B2H Community Criteria

With the second Boardman to Hemingway transmission line routing Community Advisory Process meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 28th from 4:00-9:00 p.m. at the Four Rivers Cultural Center, Idaho Power has provided the following information from the previous meeting:

Community Criteria Definitions

• Placement Opportunities – Project Advisory Teams identified areas for the transmission
  line that would be preferred by the communities.
• Avoidance Areas – Project Advisory Teams identified areas that are important to the
  communities. The communities recommend avoiding these areas when siting a route for
  the transmission line.

Placement Opportunities

• Existing energy corridors
• West Wide energy corridor
• Public land (federal and state)
• Along Interstate I-84
• Along property lines
• Outside city limits

Avoidance Areas

• Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land
• Irrigated farmland
• Aerial spraying activity areas
• Rangeland
• Scenic view sheds
• Areas that have potential for residential and/or business development
• Areas of tourism
• Historic landmarks
• Narrow valleys with agricultural operations
• Private resource land (i.e., timber)
• Sensitive wildlife areas (i.e., sage grouse leks)
• Water resources and wetlands
• Schools
• Private residences
  

A lingering issue

Power line proposal remains unresolved
By Larry Meyer Argus Observer Tuesday, July 21, 2009
http://argusobserver.com/articles/2009/07/21/news/doc4a65f03a16630737655763.txt

ONTARIO — They forced Idaho Power to take a second look at its process to choose a site of an ambitious Boardman (Ore.) to Hemingway (Idaho) transmission line, but members of Stop Idaho Power are not ready to declare victory as the second round of the South Project Advisory Team meeting is coming up at the end of this month.

Residents from across the region fill out the advisory teams, which were created by Idaho Power to help alleviate concerns of homeowners’ near the route of the proposed line.Those concerns, crystallized by Stop Idaho Power’s efforts, helped push Idaho Power to review its original route and eventually discard it. Stop Idaho Power focused on driving the line away from predominantly exclusive farm use land in Malheur County and onto public land.

But members of Stop Idaho Power said they are not sure they’ve reached that goal. At least not yet.

After abandoning the original routes, Idaho Power Company established three project advisory teams, representing three geographic areas from Canyon County in Idaho to Morrow County in Oregon. Each has held one meeting.

Represented in the south team are Malheur, Harney, Grant, Owyhee, Canyon, Payette and Washington counties. Harney and Grant counties are included because they contain parts of alternative routes proposed by SIP.

“I’m encouraged and skeptical,” Roger Findley, one of the Stop Idaho Power organizers, said. “Encouraged that we are having a process. Skeptical about how long it is taking.”

However, Lynette Berriochoa, Idaho Power project spokesperson, said, with the start of the new route selection process, there is no timeline.

“We hoped to have the process completed by fall. But we really want to get through the complete process however long it needs to take,” Berriochoa said.

There are 30 to 40 people on each team, she said. The South team’s next meeting will be Thursday, July 28th from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Four Rivers Cultural Center.

“All the government agencies will be talking about constraints (on siting the line),” Jean Findley said. . .

Western States To Lose Control Over Transmission Siting?

Two stories from Newwest.net on the volatility of national energy policy, including the following concerning a threat by Obama-era FERC to take over the routing of western transmission lines, and a companion story (below this blog post) on environmental pushback to the Bush-era, federally-designated Westwide Energy Corridor.

By Sharon Fisher, 7-13-09 http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/western_states_to_lose_control_over_transmission_siting/C564/L564/

Newly added provisions to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, next slated to be voted on by the U.S. Senate, give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission final say over the siting of electric transmission lines in Western states—but not in any other part of the country, attendees of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region conference in Boise learned today.

There is a “real threat” of the federal government taking over, said Paul Kjellander, administrator of Idaho’s office of energy resources, noting that seven transmission lines are currently slated to crisscross Idaho. One of the biggest issues is Gateway West, the siting of which is being fought by Parma and Kuna, which found out at recent public meetings that towers up to 180 feet tall along a corridor up to 250 wide were slated to cross the cities’ impact areas.

“Everyone agrees it’s essential,” Kjellander said. “What they can’t agree on is where it goes,” especially since some alternative routes could add up to $1 billion more to the project. . .

The Fourth Circuit court overturned a legal decision earlier this year regarding FERC power over site selection. “FERC had argued that the 2005 Energy Policy Act permitted it to order “national interest” transmission projects to go forward, and that Congress’ mandate included implicit authority to overrule state decisions to the contrary,” according to the Marten Law Group.

“ The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that if states turn down transmission projects on reasonable grounds, they cannot be overruled by FERC.” The case may end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law group said . . .

Under the newest draft, a “high-priority national transmission project"developer must first apply to a state to route transmission facilities,” the Marten Law Group said. “But if the state fails to approve the construction and routing within one year of application, rejects the application, or imposes “unreasonable” conditions on the project, FERC can step in and authorize the transmission line routing. . .

Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Western Energy Corridor

Suit alleges 6,000-mile corridor would threaten wildlife and some of the West's most scenic lands, all while ignoring the push for renewable energy in the region. By Courtney Lowery 7-8-09 http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/groups_file_lawsuit_challenging_western_energy_corridor/C37/L37/

Several environmental groups and one county in Colorado filed a lawsuit Tuesday, saying the energy corridor the Bush administration designated through thousands of miles in the West doesn’t do enough to encourage renewable energy and it puts wildlife and public lands at risk. . .

The complaint alleges that the federal government violated several laws in creating the corridor, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. . .

The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy first mapped the 6,000-mile corridor, spanning 11 Western states, in 2005 as part of the 2005 Energy Act, legislation the groups now allege the government violated. . .

The agencies completed a “programmatic” environmental impact statement late last year after taking public comments in 2006 to the first draft of the maps and then a draft of the environmental impact statement. According to the Department of Energy, 82 percent of the corridors are on BLM land, 16 percent are on Forest Service land and the other 2 percent are on National Park land, Bureau of Reclamation land or Department of Defense property.

The Department of Energy late last year said in a release: “In some cases, corridors intersect or approach sensitive lands or resources. Most often these intersections follow existing infrastructure such as highways, transmission lines or pipelines to avoid placing corridors in “greenfield” (undeveloped) locations” . . .

Purpose and Need and the art of load forecasting

Several of us attended an informal meeting on "Purpose and Need" at the FRCC Wednesday, July 8th. It was, in essence, a follow-up to the March 26th Oregon PUC meeting in which Idaho Power's planning managers showed us Powerpoint presentations of figures primarily having to do with capital costs, current resources and requirements, firm energy transmission, renewable resource responsibilities and the very unfixed art of load forecasting. Did they make a better case this time? Read on . . .

Reading over the 2006 Integrated Resources Plan, one can observe in retrospect just how little IPCo's forecasts actually meshed with reality. Whether the current figures are any better is anyone's guess; what is apparent is that the new load forecast figures, which went unitemized for the meeting (there was no time after more than two hours of presentations for real discussion) left us uninformed on the subject of getting a handle on accurate load forecasting, despite Jean Findley's question, "How do you know that you're anywhere close here?"

Mark Stokes, Manager of Power Supply Planning, gave the "Our Best Guess" answer: "There's a ton of assumptions with any of this stuff."

Hardly reassuring, especially when Idaho Power assumes that Oregon real estate will be bearing the brunt of 500 kV powerline construction, even though it is obvious that

1. Malheur County's energy Need has little, if any, effect on the load forecasts;
2. Any local service area forecast increase will be consumed by Idaho customers; and
3. Much of the load forecast has to do with regional wheeling and not with local service area need at all, underscoring the public versus private argument.

We thought could be most helpful outlining Oregon's PUC administrative rules concerning the "Standard for Need" IPCo will have to meet in order to reapply for transmission line for the Energy Facility Siting Council's permission to cross Oregon real estate.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/docs/rules/div23.pdf

DIVISION 23

NEED STANDARD FOR NONGENERATING FACILITIES
345-023-0005 Need for a Facility This division applies to nongenerating facilities as defined in OAR 345-001-0010, except nongenerating facilities that are related or supporting facilities.
To issue a site certificate for a facility described in sections (1) through (3), the Council must find that the applicant has demonstrated the need for the facility. . .

The applicant shall demonstrate need:

(1) For electric transmission lines under the least-cost plan rule, OAR 345-023-0020(1), or the system reliability rule for transmission lines, OAR 345-023-0030. . .

(1) The Council shall find that the applicant has demonstrated need for the facility if the capacity of the proposed facility or a facility substantially similar to the proposed facility, as defined by OAR 345-001-0010, is identified for acquisition in the short-term plan of action of an energy resource plan or combination of plans adopted, approved or acknowledged by a municipal utility, people's utility district, electrical cooperative, other governmental body that makes or implements energy policy, (think Malheur County Energy Council) or electric transmission system operator that has a governance that is independent of owners and users of the system and if the energy resource plan or combination of plans:

(a) Includes a range of forecasts of firm energy and capacity demands and committed firm energy and capacity resources, as defined in OAR 345-001-0010, over the planning period using a reasonable method of forecasting; May 2007 − 1 − Division 23

(b) Considers and evaluates a reasonable range of practicable demand and supply resource alternatives over the planning period on a consistent and comparable basis. Practicable alternatives are those that are demonstrated to be technically and economically achievable within the time frame considered to meet potential energy or capacity needs;

(c) Uses financial assumptions, including discount rates and treatment of resource lifetimes and end effects that are consistent and comparable between resources;

(d) For electric transmission line facilities, considers alternatives that include but are not limited to:

(A) Implementation of cost-effective conservation, peak load management and voluntary customer interruption as a substitute for the proposed facility;

(B) Construction and operation of electric generating facilities as a substitute for the proposed facility;

(C) Direct use of natural gas, solar or geothermal resources at retail loads as a substitute for use of electricity transmitted by the proposed facility; and

(D) Adding standard sized smaller or larger transmission line capacity. . .

