety standards as any utility in the state.
Mr. Anderson explained that they are required by the State Highway Division to have an engineered traffic control plan for both construction along Highway 207 and the crossing at I-84. They have used a local engineering firm to develop this plan, which has already been approved.
Mr. Anderson also explained that a major part of the project is the roads to get equipment in and excavation of the foundations. The contractor for the foundations is local county contractor, Monty Hixson.
Commissioner Doherty asked if Mr. Anderson had the expertise to address why portions of the line were not proposed to be laid underground. Mr. Anderson replied that a technical requirement for an underground line is that you use insulated cables, which requires three conductors. In order to dissipate heat you have to have the right size conductor and soils that can dissipate heat properly. The soils in this area are very poor for this, so materials would have to be brought in to condition the soils, which would be an extended cost to the developer.
Mr. Ikemoto added that a line in the air is cooled by air, but a line in the ground is actually insulated by the soil. The cost to place underground line would be about 5-15 times greater in cost. Also, mating of wires at each fitting where the line goes into and comes out of the ground causes greater potential for failure, and it is also difficult to locate a failure underground. Once underground it is nearly impossible to reconfigure the lines. Mr. Ikemoto also pointed out that less than 1% of transmission lines are underground and those are in vastly urban areas.
Commissioner Doherty asked if there were any reasons other
than cost that may make it unfeasible.
Mr. Ikemoto replied that there is an environmental reason because there
would be subsurface disturbance for nine miles, probably the entire width of
the right-of-way. Also, every connection
has to have a manhole access. Maintainability
would be much lower, and configuration flexibility for the future is lost. Mr. Anderson added that there would be
right-of-way issues too because a 69 KV line must be spliced and it cannot be
spliced underground. It would require a
manhole at each splice location along the route and the manhole is mandated by
the National Electrical Safety Code (
Commissioner Givens asked if there was a time table on the
federal tax incentive. Mr. Ikemoto
replied that if the project is not on line by
Commissioner Givens noted that the line in
Commissioner Givens asked if the projects had to be up and running before each of the three property owners would receive their $500,000 grants. Mr. Ikemoto replied that it did have to be operational before they would receive their grants.
Commissioner Givens noted the concerns about spraying on the property where there was an existing wind break of trees and asked what the pole height was in relation to the trees. Mr. Ikemoto replied that he didn’t know the exact tree height, but guessed that the poles might be 10 feet higher than the trees.
Commissioner Givens asked about the height of poles where the lines cross the highway. Mr. Anderson replied that there is a federal standard for the lowest point of the line over the highway so their pole height would be whatever it needs to be to meet that standard.
Commissioner Givens asked if they had thought about the feasibility of partial underground line where there were specific concerns. Mr. Ikemoto noted that splices introduce failure risk and great expense. It is also not normal utility practice. Mr. Anderson agreed that there is much greater risk of failure and safety issues at the location where the line enters and exits the ground.
Commissioner Doherty asked if they had a firm contract with PacifiCorp. Mr. Ikemoto replied that the contract is standard and not negotiated, other than details like dates. The qualifications of these projects have been agreed to by PacifiCorp and the Public Utilities Commission. A letter from PacifiCorp could be provided stating that the projects qualify for their standard contracts.
Commissioner Doherty asked if it was a prerequisite to have the projects up and running by the end of the year for the landowners to receive their federal tax credits as well as their grant money. Mr. Guertin agreed.
Commissioner Doherty noted that John Deere Renewables is not
local, but wondered if they will have a presence in
Commissioner Doherty had concerns about the county’s ability to control subsequent conditions. Mr. Ikemoto pointed out that the subsequent conditions give the county the right to terminate the permit. This would be a strong incentive for John Deere Renewables to ensure that those conditions are satisfied, to protect their investment.
Commissioner Doherty noted concerns of Commissioner Reeder
at the Planning Commission hearing. He
wondered if the project had an identifiable useful life. Mr. Ikemoto replied that once operational,
the life is really determined by the maintenance policies and replacement of
major parts. Mr. Ikemoto was not aware
of any wind project built in the last 20 years that had just ended. Mr. Guertin added that the turbines have
significant scrap value, which far exceeds the removal of the projects. Their easements with the landowners also give
first right to the equipment if it’s abandoned to the landowner. They are also working with
Commissioner Doherty asked if any county staff or agency had proposed an alternative route that they had not investigated. Mr. Guertin was unaware of any and noted that they investigated several routes on their own, but they were quickly dropped because landowners were not willing to give easement.
