| Docket Number | Docket Name | Company |
|---|---|---|
| PCN 6 | PGE CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC |
| Comment Number | Created Date | Email Received Date | Company Name | Comment Type | Source Type | First Name | Last Name | Nearest City | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCN 6-1 | 5/13/2024 3:50:34 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Jeanie | Braun | WILSONVILLE | I am opposed to the proposed amendments to the Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) that would adopt a comprehensive definition of ‘utility facility’, clarify the types of utility lines that must be underground, and outright allow utility facilities inside the right of way and utility lines outside the right of way. To not require PGE to obtain a Conditional Use permit under current county law would be a complete abdication of the county's obligation to the public. This is proposed rule change is obviously has PGE’s backing. As you know, PGE is planning to construct of a new 115kV high voltage power line from Rosemont substation along Stafford Road to the new Tonquin substation.. The proposal to change to CUP or conditional use permit process would push this project through to replace 40’ tall 15kV 100’-150’ power poles in our rural residential neighborhood. If this passes, there would be no opportunity for public comment. The property owners and surrounding community concerns and questions would be ignored and eliminated. Many community members are upset does allows a large corporation like PGE to bulldoze their way through and change the zoning requirement rules. At minimum there needed to be consideration to continue the standard CUP process for larger and more complicated projects, which of course, the community believes the Tonquin project would easily qualify. One of the main considerations for a non-conforming permit is the permit requestor needs to prove there is no major impact to the alteration of the character of the neighborhood. Why would this consideration be made by the County when all other major zoning changes are requiring a permit? This due process is would be eliminated and circumvent the current rules. This major change needs to be considered from more than one standpoint. There will be little transparency, public notice or comments on the changes to the County right of way our onto private property behind the right of way even though the negative impacts will be significant. PGE’s Tonquin project along our road along Stafford as well as other major projects in Clackamas County will have a major impact on and drastically change the neighborhood. The project will change aesthetics/destruction of trees, use Stafford Road as a highway bypass to I205 and I5, increase the danger of wrecks and pole damage and significantly devalue property owners home values Ther is mass community opposition to the high voltage lines, lines near buildings, and safety concerns with the increased fire danger in an unprotected rural area. Please pass on my comments (to all the other commissioners), expressing my opposition of this change to rubber stamp all overhead and underground utilities both within and outside of the right of way without any public discourse and without any consideration to the size, complexity and scope of new projects. | ||
| PCN 6-10 | 8/2/2024 12:31:27 AM | 7/28/2024 12:02:14 PM | General Comment | vandymadre@hotmail.com | RE: Docket Number PCN-6 We are writing you to express our opposition to PGE’s proposed replacement of the poles along Stafford Road. First: Stafford is a rural, scenic area. When you exit I-205 and go south to Wilsonville, you find a rural area of trees, greenery, pastures with livestock, fields of Christmas trees, grapes, and open areas. PGE’s plans will eliminate many of the trees and shrubs that give the Stafford area its rural character and provide the homeowners with a sound and visual buffer from the traffic on the road. Replacing the existing 40’ poles with 100’ poles, along with the additional high voltage lines they will carry, will have a significant detrimental effect on the area, forever altering the existing rural, scenic character of these homes and neighborhoods. We are also concerned about the hazardous exposure these lines will have on people and animals living so close to them. Plus, what guarantee do we have that PGE will not in the future continue to upgrade the voltage of the lines even more, further increasing the fire danger and the hazardous exposure to people and animals. Second: The fire danger. One of our pastures runs between our house and Stafford Rd. We have four PGE poles along this pasture that PGE wants to replace. One of these poles is 95’ from our backyard fence. We are very concerned about these higher voltage lines running alongside our dry fields. This time of the year, and for the new few months, they are bone dry. There has already been