Article 52 Proposed Revision

                    Commercial Wind Power Generation Facility Siting Requirements

                                                  Proposed Revision

    There will be a work session meeting with the Union County Planning Commission to review the proposed revisions to the Union County Article 52 (Commercial Wind Power Generation Facility Requirements).  The proposed revisions were drafted by a FGRVC committee composed of Jed Farmer, Ray Randall, John Milbert and Chuck LeBold.
    The work session will be a public meeting on February 25th at 7:00PM in the Planning Committee meeting room at 1001 4th Street in LaGrande.
    It is expected that it will take more than one meeting to arrive at a revised Article 52 to present to the UBOC (Union Count Board Of Commissioners) for approval. 
    Here is the link to the full 12 page Proposed Revision

---

2-8-19 from Nathan Baker - Friends of the Columbia Gorge

I am writing with a quick update on the Summit Ridge wind project.  

In response to the lawsuit filed by Friends of the Columbia Gorge and Oregon Wild, plus the public comments received to date, the applicant (Pattern Energy) and the Oregon Department of Energy have agreed to revert back to “Type A” review for this project. This means there will now be a public hearing and an opportunity for interested persons to request a contested case. We have won this round, but the rest is yet to come…. 

The EFSC hearing will be February 22 in The Dalles, and written comments can be submitted until the hearing. See public notice attached and below.

We will revise our sample comment letter and circulate a new version. Stay tuned……

Nathan Baker, Senior Staff Attorney
Friends of the Columbia Gorge
nathan@gorgefriends.org

         

---

B2H Coalition  Fall Update

October 2018 by Stop B2H

Prevent a 300 mile invasion 500kv transmission line across Eastern Oregon
PDF of this B2H Coalition Fall Update - send to others

B2H Application Ready for Review State of Oregon Siting Process Proceeds!

A Week on the Road with ODOE and Idaho Power?

 Yes it’s true.  STOP B2H Coalition attended four of the five meetings hosted by Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) and Idaho Power the week of October 15^th.  Even though these were not public hearings, the region turned-out good crowds. The meetings, called “Information Sessions,” were held in the five-counties that the Boardman to Hemingway (B2H) 500kv line would cross, to inform people about the next steps in the approval and permitting processes. 

 By night four, we strangely felt like we were “on the road” with the Idaho Power and ODOE staff.  While initially awkward, by the end (in Pendleton) we all had each other’s elevator speeches and Q & A lines down. We were able to freely engage in the conversations and Q&A period. The meeting in La Grande was probably the most frustrating in that the echo in the room and lack of microphones left many unable to hear. Also, the Q&A period was not long enough given the size of the audience.  Regardless, people got the message about Process!

And “process” was what their message was about…   
Main message:  THE NEXT TIME THEY COME AROUND AND  HOLD MEETINGS, THEY WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
If you DO NOT write or testify during this public comment/hearing timeframe, you LOSE ANY RIGHTS OR STANDING to continue in their process and qualify to file for a “contested case,” which is like to continue an appeal.  We anticipate the hearings by first quarter or half of 2019. 

Our job in this next phase to Stop B2H has been made clear:  Prepare for the Public Hearings.
 

While Process was the Topic of the Meetings—

People Wanted to Talk about the Project!

 No surprises that at every meeting we attended, Idaho Power was challenged about their need for the project.  This has been a constant and increasing theme as the realities of climate change and our energy future are becoming mainstream conversations.  Continuous reduction in prices of renewable energy and consumer demands for greener and fossil-free energy are driving the narrative and business realities of the future. Green energy jobs would be more plentiful than a hand-full of transmission jobs. Smaller micro and campus-scale grids are more secure: less risk of wildfire and cyber attack. Commercial and industrial customers can use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) technologies to create electricity, usually at rates below what the utility charges, and sell it on the energy market. This reduces energy need, creates energy independence in the region, and saves money--saving jobs and the environment!