Commissioner Doherty wondered what constituted a “reasonable
alternative.” Mr. Ikemoto replied that
the meaning would really be a non-
There was brief discussion about the Strategic Investment Plan.
Commissioner Givens asked about the depreciation schedule for a transmission line. Mr. Ikemoto replied that book depreciation for turbines is about 20-25 years and for substations it’s 30-40 years, but for taxes turbine depreciation is only five years and line depreciation is 25-30 years.
Recess:
Commissioner Hansell called a short recess.
Commissioner Hansell reconvened the hearing, continuing applicant/proponent testimony.
Kent Madison testified as a landowner in the project. He noted that the unique thing about this
project is there is landowner ownership.
The significant money that will be made by the landowners at the time
John Deere ownership is relinquished will continue to be used in
Monty Hixon with Hixon Construction testified that he is an excavation contractor for Silvey. This would be his third project with them. He has been in the wind industry for 12 years and he felt that all of the people involved in this project were very reputable.
Mr. Hixon felt the project was good for
Commissioner Doherty referred to other wind projects previously approved by the county, which the county urged to use county resources at all stages. He wondered if this project would follow that lead. Mr. Ikemoto replied that part of their philosophy was to utilize local resources as much as possible. They also had to commit to local first as part of the Strategic Investment Program.
Norm Kralman asked about expansion of the project and the ability of the line to handle added capacity. Mr. Ikemoto replied that their line is being sized to PacifiCorp’s system, which really can’t take much more. At the point they may want to expand they would have to look for different markets for the energy. Mr. Guertin added that finding transmission lines that have available capacity is always a big issue for wind facilities.
Commissioner Hansell confirmed that what Mr. Ikemoto and Mr. Guertin were saying was that future projects would have to seek out a new customer because PacifiCorp does not have the capacity for additional power at this substation.
Robert Klein with Friends of Umatilla County asked what the cost difference was between using the UEC substation and lines. Mr. Ikemoto replied that UEC is not the customer and has no direct connection with PacifiCorp. He pointed out that UEC representatives agreed in previous testimony that it would not be feasible for them to transport this power. Mr. Guertin explained that they have regulations they have to follow and must pay extra charges to comply with those regulations to wheel to PacifiCorp, which limits the economics of the project.
Mr. Klein asked why they were so committed to PacifiCorp with that being the case. Mr. Ikemoto replied that UEC buys power from BPA, which is federal power, and PacifiCorp pays more. Kent Madison added that we as UEC customers don’t want this power because it’s more expensive; UEC provides cheap power.
Ms. Mabbott wondered about the ability of Oregon Windfarms to share their interconnect agreement with UEC. Mr. Guertin replied that even if they could, UEC has certain regulations regarding what they’re allowed to do with their system because of their contract with BPA, and if Oregon Windfarms connected to UEC’s line an interconnect study would be required. This takes 12-18 months to evaluate.
Mr. Ikemoto added that UEC also does not have the right to allow sharing of poles because the right is governed by the underlying easements. They would have to go back to each landowner and negotiate a new easement.
Frank Mueller testified that he has a windbreak in the area of the line and he wondered who was responsible if a tree were to go down on the line. Mr. Ikemoto replied that Oregon Windfarms would have the trees pruned by a licensed arborist to keep them out of the right-of-way, and he offered to provide more trees for Mr. Mueller if any were to be damaged.
Mr. Klein asked if the applicant had tried to work with UEC. Mr. Guertin explained that they had met with them prior to submitting their application to PacifiCorp for interconnect, and pointed out again that sharing their poles would require a new easement from every landowner where a pole is located. Mr. Ikemoto added that UEC was unwilling to share poles in initial conversations, and their lines don’t go where Oregon Windfarms needs to go anyhow. UEC has since changed their policy, but Oregon Windfarms is too far in to change now.
