The Oregon PUC sent out a Notice of Public Comment Open House regarding the B2H line. Two meetings were held in Malheur and Baker Counties March 26th and 27th, in response to Stop Idaho Power's petition campaign from last November, when we gathered over 1000 signatures. The OPUC sent their Administrative Law Judge Allan Arlow and Matt Muldoon of the PUC's Utility Program. We appreciate their coming here.
These meetings were not meant to be showcases for Idaho Power's Integrated Resources Plan. IPCo will have its chance before the OPUC in mid-April. This was an open house for affected persons who wanted to comment and ask questions.
We were told to limit our comments to less than 10 minutes. We were repeatedly warned by Idaho Power's legal team not to stray from the topic of "need." We were told that Idaho Power would make a short presentation of less than 10 minutes.
At Ontario's FRCC meeting, after 45 minutes and two Powerpoints, Judge Arlow asked Idaho Power representatives to cease. This was after telling them to keep their presentations short for the sake of the gathered citizens. He later apologized for not stopping them sooner. In Baker County, he stopped the Idaho Power speaker after 30 minutes. Judge Arlow compensated the time lost to citizens by allowing the meeting to go on as long as needed.
The Idaho Power presentations included new data that should never have been added to an addendum to a 2006 IRP; the place for such data is the June 2009 IRP. The addendum is an attempt to make an end run around what should have been an orderly process by asking for acknowledgement of a future project as part of a past plan.
When we have been assured that the original proposed routes are off the table, it makes one wonder why the fast track is still in place when it comes to the PUC's power to condemn property.
The following is the Baker City Herald's comprehensive and community-minded article on their March 27th meeting:
Message to PUC: Keep power line out of Baker County
Written by By Mike Ferguson March 30, 2009 01:07 pm
http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Message-to-PUC-Keep-power-line-out-of-Baker-County
By the time he gaveled Friday’s Oregon Public Utility Commission hearing to a close, administrative law judge Allan J. Arlow had heard from 23 residents stretching from Malheur to Morrow counties — virtually all of them opposed Idaho Power’s plan to run a 500-kilovolt transmission line through Baker County.
Friday’s hearing — and the extent of the PUC’s role in the matter — was to help the regulatory commission determine whether the region’s power grid requires the capacity the new line would add.
Comments were transcribed by a court reporter and will be sent to the PUC’s three commissioners — Lee Beyer, John Savage and Ray Baum, who did not attend Friday’s open house, nor a similar one that attracted almost 400 people in Ontario Thursday evening.
Baker City’s open house, held at the Community Event Center, drew more than 100 people.
According to an order Arlow issued March 19, the PUC will determine whether the need exists by this summer. The date for that hearing is still to be determined.
If the PUC approves the application, Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Committee (EFSC) will determine where the line will traverse five counties in Oregon as it runs from Hemingway, near Murphy, Idaho, to Boardman.
Citizens groups have been formed in Malheur and Baker counties opposed to the project, and Idaho Power is forming a citizens board to advise the company on concerns over its proposed routes, which have been withdrawn for the time being.
The case for the power line
Arlow allowed Idaho Power to make its case first.
Mark Stokes, the company’s power supply planning manager, said that Idaho Power is looking not only on the supply side — growth that’s necessitating the new line — but the demand side, conservation and efficiency that might delay the need.
The problem is, the supply side is dominating the equation.
“We have a need for (increased transmission capability, including the 225 megawatts that Boardman to Hemingway will carry) if we could get it on line this summer, but that’s just not possible,” Stokes said. At the earliest, B2H will be switched on in 2013.
Kip Sikes, Idaho Power’s manager for transmission policy development, said the takeaway he intended from Friday’s presentation should be that “if resources need to move through Idaho and Eastern Oregon, there is no transmission to do that today. We’re hitting operating limits every summer, and that’s creating regional bottlenecks.”
Sikes said Idaho Power has received 36,000 megawatts worth of inquiries from power generators that wish to connect to its transmission system, including 478 megawatts from prospective wind farms in Baker County. As it’s now configured, Idaho Power can transmit 32,00 megawatts.
“We’re required to hook them up if they choose to move forward, but very few move forward,” Sikes said.