East Oregonians were encouraging Idaho Power to build their own, using their resources and solar-friendly climate to create jobs for Idahoans.  Unfortunately, Idaho Power is not going to give up their guaranteed 6.7% profits for the good of the people and planet! 

Other issues were certainly discussed related to private land takings, wildfire risks, the Oregon Trail and more!  The lists below are a summary of the main concerns expressed either at the meetings and/or during the open house periods for each county. 

Week in a nutshell:

Malheur Co:  approx 35 people (12-13 staff of IPC or ODOE) 

Main issues:

o   Private farms west of Vale

o   Irrigation/water line which is too close to B2H that maintenance and repairs could be restricted

o   Oregon Trail around Birch Creek

o   21 Noise exceedances that will need a variance from DEQ rules

o   Possible environmental justice concerns

o   Fire/wildfire

 Baker Co:  approx 50 people (12 staff)

            Main issues:

o   National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center and viewshed

o   Lack of Need: distributed energy and distribution; want a poll of customers--would people pay more?

o   Sage Grouse and mitigation

o   Fire/wildfire and county preparedness                      

o   Possible environmental justice concerns (Durkee area)          Viewshed from Interpretive Center with 2 B2H towers (produced by Idaho Power)   

 Union Co:  approx 70 people (9 staff)

            Main issues:

o   Lack of Need: distributed energy and distribution; Idaho can build their own & it’s the future!

o   Viewshed and towers; re-conductoring the current towers (go smart); removing current line

o   Why not the federal route, the BLM’s Environmentally Preferred route?

o   City of La Grande being removed as a Special Advisory Group (SAG)      

o   Oregon Trail disturbances (& Baker Co’s Interpretive Center)

o   EOU viewshed and research areas (“rural university”)

o   Noise                                                                          

o   Fire/wildfire and liability

o   Slopes, unstable soils

o   Morgan Lake and tourism

o   Timber cuts

 Umatilla Co:  approx 40 people (8 staff)

            Main issues:

o   Fire/wildfire and county preparedness; and liability

o   Noise  (humans and livestock)

o   EMF (electro-magnetic fields) effect on both humans and livestock

o   Oregon Trail—especially in Baker Co

o   Lack of Need: distributed energy and distribution; solar and storage going down in price

o   No “off-ramps” of energy for five counties crossed by line

o   Taxes (not very clear and Id Power says that they’ll get us more information)

o   Possible tribal concerns

o   Lack of notifications to landowners and the public

 Morrow Co:  We did not attend this meeting (It was at the same time as the Pendleton one); so, no report.

Common concerns are fairly well covered in the ODOE/Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) standards, such as geology, soils, wildlife, public services, noise, etc.  But, the problem with minimum standards is that eventually, the developer will meet them and the project will be approved. We need to drill down deep and find areas of non-compliance!  We need to find areas where if it were to be approved, we want conditions to be placed on them or certain mitigations required!  We believe that conditions and mitigations will increase costs and make the project more risky for the developer.  NO STONE UNTURNED!

 This link to the ODOE slides might not say much if you were not present at the meetings; however, this slide (p13) about how to make comments with “sufficient specificity” is informative.  We have asked the ODOE staff for a sample of comments that have gone to contested case so we can model them. 

Effective Comments • Referencing specific siting standards & providing specific information supporting whether or not a standard has been met • Stating supporting facts in comments & attaching reference materials • Referencing specific pages or sections of the application or Draft Proposed Order (DPO)

Less Effective • Stating support or opposition to a facility • Only providing a copy of a report without presenting any analysis or facts related to compliance with a standard • Raising issues outside of EFSC’s jurisdiction • Making unsubstantiated statements

The slide on pp. 7 and 14 show where we are in the state EFSC Process. Another graphic, here, shows the same. You will see that our next (and only) Public Comment/Hearing will be coming with the issuance of the “Draft Proposed Order.”  This is expected in early 2019.  Be Ready!

GET READY:  Gear-Up NOW for the State’s Review!