Dixie Echeverria asked about wheeling. Mr. Ikemoto again explained that it is possible, but it would be an off system sale because UEC would have to wheel the power to BPA, who would then wheel it to PacifiCorp, and Oregon Windfarms would not qualify for the contracts under which they are selling power. There would then be balancing and scheduling obligations, making the financial burden so great that it may make it economically infeasible.
Commissioner Doherty noted the timing issue related to acquiring the towers themselves. Mr. Ikemoto replied that the manufacturer is sold out 24 months ahead. If Oregon Windfarms were to change the point of delivery now it would put the project out 2-3 years and be a “disaster.” They are really committed now. Commissioner Doherty commented that they obviously had to settle at some point to deal with these essential components of the project plan, adding that when talking about reasonable alternatives, you also have to think of do-ability and how it fits with the other pieces that have to come together to make the project.
Dixie Echeverria asked about earlier reference to future flexibility of the line. Mr. Guertin replied that it was in regard to poles above the ground and the ease of stringing new or bigger lines. Ms. Echeverria asked if that was Oregon Windfarms’ intention. Mr. Guertin replied that they don’t have a plan for that in place, but if someone else comes along and wants to use the same poles they may have that option.
Ms. Echeverria asked if ODOT knows where the poles will be located within the right-of-way. Mr. Guertin replied that ODOT is aware of the tentative locations, with the understanding that some of those poles may move as the final engineering is completed. ODOT will be reviewing and approving the placement of every pole.
Ms. Echeverria asked how far the poles would be from property lines and how far apart. Mr. Guertin replied that they would be as close as two feet from property lines and would be an average of 250 feet apart.
Brit Primm, surveyor on the project added that they will typically lay out the poles before setting them and the engineers will look and make adjustments as needed.
Jonathon Gust commented that he had just purchased property in the subject area, so was unfamiliar with the project. He was concerned that the line would encroach on his property, which already has two easements. Mr. Ikemoto replied that the line would lie within the existing easements.
Ms. Echeverria asked about the swing width of the wires. Mr. Ikemoto replied that the swing width would be within the easement area. The insulators will face in to prevent swing beyond the back of the poles and keeping the line within the easement. Ms. Echeverria asked if they chose that particular insulator configuration because the easement is narrow. Mr. Guertin replied that it was because ODOT requires that poles be located on the outside edge of the easement, so they chose this configuration to prevent swing beyond the easement.
Opponent
Testimony:
Dixie Echeverria gave a PowerPoint presentation, describing the project, and discussing some of the alternatives that were explored.
She noted that the Final Findings from the Planning
Commission hearing stated that Colonel Jordan and Noble Roads were both far
narrower than Highway 207, but questioned whether
Ms. Echeverria then referred to the statement in the Planning Commission Findings that the applicant was unsuccessful in negotiating with the landowners. She noted that she was offered $30,000 for a 1.4 mile easement, pointing out that this comes out to $4.05 per linear foot. She spoke with a local appraiser who told her that underground fiber optic easements sold for $14.00 per linear foot about 10 years ago. This is 28% more for a much less invasive easement.
Ms. Echeverria went on to talk about wheeling, noting that the Planning Commission Findings referred to the wheeling charges as “postage stamp” rates, and that without a direct connection to PacifiCorp’s system the power would be considered an off network resource and they would be responsible for scheduling deliveries with significant penalties for missing predicted deliveries. The Findings indicated that the combination of costs would make the project economically unfeasible. Ms. Echeverria noted that Mr. Ikemoto had stated at a previous Planning Commission meeting that the value of the wheeling rate compared to constructing their own line would be approximately 8% of revenue. She commented that if this small amount would make the project economically unfeasible then maybe the project is not financially sound.
Ms. Echeverria explained that she had gone out and spoke
with property owners looking for alternative routes. She noted that there is a lot of industrial
land at the Colonel Jordan exit where it meets I-84. She also referred to a couple of landowners
with
Ms. Echeverria went on to talk about agricultural impacts. She felt that trimming Mr. Mueller’s trees would create less of a wind break for dust control.