a pole fire nearby caused by an exploding transformer. The fire department arrived but couldn’t do anything until PGE got there 2 hours later. There has been another case nearby where a barn burned down because the fire department couldn’t access water to put it out. We have no confidence that a field fire caused by these newer high voltage lines would be put out in time to save our home. Finally, the impact on the value of our property. Our home was built in 1976 and positioned near Stafford road so as to take full advantage of the expansive view looking out to the West and North. This was the main selling point of the house when we bought it nearly 30 years ago. The main living areas of our house, the backyard and deck all face Stafford Rd. to take advantage of the view. Right now, we look out our bedroom, dining room and kitchen windows and see 3 of the 4 PGE poles. At the current 40’ height they are just below the tree line and do not impede the view. If these poles are replaced with ones that are 100’, along with the additional lines they will carry, it will have a significantly reduce the value of our home. Power lines like PGE is proposing could reduce the value of our home by 30-40%. Also, PGE’s proposed easement of about 25’ along on our property would give them - and I am paraphrasing from the easement document : “ non-exclusive perpetual ingress and egress rights over and across the property to construct, maintain, repair, replace operate and patrol their electric power lines. To us, this means vehicles can enter the property at will. Allowing this easement will bring them within about 70’ feet of the main living areas of our house. We have lived here for nearly 30 years and invested much time, effort and money into this property, looking to it as an investment that will help fund our later years when it comes time to sell. We are both in our mid 70’s and that time is near. The impact these replacement poles and lines will have on the value of our property and even our ability to sell the property is frightening to us. Please ask yourselves, would any of you buy a home where vehicles could come that near your house at will, where the view is obstructed by poles and power lines, and where the potential of a fire is increased. We ask that you do not allow this project to continue on Stafford Rd. Mike and Susan Vandenburgh 21892 SW Stafford R. | |||||
| PCN 6-11 | 8/2/2024 12:31:30 AM | 7/28/2024 11:43:20 AM | General Comment | vandymadre@hotmail.com | TO: PUC Commissioners We are writing you to express our opposition to PGE’s proposed replacement of the poles along Stafford Road. First: Stafford is a rural, scenic area. When you exit I-205 and go south to Wilsonville, you find a rural area of trees, greenery, pastures with livestock, fields of Christmas trees, grapes, and open areas. PGE’s plans will eliminate many of the trees and shrubs that give the Stafford area its rural character and provide the homeowners with a sound and visual buffer from the traffic on the road. Replacing the existing 40’ poles with 100’ poles, along with the additional high voltage lines they will carry, will have a significant detrimental effect on the area, forever altering the existing rural, scenic character of these homes and neighborhoods. We are also concerned about the hazardous exposure these lines will have on people and animals living so close to them. Plus, what guarantee do we have that PGE will not in the future continue to upgrade the voltage of the lines even more, further increasing the fire danger and the hazardous exposure to people and animals. Second: The fire danger. One of our pastures runs between our house and Stafford Rd. We have four PGE poles along this pasture that PGE wants to replace. One of these poles is 95’ from our backyard fence. We are very concerned about these higher voltage lines running alongside our dry fields. This time of the year, and for the new few months, they are bone dry. There has already been a pole fire nearby caused by an exploding transformer. The fire department arrived but couldn’t do anything until PGE got there 2 hours later. There has been another case nearby where a barn burned down because the fire department couldn’t access water to put it out. We have no confidence that a field fire caused by these newer high voltage lines would be put out in time to save our home. Finally, the impact on the value of our property. Our home was built in 1976 and positioned near Stafford road so as to take full advantage of the expansive view looking out to the West and North. This was the main selling point of the house when we bought it nearly 30 years ago. The main living areas of our house, the backyard and deck all face Stafford Rd. to take advantage of the view. Right now, we look out our bedroom, dining room and kitchen windows and see 3 of the 4 PGE poles. At the current 40’ height they are just below the tree