(g) Includes the development and evaluation of alternative resource plans to meet forecast energy or capacity needs over the planning time period; May 2007 − 2 − Division 23

(h) Analyzes the uncertainties associated with alternative resource plans or strategies. . .

(i) Aims to minimize long-run total resource costs while taking into account reliability, compatibility with the energy system, strategic flexibility, as defined in OAR 345-001-0010, and external environmental costs and benefits. The value provided by reliability, compatibility with the energy system, strategic flexibility and external environmental costs and benefits may justify actions that increase the total resource cost of the plan.

The Council finds that the goals of a least-cost plan are to minimize expected total resource costs for society and the variance in those costs due to uncertainty about future conditions;

(j) Includes a short-term plan of action;

(k) Is consistent with the energy policy of the state as set forth in ORS 469.010. An energy resource plan is consistent with the energy policy of the state if its short-term plan of action describes actions that must be taken within a two to three year time frame to provide a reasonable assurance that future energy or capacity demands can be met while aiming to minimize total resource cost; and

(L) Was adopted, approved or acknowledged after a full, fair and open public participation and comment process. Such a process is one in which the public has reasonable and timely access to the decision-maker and to information and records legally available to the public.

A good start to providing information to the public would include an itemization of load forecast assumptions. Another question might be asked of the Malheur County Energy Council as to what their assumptions are concerning energy Need for the foreseeable future.

HB 3058 defeated

HB 3058 has been opposed by Stop Idaho Power because of the possibility that utility companies could use locationally dependent segments across waterways to force the routing of corridors across private property. Two stories about how HB 3058 stalled and died, with the help of our state senator. . .

(1) LNG ‘fast-track’ bill stalled in Oregon Senate Proponents back off as budget becomes a priority By Nicholas Bellos The Forest Grove News-Times, Jun 24, 2009 http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=124583207297357700

A bill that would effectively streamline liquefied natural gas (LNG) development in Oregon has met a roadblock in the state senate: time.

As the state legislative session winds down to a June 30 adjournment, lawmakers' attention has shifted to more pressing matters, namely, the budget. . .

The bill would allow developers to “pursue condemnation with the permit in their hand. It takes away a lot of the leverage (from landowners).”

That's a problem said Dan Serres, spokesman for Columbia Riverkeeper, a non-profit that has led the charge among environmentalists against LNG projects in Oregon.

Serres agreed with Riley that HB 3058 creates a larger issue of landowners' rights: “It tips the scales in favor of LNG companies over private landowners who have gone to great lengths to protect their land.”

. . . Serres believed that thousands of Oregonians would be affected if natural gas companies were to be more easily able to develop land: “People don't need that fiasco.”

(2) In the Oregon legislature, LNG is a dirty word Three bills dealing with natural gas projects fail to get votes By Christian Gaston The Forest Grove News-Times, Jun 30, 2009
http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=124643245494380100

As the Oregon legislative session wrapped up this week, a flurry of bills reached the floor for last-minute votes.

Notably absent from the action were a pair of bills that would change the state’s regulatory rules regarding liquefied natural gas terminals and pipelines.

Both House Bill 3058, dubbed a “fast track” for Liquified Natural Gas projects by its detractors, and a bill that would require LNG developers to reimburse the state for planning costs failed to get a vote in the final hours of the 2009 session. . .

While House Republicans largely supported HB 3058, things got a bit strange in the Senate.

Dan Serres, spokesman for Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental nonprofit that’s rallied property owners against LNG projects, said the anti-LNG lobby found an ally in John Day Republican Ted Ferrioli.

Ferrioli’s perch on the Senate Rules Committee allowed him to influence whether the bill got a vote.

“I think his opposition was one of the things that kept the bill from passing,” Serres said.

Serres added that the death of HB 3058 was a boon for the anti-LNG cause.

“It really would have changed the landscape for people,” Serres said. . .

South Project Advisory Team Summary

Summary notes from the May 21st South Project Advisory Team Meeting:

Working Group Comments
The three working groups had overwhelming agreement on the most significant concerns and suggestions for siting the transmission line. The most often-repeated concerns and suggestions are listed below.

Overall SummaryConcerns
Participants in all three working groups identified the following concerns with the Boardman to Hemingway project:

(1) • Disruption to agriculture and farming
-Protect Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land.
- Transmission line could reduce farming efficiency and productivity.
- The line could adversely affect irrigation infrastructure.