She also talked about “safe passage”, referring to a fax she received from ODOT, stating that Highway 207 is classified as a regional highway, which is defined as “providing connections and links to regional centers, statewide or interstate highways, or activity centers of regional significance. The objective is to provide safe and efficient high speed, continuous flow operations in the rural areas. The secondary function is to serve land uses in the surrounding areas of these highways.” Ms. Echeverria was concerned that ODOT would restrict farm equipment on the road if it was shown to pose a problem to oncoming traffic. She felt that farmers needed more assurance from the applicant, as agricultural use could be considered a secondary use on this highway.
Ms. Echeverria displayed pictures of the highway in certain areas, showing how limited farm equipment access would be with the lines in place, which she felt would cause a safety concern.
She also noted that the need for a safety plan was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, and pointed out that just this July there were two accidents in which UEC lines were brought down by high winds.
Ms. Echeverria talked about the option of placing the line underground along the two narrowest miles of Highway 207, comparing the cost to overhead line. What she came up with was only a 1.923% increase in project cost. She also compared this increased cost to the potential revenue generated by energy sales from the project to point out how small the cost of underground would really be.
Ms. Echeverria noted the production tax credit, which allows for income tax credit for the production of electricity as well as other fuels. The current credit value is $.02 per Kw hour. Based on their potential revenue, this gives them a deductible annual income of $4,000,000, which would make their annual tax savings somewhere between $610,000 and $1,000,000.
She went on to talk about the accelerated depreciation schedule, pointing out that 15 years from now county revenue from this project would be almost nothing. She asked if the Strategic Investment Plan had been approved by the county. It had not.
Ms. Echeverria referred to the fire prevention plan, noting that the Findings stated that the facility did not constitute an unnecessary fire hazard, and minimum fire safety measures may include keeping the site clear of all combustible material within 30 feet of structures. She pointed out that the poles would be located within 2 feet of the edge of the easement and wondered how they would clear 30 feet if most of that was outside the easement area.
Ms. Echeverria talked about building in a floodway. Per
The findings stated that it is a single pole construction and would not cause increased flood heights or velocities. Ms. Echeverria sited the example that adding a bunch of sticks to a full cup of water would cause it to overflow. She argued that this is what would happen with the transmission line poles.
Ms. Echeverria concluded that opponents would like to see:
Ms. Echeverria displayed signatures of 75 petitioners.
Motion:
Commissioner Hansell asked for a motion to enter Ms. Echeverria’s packet of materials into the record as Exhibit #25. Commissioner Givens moved. Commissioner Doherty seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Echeverria noted the requirement of Goal 5 to protect agricultural lands, and pointed out that the lines would limit spraying even further because they are already broken into small parcels. She also referred again to the affects of the line on public safety on the roads.
Commissioner Doherty asked staff if the public safety issue regarding downed lines is the County’s issue or ODOT’s. Ms. Mabbott replied that it is both. One of the standards in the Findings is that public safety is considered in the selection of the specific route. If the line is down it is a jurisdictional issue for ODOT, but Planning Commission tried to mitigate for that by requiring an operation plan.
Commissioner Doherty referred to ODOT permits in the Board packet, noting that they don’t appear to address the issues that Ms. Echeverria had raised. Ms. Mabbott replied that she could not speak for ODOT. These were the only materials received from ODOT to date, other than a letter from Marilyn Holt indicating that there was a way to issue permits, but with mitigating factors.
Commissioner Doherty asked how the Planning Commission proposed to deal with the safety issue on the highway. Ms. Mabbott replied that they addressed the permitting issue, not the safety issue. There is a condition to provide a fire prevention and response plan, which must be approved by the County Emergency Manager.
Commissioner Hansell wondered why a downed power line in a state right-of-way would be the County’s issues; what jurisdiction would it fall under. Ms. Mabbott replied that the question is whether there are adequate assurances in place that the owner of the line will remedy the problem quickly and safely. She did not know what ODOT regulations were regarding this issue or what they require of the developers.
Commissioner Doherty asked if Ms. Echeverria had identified a better route. Ms. Echeverria suggested crossing Chet Prior’s and Stephen Gass’ property, which would avoid the residences on Colonel Jordan Road and allow them to hit Union Pacific property, and they wouldn’t be in flood way. Commissioner Doherty asked if Ms. Echeverria knew that this option was doable in the sense of what the project requires, such as landowner consent. She replied that she thought it was possible if property owners were offered fair easement prices.