line and do not impede the view. If these poles are replaced with ones that are 100’, along with the additional lines they will carry, it will have a significantly reduce the value of our home. Power lines like PGE is proposing could reduce the value of our home by 30-40%. Also, PGE’s proposed easement of about 25’ along on our property would give them - and I am paraphrasing from the easement document : “ non-exclusive perpetual ingress and egress rights over and across the property to construct, maintain, repair, replace operate and patrol their electric power lines. To us, this means vehicles can enter the property at will. Allowing this easement will bring them within about 70’ feet of the main living areas of our house. We have lived here for nearly 30 years and invested much time, effort and money into this property, looking to it as an investment that will help fund our later years when it comes time to sell. We are both in our mid 70’s and that time is near. The impact these replacement poles and lines will have on the value of our property and even our ability to sell the property is frightening to us. Please ask yourselves, would any of you buy a home where vehicles could come that near your house at will, where the view is obstructed by poles and power lines, and where the potential of a fire is increased. We ask that you do not allow this project to continue on Stafford Rd. Mike and Susan Vandenburgh 21892 SW Stafford R. | |||||
| PCN 6-12 | 8/4/2024 7:10:22 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Support Docket | Web | JONATHAN | NETHERTON | GRESHAM | There is a particular hesitancy in this country for anyone to disturb American compounds, and for individuals to disregard the inbetween outside their compounds, their bubble, despite it enabling their compound to exist. Any infrastructure project seems to become a political affair, in which instead of granting civil engineers the leeway to improve and build on the in-between that connects and makes possible all those little compounds we must have a summit to negotiate among all parties a palatable solution for the various factions, none of whom care about the others. It leaves us not with the infrastructure we need, but what we often deserve. PGE has offered a healthy enough plan for the construction of the high-tension lines, and given the metro area's desire for the electrification of everything and the unprecedented deluge of variable and decentralized renewable power flowing on and off of the grid, now is not the time to allow the usual paralysis of every single construction project needing endless arbitration over use and control of unused land that sits in an imaginary but sacred line on a map in our collective imagination in order to make our decrepit infrastructure actually work. Often times, the land under PGE's control is the best-kept land in the area anyways, and has often enabled this regions unspoken want of a return to as close to an American allemansräten as can be had. I'm no fan of privately held natural monopolies, but these high tension lines are needed for the enormous electrification the region is going to need. It's also the foundation of the rebuilding of the ancient distribution lines around here. Give them the land. The region needs it more than the people whose property it rests on. No more patchwork sidewalk politics making the region's grid actually work. | ||
| PCN 6-13 | 8/5/2024 2:49:02 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | General Comment | Web | Chantal | Kelly | TUALATIN | This is regarding the PGE Tonquin Project on Stafford Road. My husband and I live on Stafford Road. I understand that PGE wants to put high voltage power lines along Stafford Road. We are opposed to it. I am from Europe where electricity is buried in the ground. European tourists when they come here refer to our electric polls as the Third World Look or the 1900s Look. In countries such as France, Belgium, Austria and Italy electric cables are buried in the ground and the current is 220 instead of 110. There are several advantages to this. It requires low maintenance. Nobody dies hitting a pole. Ten years ago one person died in front of our house. No down cables in case of a storm. No loss of electricity. No cause for fire which is important in our area since we are on well water and have no emergency exit. No magnetic field above our head. Over forty years we’ve had several storms and loss of electricity. Each time a PGE team came out and made the repairs. At night time and even during the weekends. I am sure those costs add up to quite a bundle. Of course we the consumers pay for it. Whenever there is a severe storm with a lot of damage, like the one in January, PGE runs to you for approval to increase the rates. The people of Estecada may have won their lawsuit against PGE but we are all paying for the electric company's failure to bury the cables in the first place. The initial cost may be high but in the long run it is cheaper and it will save live and property. Sincerely, Chantal and Kevin Kelly | ||