Have you seen the mock tower silhouette on the hillside above la Grande?  Thx to member, Peter Barry and other brave worker bees, the tower was finished on October 7^th and has brought incredible attention and newly activated interest!  Check out all the action on Facebook: videos, photos, news clips and more!  @stopb2h

HELP WANTED!

Seriously, we NEED YOU! 

It will take more than a village to Win and achieve our Mission

Check out the WANTED poster on the last page!

In the Meantime…!

We are orgnizing research teams to take all the components of the application apart for analysis.  Can you help?  Take just one section or two?  Help with coorinating the teams or collating the summaries from the teams?  However YOU think YOU can help - we can find a place for YOU and your interests and skills.  Please reply and I'll give you a call to discuss.  Thx in advance, Fuji

 

·        Researchers & Research Teams:  read and summarize topics, as we prepare for public testimony for the Energy Facility Siting Council Public Hearings and Comment Period.  There are so many various topics related to the B2H, that something should float your boat?  Let’s meet and discuss your interests.

 

Not a researcher?  What about:

·         Outreach & Actions: creativity is wide-open here!  There have been many good ideas—and you surely have more--we just don’t have the folks to do it all.  signs, theater, march, actions…  We need your help & ideas!

·         Conference organizers:  we are planning a small conference this spring and need help with logistics!

·         Social media posting:  help keep our Facebook page active!

·         Writers:  again, with so many options, something should interest you? Newsletter stories, flyers, letters to the editor

·         Administrative: data entry, bookkeeping, simple reports, thank you notes, searching county records…

·         Donations—money always helps! As we get closer to possible litigation, we’ll be Fun(d)Raising more.

The time is now to ACT – please consider contacting Fuji Kreider: fkreider@campblackdog.org  to discuss your interests, skills and availability to lend a hand.  As volunteers ourselves, we are sensitive to being sure that you enjoy what you are doing and that you only take on as much as you can or are willing.  We will be most effective when we find the right fit for our tasks and when we contribute what we can—no matter how big or how little.  We Need You!     

Your support enables us to get the word out on B2H and hire experts to help us with our research and testimony.

THANKS to Copies Plus of La Grande, 1904 Adams Avenue! 

Copies Plus has consistently helped our Coalition with reduced printing costs for all of our work.

THANKS to ALL who came out to the Information Meetings last week!

Contact the Stop B2H Coalition:  stopb2h@gmail.com

www.facebook.com/stopb2h

*OUR MISSION:

To stop the approval and construction of an unneeded 305 mile, 500 kv transmission line through Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho, thereby: protecting environmental, historical and cultural resources; preventing degradation of timber and agricultural lands and the Oregon National Historic Trail; promoting energy conservation and acknowledging the past decade’s revolutionary developments in renewable energy, energy storage and distribution.

Our Union County Commissioners held a work session on April 11 during which Article 52 was discussed.  I feel obligated to report on it.

Scott Hartell (Union County planner) introduced the matter and asked that the commission provide some guidance.  He acknowledged that a group of '4 citizens' had offered a new draft of Article 52 and one part of that draft called for a two-mile setback between any wind tower and any residence.  Scott had used GIS mapping with all residences super-imposed for the whole county to demonstrate that the setbacks would mean there likely would be only a couple of significant spots of several hundred acres each available for wind projects.  He also provided a map showing wildlife restrictions for ODFW Category I and Category II Habitat which our group or '4 citizens' believes should be avoided at all cost.  Both maps were provided to the commissioners but no one else.  Generally speaking, the commission expressed some concern that the two-mile setback may not be "doable" but they made no decision.  

The '4 citizens' voiced opinions to the commission and Scott Hartell.  None of that generated much discussion.

Ultimately the county people agreed that Scott should invite the group of  '4 citizens' in for a discussion to fully understand our varying positions.  So we are not exactly encouraged, but not ready to concede, either.  

We have no idea how soon Scott may want to talk.  We see no advantage in rushing it at this time  In the meantime I will request multiple copies of both of the county maps that were mentioned earlier.

Ray Randall       member of  Friends of Grande Ronde Valley (FGRV)