Commissioner Doherty asked if Ms. Echeverria’s point regarding property tax was that at some point tax income to the county would decline. She agreed.
Commissioner Doherty asked what alternatives Ms. Echeverria would suggest. She stated that she would recommend an underground line for the last two miles to mitigate safety issues on the road or choose another above ground route. She noted that she didn’t think they had spent much time researching alternatives, pointing out that she was just approached in April.
Commissioner Hansell pointed out that they began the project two years ago and were looking at routes that didn’t work out. It is not that they just started a couple of months ago with Ms. Echeverria’s property. It was by a matter of elimination that they finally came to this route.
Commissioner Hansell asked Ms. Echeverria if she would have granted and easement if Oregon Windfarms would have offered what she considered a fair price. Ms. Echeverria replied that if they had proposed an underground easement she would have taken $4, but would not take $14 for above ground today because that was the rate for underground fiber optics 10 years ago.
Doug Bennett testified in opposition, pointing out that the proposed route would create a lot of hostility in the community, and he didn’t think it had anything to do with jealousy over income made from the project. He felt it was grounded in the fact that it will create safety issues, cause changes in farming practices, and reduce values of property along the route.
Highway 207 is heavily used for farming and commuting, and Mr. Bennett felt that the positioning of the poles and required guard rails would impede farming and cause safety issues.
Another issue is that the lines would go very near some housing. Disruption to communication like cell phones and radios, and the discomfort of being shocked getting in and out of vehicles are nuisances, but there may also be unknown health damage from long term exposure to stray voltage. It is known to disturb the health and reproduction of cattle, but affect to humans is uncertain.
Mr. Bennett referred to a comment at the Planning Commission meeting by Commissioner Tammie Williams that she wouldn’t want a line near her house, but the benefit to the county justified the intrusion. He explained that opponents are not against the wind project or the revenue to the county, but they wish to change the route or bury the line.
Mr. Bennett noted that there are affects to farming, citing additional costs to spray around the lines, and wind erosion that may occur if Mr. Mueller’s trees are removed or damaged. He also noted that the wind erosion could become a safety concern for traffic on the highway, as there is a history of sand blowing across the highway.
Mr. Bennett wondered how poles will be retrieved on hostile private property if a line goes down. He noted a comment from Mr. Ikemoto at the Planning Commission hearing that they would just go ahead and retrieve a downed pole and the landowner could sue. He felt this comment did little to gain the trust and favor of the people in the community. Mr. Bennett added that any litigation would be difficult and expensive because of the distance of the home base of the managing corporation.
Another question Mr. Bennett had was in regard to
maintenance and repair of the line.
Local power companies like UEC have their own trucks, etc. to take care
of their emergencies, but he cited examples of recent storms in which these
companies were busy servicing their own lines and would not have been able to
aide the wind project with downed lines.
He noted that service for Oregon Windfarms was proposed by a company out
of
Mr. Bennett felt the remedy for hostility would be to move
the route, or put portions underground. Ms.
Echeverria had investigated the route she mentioned and it appeared that
acquiring easements for that route would be possible. Also, that route would be shorter than what
is proposed and the majority of that route would cross
Mr. Bennett also noted that one of the first wind farms proposed in the area had originally shown where portions of their line would go underground, which indicated to him that underground would be feasible.
Mr. Bennett urged the Board to deny the application, or require that they change the route or bury it.
Norm Kralman handed out a prepared statement, explaining that he lives in the area of Milton-Freewater where earlier wind farms are located. It seemed that as long as they aren’t visible they aren’t a bother.
He talked about the economics of the projects, noting that
he kept hearing how tight the budget is, but wind power is the largest tax
subsidy in the nation. Obviously, the
economic advantages that
Mr. Kralman stressed that he doesn’t have a problem with people making a profit, but he doesn’t feel that it’s right if the only way projects are possible is through subsidies that our taxes pay for. He noted that he was not challenging this wind farm itself because he believes it is a viable industry, but he did not feel that wind is the solution to our country’s energy problems. Things change too quickly and our community should not be tying in to 50 year contracts with these wind energy projects, especially if they are relying on public subsidies.