| PCN 6-14 | 8/7/2024 12:31:44 AM | 8/2/2024 5:05:27 PM | General Comment | kellybartholomew@wavecable.com | ?PUC Commissioners and Judge Mellgren, This is written testimony regarding PCN 6- PGE Tonquin project (specifically the Stafford Road portion) for public meeting July 30, 2024 in Tualatin, Oregon. PUC Commissioners and Judge Mellgren, thank you for hearing us tonight. My name is Kelly Bartholomew. I am a resident of Stafford road and an officer of Save Stafford Road. Sometimes, in this highly technical PUC process, we lose sight of the forest in the trees. So, for one minute- I would like to take a 10,000 foot view about power lines in general……. There is a large difference between DISTRIBUTION and TRANSMISSION lines. Currently, along Stafford Road, residents have distribution lines that supply each home with power. These lines are 40-60 feet tall and carry 12.5Kv of power. PGE is proposing replacing (not “upgrading” as they have stated) these lines with 150Kv high voltage TRANSMISSION lines. These lines move large amounts of power from substation to substation. They are mounted on 100-150 ft tall large steel poles; they can make a humming or crackling noise; they can produce dangerous energy arcing; they emit EMF radiation; they carry significant increase of fire; and the PGE proposal for these lines on Stafford road would require the removal of hundreds of old growth trees. These types of high voltage transmission lines have been implicated in both the Paradise and Lahaina fires and should NOT be used in residential areas, over homes and churches and where children waiting for busses. They also should not be allowed in areas that to do not have fire hydrants or adequate fire response resources. Now back in weeds….. As you know, a waiver of County Land use approval was granted by this commission on June 11, 2024 - under two main assumptions that were made by PGE: 1. that they would automatically get Clackamas County land use approval. 2. that the need to power the Willamette water treatment plant was “urgent” The first assumption was incorrect - PGE is unlikely to be granted land use approval because the project violates the Clackamas County comprehensive plan “rural scenic road” requirements AND all three deficiencies in the application cannot be met. The second assertion of “urgency” by PGE (which this commission undoubtably used as a large part of the premise for granting the waiver) was disingenuous at best. In order to push this project through, PGE suddenly asserted that getting power to the Wilamette Water treatment plant is “urgent”. This plant is a $1.3B project that has been under construction for over 3 years but suddenly the Stafford road portion of the Tonquin project is “critical” to powering the water plant? The existing Tonquin substation (across the street from the water treatment plant) has 30-50 times the load output that the Water Plant requires to operate. Additionally, on page 146 of the City of Sherwood Land Use application - the water treatment plant states that “Diesel Fuel Oil (DFO) is exclusively used for stand-by generators that are needed only if primary power – in this case, from a new, adjacent regional substation - is lost.” Another point that brings us to the conclusion that PGE is not being transparent or honest….. The Willamette Water Supply project web site boasted about how the filtration system is run by gravity (to conserve power) and the state of the art facility will have full back up battery power in the event of a power grid failure. Since the involvement of PGE, the backup power information has mysteriously been removed from the web site. The last thing I would like to address is PGE’s duplicitous efforts at “community outreach”. The Tonquin project has been underway for over three years. However, our community first learned about the project in July of 2023- when many homeowners received a letter from PGE stating that they are seeking to acquire easements on our properties. The letters we received were signed not by PGE, but the Right of Way agent (Justin Holmes) who worked for a contracted company called Universal Field Services. After exchanging dozens of texts and emails with him, it became clear that he was not able to answer any of our questions. He tried to be a mediator for PGE but each time he promised they would get back to me, no one ever did. Each time I would call, Justin would tell me that they were “out of the office”, “not available” or “ would call me back” (and never did). After many texts back and forth, we arranged a meeting on August 29th. PGE then had to cancel this meeting because of “scheduling conflicts”. We then arranged another meeting (taking time off work AGAIN) on August 5th at 10am. I verified that PGE was aware that many of my neighbors would be attending because they had questions as well. Justin said that would be fine if they have “general project questions”. The day of the meeting, PGE agents did not show up. They didn’t call me; di | |||||