The public has its turn
“It is clear from an environmental and cultural standpoint this project requires much greater discussion and community input,” testified Alice Trindle of Haines. “As a citizen of Baker County, a life-long participant in the ranching and tourism industries, and one who intensely values our heritage and the view-scapes this land affords us as East Oregonians, I highly request the Public Utility Commission intensely weigh the issues regarding ‘need’ for this transmission line, and find alternatives that do not disrupt our values for this place we call home. “Oregon has always been a state that is willing to make difficult choices in protecting our homeland. Please continue this tradition!”
John Milbert of La Grande asked the commission whether it’d be more economically feasible to construct local generating facilities near Hemingway, where Idaho Power’s load growth is occurring.
He and others also wondered if technology developments two decades from now “will render such a transmission line obsolete.”
Karen Yeakley, the former mayor of Baker City, said she has “grave environmental concerns with this line being constructed on farmland. We all like to eat and so will future generations. ... We need to re-evaluate the projected needs, study alternative forms of power, partner with (the Bonneville Power Administration), Pacific Power and our own OTEC. We need to respect Oregon residents and their land.”
Maurizio Valerio of Medical Springs likened Idaho Power’s proposal to the way railroad companies disregarded local needs when constructing the transcontinental railroad during the latter half of the 19th century. “That’s not a model we want any part of,” he said. “If Idaho Power wants to be a productive partner, they would work with us to find a solution that will be sustainable.”
“It may boost (the county’s) tax revenues, but that doesn’t seem worth the sacrifice,” said Durkee rancher Diane Bloomer. “Our love for our communities doesn’t include being part of a national power corridor.”
Peggi Timm, a founder and board member of Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative, said the transmission line “would stare down on our (Interpretive Center), a magnificent place you really should get a look at,” she said to Arlow. “The day is going to come — maybe in my lifetime — where a machine the size of a washing machine provides my power,” making the B2H line obsolete.
“This is like playing checkers,” she added. “You’ve got to plan ahead.”
Diane Carlile compared the Idaho Power proposal to Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere, except this one would be built with tax incentives for private benefit.”
Whit Deschner of Sparta joked that the citizens group Move Idaho Power should consider changing its name — to “Move Idaho.”
Ken Rockwell allowed that “there is a need, but folks in Idaho are living beyond their needs. Farmers and ranchers have learned to live within the capability of their land. Look at the needs of the people of Oregon,” Rockwell asked of the PUC. “We need growth where the power is, instead of putting it on the transmission line.”
Not all residents threw water on Idaho Power’s proposal.
“I’ve heard Idaho Power get bad-mouthed a lot today, but they’ve been one of my best neighbors,” said Gary Bloomer, who said he has 4-5 miles of transmission line that pass through his property in Durkee. “I’d like to see this go through if it’ll cause more renewable energy. If it weren’t for these big (property tax) ratepayers, I’m not sure we could afford to live in Baker County.”
Morrow County Planning Director Carla McLane said that not only was her county a large producer of electricity, it consumes a lot too — and “there are times when we don’t have enough power. We recognize the need to improve the grid, and (Idaho Power) does, too. The B2H line is part of that effort.”
After the hearing, Matt Muldoon, senior economist with the PUC, said that Friday’s exercise will prove valuable to the commission.
“Everything we heard today as staff we will ask Idaho Power,” he said. “Some of it is overlap, but it does inform the process.”
There are two ways to participate in the PUC’s formal proceedings that will lead up to the commission either acknowledging the need for the B2H line or denying the need. A person or a group can file a petition to intervene to become a party to the proceeding. Parties may file testimony, cross-examine witnesses and be cross-examined themselves.
Because formal participation is more demanding, that level of involvement is normally used by organizations with the ability to hire attorneys. The administrative law judge must approve party status; phone the PUC’s Administrative Hearings Division, 503-378-6607, for more information. The deadline to become a party to the proceeding is April 3.
A less rigorous role is that of an interested person. Interested people receive copies of all documents generated by the PUC, including notices, rulings and orders.
To contact the PUC by mail, write to Public Utility Commission, PO Box 2148, Salem, OR 07308-2148.