Mr. Kralman read from a recent article in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin, which stated “there could be some detrimental effects if it’s not done right.” He pointed out that people in this area are just asking that it be done right so that we don’t suffer down the road. It is an exciting industry to see unfold, but we need to be sure that the citizenry of the county are not the ones who have to suffer for it.
Motion:
Commissioner Hansell for called a motion to add Mr.
Kralman’s testimony into the record as Exhibit #26. Commissioner Doherty moved. Commissioner Givens seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Robert Klein testified on behalf of Friends of Umatilla County, explaining that they are a land group working with citizens when these types of issues come up. He personally lives within a mile of a wind farm himself and he agreed with Mr. Kralman that people aren’t really against wind farms themselves; but he noted that during construction of the turbines near his home there was significant dust, which impacted his hay crop, even with mitigation measures. There are impacts.
Mr. Klein referred back to the proposed transmission line, noting his concern about having power lines on both sides of the road. He wondered why sharing poles wasn’t better researched.
He pointed out that most farmers conduct a lot of their business on a cell phone, but cell service is affected on roads between two power lines. Cell phones are also important in emergencies on the roads.
Mr. Klein was also surprised at the tight timeline for the project. He didn’t think it should be pushed through so quickly. The important thing should be the citizens.
He concluded that they are not against wind power, but
safety is an important factor, and Highway 207 is a very narrow road. When it comes to farm equipment there is not
a lot that can be done in emergency situations when running equipment down the
road. He asked that the Commissioners
step back and listen to the concerns of citizens.
Rebuttal
Testimony:
Mr. Guertin noted that there were a lot of issues made about reducing the width of the highway and limits to farm equipment. He explained that they are placing the poles as far off the road as possible, per ODOT requirements. He noted that ODOT’s requirements in their permit was that wherever a pole is less than 19 feet off the fog line they will probably require a barrier. There are one or two small sections where that might be required, but they will work with ODOT to see if that might be avoided. ODOT establishes the requirement that barriers must be four feet from the fog line.
Mr. Guertin pointed out a couple of existing section of Highway 207 with existing barriers on both sides, making it much narrower than their lines would. In most places they will be placing their poles more than 20 feet from the edge of the paved highway, which would leave plenty of room for farm equipment to travel. They are not decreasing the usable width of Highway 207. The reason ODOT requires barriers is for public safety so poles won’t be hit when they are within a certain distance of the road. Mr. Guertin noted that the ODOT permit in the Board’s packets cites regulations that they have to follow for the installation of barriers and other activities, which are referenced in ODOT’s code.
Mr. Guertin also explained that it is the plan of the ODOT highway representative to look at all pole positions after they have been staked and make recommendations. Mr. Ikemoto added that public safety is part of ODOT’s evaluation process when evaluating proposals.
Mr. Ikemoto also noted that opponent discussion about how they plan to operate the line in the event of an emergency was a gross misrepresentation. It is critical to make sure the line is safe, but unlike a utility serving retail customers, they don’t have to rush to get back on-line because they are only transporting energy, not supplying it directly. Deadening the line does not take a high degree of training and is mostly automated. If the line breaches the breaker automatically opens and de-energizes the line.
Their concern is not losing revenue, but getting the line dead before it is handled. Before a line is handled they want a physical inspection of the breaker to confirm that the line is open. PacifiCorp actually has that responsibility because the breaker is in their fence, and they have that responsibility 24 hours a day to dispatch someone to physically look at the breaker. Then anyone can move the line out of the roadway.
Mr. Guertin added that they will not sign the final contract on the maintenance on the line. This will be done by John Deere Renewables. Oregon Windfarms has approached UEC about being the maintenance service provider, and UEC is putting together a proposal which will be provided to John Deere as an option for their consideration.
Mr. Guertin noted that it was a misstatement when it was said that Mr. Ikemoto had stated that Oregon Windfarms would just take lines off private property and the landowner could just sue them. What Mr. Ikemoto actually said was that, if in fact they actually encroach on private property the landowner has the right to sue, but Oregon Windfarms will make their best effort to ensure that the lines are well maintained and that this does not occur. No utility, even though they have eminent domain, has the right to have their lines fall on private property, and they deal with the same issue regarding violation of easement. Mr. Ikemoto added that safety is the primary concern and liability is secondary.