| PCN 6-15 | 8/9/2024 12:31:34 AM | 8/8/2024 1:50:33 PM | General Comment | cratti@outlook.com | I affirm and agree with statements regarding disapproval of placement of High Voltage Poles on the Stafford Road area by PGC. The danger is not only concerning fire with non-supportive fire rescue backup, but also the number of large fir trees along this road that is subject to intense fire hazards, the lowering of property values and decreased tax income for area municipalities, the health hazards of electric EMC output, and the destruction of a historical greenway zone. In addition, the current road is overused with 9,000 cars using 2x a day as a major transportation avenue and is also used as a short cut to connect with I-5 and I-205. Cars do not respect the required speed limits and often go faster than approved and as a result it has a nickname, the "Ambulance Alley" because there are so many accidents on Stafford. This narrow country road, which has double yellow lines for not passing on most of its length and curves, was not designed to have this much traffic. This is not only triggered by speed, but also by the fact that is a country road that is narrow, has no edges, limited gravel area, has deep ditches and often one side of the road has a high embankment and the other side a steep slope of 10 to 25 feet down. It is not if the cars/trucks/double cargo trucks will hit a pole it is when. This past month a car hit an electric pole near the Yesteryear farm location, and electric was down for hours. We have had four major accidents on our stretch of Stafford. One car landed in our pasture, another was motorcycle was forced to land in our front yard when a car was passing on a double line, and another drive knocked out a whole line of fir trees along the frontage of our property. Also, a very expensive sport car elected to test his speed against police officers and landed down an embankment in a grove of trees on our property. This is only in my area of Stafford; I am sure if you contacted DMV data and police reports you would clearly understand the concern of how this road in its current status as a country road is not feasible for additional pressures that high voltage poles would impose. The infrastructure of the fire system and the usage of this country road cannot withstand another in fraction. I am firmly against the placements of this project to place high voltage poles on the Stafford Road. Respectfully submitted, Connie Ratti 25015 SW Stafford Road' Tualatin, Oregon, Clackamas County | |||||
| PCN 6-16 | 8/9/2024 12:31:38 AM | 8/8/2024 1:47:24 PM | General Comment | cratti@outlook.com | I affirm and agree with statements regarding disapproval of placement of High Voltage Poles on the Stafford Road area by PGC. The danger is not only concerning fire with non-supportive fire rescue backup, but also the number of large fir trees along this road that is subject to intense fire hazards, the lowering of property values and decreased tax income for area municipalities, the health hazards of electric EMC output, and the destruction of a historical greenway zone. In addition, the current road is overused with 9,000 cars using 2x a day as a major transportation avenue and is also used as a short cut to connect I-5 and I-205. Cars do not respect the required speed limits and often go faster than approved and as a result it has a nickname, the "Ambulance Alley" because there are so many accidents on Stafford. This narrow country road, which has double yellow lines for not passing on most of its length and curves, was not designed to have this much traffic. This is not only triggered by speed, but also by the fact that is a country road that is narrow, has no edges, limited gravel area, has deep ditches and often one side of the road has a high embankment and the other side a steep slope of 10 to 25 feet down. It is not if the cars/trucks/double cargo trucks will hit a pole it is when. This past month a car hit an electric pole near the Yesteryear farm location, and electric was down for hours. We have had four major accidents on our stretch of Stafford. One car landed in our pasture, another was motorcycle was forced to land in our front yard when a car was passing on a double line, and another drive knocked out a whole line of fir trees along the frontage of our property. Also, a very expensive sport car elected to test his speed against police officers and landed down an embankment in a grove of trees on our property. This is only in my area of Stafford; I am sure if you contacted DMV data and police reports you would clearly understand the concern of how this road in its current status as a country road is not feasible for additional pressures that high voltage poles would impose. The infrastructure of the fire system and the usage of this country road cannot withstand another in fraction. I am firmly against the placements of this project to place high voltage poles on the Stafford Road. Respectfully submitted, Connie Ratti 25015 SW Stafford Road' Tualatin, Oregon, Clackamas County | |||||