(2) • Honesty and credibility of Idaho Power
- Some property owners do not trust Idaho Power
- PAT members are concerned that Idaho Power will not use their input

(3) • Property values
- Placing the transmission line on farmland will decrease property value
- The transmission line will destroy future land development

Suggestions
Participants in all three working groups identified the following suggestions for siting the transmission line:
• Avoid Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land.
• Site line on public land.
• Use existing corridors.
• Give irrigated farmland land priority.
• Cross rangeland before farmland.
• Avoid view sheds.
• Avoid historic landmarks.
• The line should follow the highway.
• Avoid new growth and city impact areas.
• Shadow an existing line.
• Follow land boundaries as much as possible.
• Avoid urban areas, children, and schools.
• Consider wildlife areas.

(to be continued in a future blog post)

More on Gateway West from the Magic Valley Times-News

The Magic Valley Times-News has been reporting on the progress of the Gateway West line through southern Idaho. See if you can spot similarities with B2H:

(1) BLM: Holes of little harm Bureau says transmission project drilling won't cause significant damage By Nate Poppino Times-News writer June 19, 2009 http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/06/19/news/local_state/164484.txt

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management believes the drilling of more than 900 boreholes along the proposed route for a new transmission-line project will not cause any significant harm to public lands.
The agency announced its finding regarding preliminary work for the 1,150-mile Gateway West Trans-mission Line project in a draft environmental assessment released Thursday. Officials will gather public comment on the document until July 22, before any official adoption of the finding.

(Visit the BLM's website for information & to make comments: http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/cfodocs/gateway_west/)

. . . The boreholes are needed for early geotechnical work for designing the foundations and support structures holding the lines. . .

(2) Gateway West opponents question Idaho Power Residents want utility to consider alternate routes By Laurie Welch Times-News writer June 23, 2009 http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/06/23/news/minicassia/164752.txt

BURLEY - Several Cassia County residents expressed frustration Monday over what they deemed an unresponsive attitude by Idaho Power Co. officials in regards to alternatives to a proposed route for a new power transmission line that may cross private property in the county.

Idaho Power's joint project with Rocky Mountain Power proposes 1,150 miles of 230- and 500-kilovolt transmission lines that run from Wyoming through southern Idaho. Under Idaho Power's proposal 70 miles of the line would run through Cassia County and 60 miles would be located on private property, which would impact 160 property owners in the county. The work on the line would begin in 2011 and portions of the project are slated for completion by 2014. . .

"Is it Idaho Power's way or no way?" asked Declo resident Von Gibby after Idaho Power officials told a group of about 40 people that an alternative route proposed for the new line by an opposition group called the Cassia County Gateway West Transmis-sion Task Force was not feasible from the company's prospective. "Is that the issue here? Are we at logger-heads?"

Cassia County Commissioner Clay Handy said the county's position is based on its land-use plan that public use should be placed on public land.

Handy said the county endorses further examination into the proposed southern routes in the county with as little impact on private land as possible.

(3) Concerned about proposed power transmission line http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/06/23/opinion/letters/164716_22.txt
I appreciated your coverage of the June 1 meeting in Burley regarding the Idaho Power Gateway West transmission line project. The most striking thing was that this was the first public meeting on this project to be held in Cassia County, even though thousands of acres of private land could be affected and Idaho Power has been working on the project for nearly a year and a half.

If not for Monday's public meeting arranged by the Cassia County commissioners, many residents of Cassia County would still not be aware of what the electric company is planning. . . . It disturbs me to attend recent public meetings and hear that on public lands, the right of way for sage grouse nests and other protected species is greater than 3,000 feet. But for my apparently unprotected family, the requirement is only 150 feet. . . As a concerned and directly impacted citizen, I recommend that the route be moved to public land to as much extent as possible.

STAN BAKER, Burley

(4) Gateway West meeting held in Burley By Damon Hunzeker Times-News writer June 23, 2009 http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/06/30/news/minicassia/165264.txt

BURLEY - The third in a series of meetings about Idaho Power Co.'s Gateway West project was held Monday at Burley City Hall. . .

The Gateway West project comprises 230- and 500-kilovolt power lines costing nearly $2 billion that would extend from a substation near Glenrock, Wyo., to another station near Melba.

Nearly 60 miles of transmission lines would run through private property in Cassia County, including some farms that are 100 years old, affecting as many as 160 property owners.

Alan Dornfest and Greg Cade, both of the Idaho State Tax Commission, addressed the crowd of about 45 people and said the project could result in decreased assessments of tax levies on property owners.

. . . Members of the Cassia County Gateway West Task Force, a group of citizens and community leaders, hope to persuade Idaho Power to move the transmission lines from the proposed rights-of-way on private property to areas of public property. . .