Mr. Guertin noted several comments about the last two miles of Highway 207 being very narrow, but he pointed out that it is actually no narrower than most of the rest of the highway. What we’re really dealing with is the desire by a select number of landowners for a different route. Oregon Windfarms is trying to utilize an existing public right-of-way that is there for just this purpose. Oregon Windfarms has tried to be sensitive to the needs of landowners, crossing the road in one location at extra expense to try and keep the poles away from properties.
He also explained that they tried to negotiate many private easements, and though their initial offer to Ms. Echeverria was low, they did come back with a higher offer later. Mr. Ikemoto added that they were not actually looking to locate on Ms. Echeverria’s property to begin with. He ran into her while out visiting with other landowners and asked if she would be interested in selling an easement across her property. In fact, her husband thought it was a great idea. Mr. Ikemoto’s initial offer was based on a visual estimate of the distance. After the Planning Commission meeting he went back to the objecting landowners and offered more than double their original offer; the final offer to Ms. Echeverria being $75,000. He pointed out that it only takes one landowner to eliminate a route as an option. The fall back is use of a public right-of-way.
Mr. Guertin asked that Kent Madison speak to the issue of the cost of spraying. Mr. Madison explained the difference between aerial application and ground application, explaining that he had talked to David Bacardi, who does both types of application. Mr. Bacardi said there is no difference in cost. It is $850 per acre for either and aerial actually has a minimum of $850 because of fuel costs.
Mr. Ikemoto addressed the issue of stray voltage, explaining that it is not a function of high voltage transmission lines. It is typically due to faulty grounding of the distribution system. He pointed out that there is a 150 Kv transmission line running along the southern boundary of Ms. Echeverria’s property that has been there for at least 10 years and it is 40% higher voltage. Ms. Echeverria and Mr. Bennett replied that it is not near the house, but Mr. Ikemoto pointed out that one of their earlier arguments was about the effects to cattle and their feedlot abuts that section of line.
Ms. Echeverria noted that multiple farmers have told her that when they work around transmission lines they get shocked. Mr. Ikemoto recommended that they contact their utility so that they can check the grounding of their service.
Mr. Ikemoto passed out pictures of an existing line that runs past residences and a school, without any complaints of stray voltage, and that line is higher voltage and closer than their proposed line.
Motion:
Commissioner Hansell called for a motion to enter pictures of the existing line as Exhibit #27. Commissioner Doherty moved. Commissioner Givens seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ikemoto went on to address the Strategic Investment Program, explaining that the system for calculating is very complex. Their good faith estimate is $300,000 per year for 15 years and at that point it will go up or down based upon the market prices of electricity.
As far as 8% of revenue not being much profit, Mr. Ikemoto explained that it is pretty average. He talked about capital recovery. He noted that Ms. Echeverria’s idea of a fair rate for an 8,000 foot easement was $4.5 million.
Mr. Guertin noted that they addressed the flood zone in their testimony. They hired a consultant who is filing out the proper forms and doing the required analysis. He pointed out that Ms. Echeverria’s analogy of a full cup of water overflowing when adding sticks was an exaggeration for this project. It would be more accurate to compare to a bowl of water and dropping in a flea. It is a large area and they would only be adding three poles. The biggest issue they have in complying with requirements is making sure that the poles won’t be uplifted by the water. Ms. Mabbott asked if the poles would be located in the flood plain or floodway. Mr. Guertin replied that it would depend on the results of the study.
Mr. Guertin also noted that he took exception to testimony
about making sure that citizens get something out of the project. He felt they had gone way beyond what other
developers have done in the past, in terms of involving property owners and ensuring
that tax monies are well beyond what was expected when originally
proposed. The project also creates jobs,
and it’s a great opportunity to create green energy and optional energy
sources. He felt that the path chosen is
within the code as much as possible, and they have made the most of an existing
route and corridor. Mr. Ikemoto added
that there are no reasonable alternatives outside the
Mr. Ikemoto again stated that they would replace any trees Mr. Mueller wanted.
Commissioner Doherty noted the alternate route suggested by Ms. Echeverria. Mr. Ikemoto replied that it only takes one person unwilling to say no to eliminate that option.