| PCN 6-17 | 8/9/2024 12:31:40 AM | 8/5/2024 1:50:47 PM | General Comment | monsgenk32@frontier.com | To the Honorable Judge Mellgren, This is regarding the PGE Tonquin Project on Stafford Road. My husband and I live at 22251 SW Stafford Road. We have been here for forty years. I understand that PGE wants to put high voltage power lines along Stafford Road. We are opposed to it. I am from Belgium where electricity is buried in the ground. European tourists when they come here refer to our electric polls as the Third World Look or the 1900s Look. In countries such as France, Belgium, Austria and Italy electric cables are buried in the ground and the current is 220 instead of 110. There are several advantages to this. It requires low maintenance. Nobody dies hitting a pole. Ten years ago one person died in front of our house. No down cables in case of a storm. No loss of electricity. No cause for fire which is important in our area since we are on well water and have no emergency exit. No magnetic field above our head. Over forty years we’ve had several storms and loss of electricity. Each time a PGE team came out and made the repairs. At night time and even during the weekends. I am sure those costs add up to quite a bundle. Of course we the consumers pay for it. Whenever there is a severe storm with a lot of damage, like the one in January, PGE runs to you for approval to increase the rates. The people of Estecada may have won their lawsuit against PGE but we are all paying for the electric company's failure to bury the cables in the first place. The initial cost may be high but in the long run it is cheaper and it will save live and property. Sincerely, Chantal and Kevin Kelly | |||||
| PCN 6-18 | 8/12/2024 12:31:47 AM | 8/9/2024 12:32:14 PM | General Comment | yamada2@mindspring.com | RE: Public Comment on PCN 6 (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity), Administrative Hearings Division, Public Utility Commission of Oregon Attached I am attaching this news article video on fire evacuations just across the river from the Stafford, Oregon today 8/9/2024 in response to comments about Stafford being in a Low Hazard Fire Risk Zone. Stafford is to the left on the map. Risk is based on actual adjacent and on site events. It will change as development expands into unprotected rural areas. Development can change our fire risk from Low Hazard to High Hazard. Randy Randall Yamada, Stafford-Tualatin Valley CPO 3291 SW Childs Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Cell: (503) 799-4990 yamada2@mindspring.com maxresdefault.jpg Brush fire forces 'Go Now' evacuations in Clackamas County youtube.com The fire is here. Screenshot 2024-08-09 at 11.58.10 AM.png | |||||
| PCN 6-19 | 8/21/2024 12:31:25 AM | 8/16/2024 12:17:10 PM | General Comment | vandymadre@hotmail.com | TO: Commissioners Tawney and Perkins, Commission Chair Decker, and Judge Mellgren RE: PCN-6 First, we would like to thank you for convening the July 30, 2024 meeting in Tualatin, Oregon to hear public testimony on the Tonquin Project and Stafford Road. Following are our comments opposing PGE’s proposal to replace the current 40’ poles with 100’ poles along Stafford Road. First, a timeline of our contact with PGE - The first we knew of this proposed replacement project was on July 13, 2024 when a survey team entered our fenced property along Stafford Road and set up poles. At no time did they approach us to ask permission or tell us what they were doing. When I finally walked out in the field and asked, they said it was for PGE but were unable to tell us anything else. To say this was upsetting is putting it mildly. Here were people marking off our property and we had no idea what was going on. We came to find out that this project had been underway for three years but there had been no notice to us regarding the impact it would have on our property and us. - Two days later a packet from Universal Field Services arrived with general information about the project and an easement agreement for us to sign in which they would pay us $40,356 for an appx. 25’ easement along Stafford Road. Our home looks directly out over Stafford Road and there are four 40’ PGE poles along our property fence line that would be replaced with 100’ poles – along with all the additional lines they would carry. At one pole, the fence is only 95’ from our backyard. If we granted this 25’ easement it would allow PGE access to our property only 70’ from our yard and deck. The main living and bedroom areas of our home would be only 113’ away if we allowed the easement. - On July 27, we had a phone conversation with a representative from Universal Field Services regarding the easement agreement, but he could not answer questions of fire safety, EMF exposure, line noise, specifics on the access to our property, and loss of property value. - On September 26, we attended a PGE public meeting, which again did not answer our questions, but rather just explained what they were going to do. - On October 10, we met with PGE representatives on our property. Again, they would not get into the key issues of loss of property value, fire safety or EMF exposure. They primarily discussed tree and vegetation removal. - On October 27, Universal Field Services emailed us asking if we had a counter offer or if we would like a PGE appraiser to do an appraisal of our property. We declined both. Now, a year into this, we are more informed and even more distressed about what PGE has planned. PGE’s plans for Stafford Road are much more than an upgrade or alteration. This is a major replacement of the current poles and lines, requiring the removal of hundreds of mature trees - all of which would have a tremendous negative impact on the homeowners along Stafford Road. 1: Stafford is designated a Scenic Road of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan. It’s a rural area of trees, pastures with livestock, properties growing Christmas trees, grapes, and other crops. PGE’s plans will eliminate many of the trees and shrubs that give the Stafford area its rural, scenic character and provide homeowners with a noise and visual buffer from the traffic on the road. Replacing the existing 40’ poles with 100’ poles, along with the additional high voltage lines they will carry, will have a significant detrimental effect on the area, forever altering the existing rural, scenic character this neighborhood. 2: Fire danger. One of our pastures runs between our house and the power poles on Stafford Rd. We are very concerned about these higher voltage lines running alongside our fields. This time of the year, and for the new few months, they are bone dry. Again, one of the poles is appx. 95’ from our yard and deck. There has already been a pole fire nearby caused by an exploding transformer. The fire department arrived but couldn’t do anything until PGE got there 2 hours later. There has been another case nearby where a barn burned down because the fire department couldn’t access water to put it out. We have no confidence that a field fire caused by these newer high voltage lines would be put out in time to save our home. 3. EMF emissions. We are also very concerned about the hazardous exposure these lines will have on the people and animals living so close to them. Plus, what guarantee do we have that PGE will not in the future upgrade the voltage of the lines even more, further increasing the fire danger and the hazardous exposure to people and animals. The EMF emissions were addressed in great detail by James Bresee at the public meeting and we encourage you to take the time to review the research he sent you. The potential health hazards are significant. Especially considering that the main living | |||||
| PCN 6-2 | 5/23/2024 3:06:28 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Kelly | Bartholomew | TUALATIN | Hello. I am writing in opposition to PGE’s request for waiver of need for land use permit approval from Clackamas County before proceeding with CPCN permit application with the PUC. The Clackamas County planning commission has decided to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that projects outside of the utility right of way should require a non-conforming use permit. On June 12, the Board will vote on these recommendations. If adopted, it is highly probable that the Non Conforming Use permit will NOT be granted to PGE for the Tonquin project. At the least, the hearing for this decision should be postponed until after the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners decide on planning committee recommendations (June 12). Thank you for your attention to this matter. | ||
| PCN 6-20 | 8/22/2024 12:31:35 AM | 8/20/2024 9:25:40 AM | General Comment | yamada2@mindspring.com | RE: Public Comment on PCN 6 (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity), Administrative Hearings Division, Public Utility Commission of Oregon attached article on California battery resiliency project results. PUC Commissioners, This article is about California’s success with power grid resiliency using Battery Centers to supply energy during periods of high temperatures when the State’s power grid would normally be strained to blackout conditions. Oregon could follow a similar strategy to better use renewable energy resources, add resiliency to our power grid, and reduce the number of high voltage transmission line projects required to power new development. Attached is a link to the article. Giant Batteries a ‘Game Changer’ for California Power Outages California’s high-tech battery centers, built with thousands of lithium-ion batteries similar to the batteries in cellphones and electric cars, are solving the main shortcoming of the push for more renewable energy. Read in Government Technology: https://apple.news/A1OlEF9g8T7eXOG0L1qI0hA Randy Randall Yamada, Stafford-Tualatin Valley Community Planning Organization Chairperson 3291 SW Childs Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Cell: (503) 799-4990 yamada2@mindspring.com<mailto:yamada2@mindspring.com> | |||||