Commissioner Doherty wanted to hear more about the maintenance and public safety issue. Condition subsequent #20 requires a maintenance and operation plan, including at a minimum the name and contact of a licensed contractor and maintenance company and personnel for the transmission line and licenses and certifications. He noted that they had indicated that they had been in discussions with UEC for this and wondered if Oregon Windfarms was in a position today to state the there will be an agreement. Mr. Guertin replied that UEC stated that they were very interested in doing it, but the final decision is up to John Deere. He assured that safety is a huge priority to John Deere.
Mr. Ikemoto noted that John Deere has an operations center that has 24 hours ability to trip the breakers, but they would like to work with UEC because they have the ability to get the line up faster because they are local. Commissioner Doherty suggested that the Board could get John Deere to come to a decision faster by making the maintenance and operation plan a condition precedent, or leave it as a condition subsequent with a time limit and further standards. It could also be added that it will be required before the line can be energized.
Commissioner Doherty referred to a comment by Mr. Guertin that they had gone a long way to assure the citizens of the county get something out of the project. What Commissioner Doherty had found with the county’s experience with wind power projects over the years was that they do bring a lot of benefits, but they don’t go to everyone. What the county has done with other projects to help distribute benefit was create a Community Benefit Plan. This might mitigate any hard feelings some citizens may have that they are “getting the shaft.” Mr. Ikemoto noted that the Community Benefit Plan was actually a subcomponent of the SIP negotiation.
Commissioner Givens asked if there might be a shorter
alternate route going across the
Agency
Testimony:
Paul Chalmers,
Commissioner Doherty asked if Mr. Chalmers was familiar with
the Strategic Investment Plan (SIP). Mr.
Chalmers replied that he hadn’t seen anything specific to the portion of the
project in
Commissioner Doherty referred to a letter in the record which took the cost of construction and used it assuming that the full value was what the tax rate would be applied against. Mr. Ikemoto commented that the objective of the SIP is to eliminate the state component and restructure the county component so that taxes are paid equally over 15 years. Mr. Chalmers added that this is for planning and budgetary purposes.
Mr. Chalmers explained the effects to valuation of private
property, pointing out that these are negotiated or existing easements, where
the line falls outside of a public right-of-way. The bulk of the line crosses
Recess:
Commissioner Hansell called a short recess.
Commissioner Hansell reconvened the meeting and asked for any requests to keep the record open. Ms. Echeverria requested that the hearing be continued. Commissioner Hansell clarified that there could be for a written request to continue the hearing or a request to leave the record open for additional testimony. Ms. Echeverria stated that she would like a continuance to allow time to review new information presented today.
There was discussion about whether or not the Board should grant a continuance. Commissioner Doherty’s opinion was that it was the option of the Board whether or not to grant a continuance. Ms. Mabbott commented that it was her memory that the governing body is obligated to honor a request for continuance only if there is substantive new evidence presented at the hearing. The Board would find that there was either entirely new information submitted, or information that had already been provided was just further described.
Recess:
Commissioner Hansell called a short recess for counsel to confirm Statute requirements.
Commissioner Hansell reconvened. County Counsel Doug Olsen stated that, based on State Statute 197.763, if there is a request for continuance or to submit additional testimony, that request must be granted at the option of the Board whether to continue the hearing to a specific date or give a specific time for submission of additional evidence. Commissioner Doherty asked what would prevent the same thing from happening repeatedly. Mr. Olsen explained that this is a de novo review hearing so it is considered the initial review. Later requests would not have to be granted. Ms. Mabbott clarified that the hearing that if the hearing is continued the record also closes at that time. No new testimony is allowed.
Commissioner Doherty asked if the Board could request that testimony be received in writing. Mr. Olsen explained that if the Board wished to do it that way they could reschedule the hearing for 14 days, allowing 7 days for written testimony from opposition and 7 days from applicant.
There was discussion about dates for written testimony and
the hearing date. Due to limited dates
to achieve a quorum the applicant agreed to shorten their time to submit their
written testimony. Ms. Echeverria would
have until close of business on
Motion:
Commissioner Givens moved to keep the record open and
continue the hearing for final deliberation to
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Haueter
Secretary