| PCN 6-21 | 9/11/2024 12:31:28 AM | 9/9/2024 1:37:54 PM | General Comment | jeanie@braunc.com | Dear Clackamas County Commissioner, The proposed Tonquin project on Stafford Road, which will be a major alteration and change of our rural road, is a registered Scenic Road by Clackamas County. I am very concerned about the action the county has taken by granting the LUCS (Land Use Compatibility Statement) to the PUC. By granting the LUCS, the county has allowed PGE to circumvent the county's own rules. This is a free pass for PGE to condemn my properties. The county has issued the LUCS in complete violation of the Clackamas County Comprehensive plan which states that Stafford Road is a Scenic Road and cannot be impacted in any significant alteration. The cutting down of over 300 mature trees and installation of hundreds of 100-120 foot tall steel power poles would certainly be a significant alteration. I have been a property owner here for 32 years. Our home backs to Stafford Road. Our home will be significantly impacted by the proposed 100’ high voltage power pole. PGE has only offered us $9,000 for our easement. We have no intention of signing any easement agreement with PGE. The proposed line will be within 100’ of my back yard pool. Major Opposition centers on these points; -The increased fire danger -Lack of hydrants in this neighborhood -lack of ingress/egress if there is a fire -Significant loss of mature trees -Significant loss of property values -Negative impact to the scenic farm loop -Exposure to High Frequency Electromagnetic fields at unsafe levels -Power lines that send electricity between towns and into neighborhoods generally have the highest voltage. They are bigger and have more wires than the distribution lines that are common on most streets. The high voltage lines can have EMF levels of 30 to 90 mG underneath the wires, depending on the voltage, height, and placement of the lines. EMF levels decrease rapidly with distance from the lines. At 300 feet (a football field), EMF is at background levels. In some cases, even closer distances are at background. The distribution lines that run up and down every street are smaller, contain lower voltage and are of less concern. Studies have shown an association between household EMF exposure and a small increased risk of childhood leukemia at average exposures above 3 mG. For cancers other than childhood leukemia, there is less evidence for an effect. For example, workers that repair power lines and railway workers can be exposed to much higher EMF Is EMF Exposure Harmful? In a study that measured EMF in almost 1000 homes in the United States, 50% had average EMF levels of 0.6 mG or less, and 95% had average EMF levels below 3 mG. Keep in mind that these are average EMF levels within a home. EMF levels can be higher (5 mG or more) when you are near a household appliance (or anything else that uses electricity). EMF levels rapidly become weaker as you move away from the source. What Are Typical EMF Levels Within A Home? Power lines that send electricity between towns and into neighborhoods generally have the highest voltage. They are bigger and have more wires than the distribution lines that are common on most streets. The high voltage lines can have EMF levels of 30 to 90 mG underneath the wires, depending on the voltage, height, and placement of the lines. EMF levels decrease rapidly with distance from the lines. At 300 feet (a football field), EMF is at background levels. In some cases, even closer distances are at background. The distribution lines that run up and down every street are smaller, contain lower voltage and are of less concern. How High Are EMF Levels Near Power Lines? Page 3 How Can I Reduce My EMF Exposure? levels than the general public. The results of cancer studies in these workers is mixed. Some studies have suggested a link between EMF exposure in electrical workers and leukemia and brain cancer. Other similar studies have not found such associations. There is also some evidence that utility workers exposed to high levels of EMF may be at increased risk of developing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). PGE has not provided any estimate of the expected exposure for these lines directly behind my house. Thank you for your consideration, All My Best, cid:image001.png@01DB02BB.4E671540 Braun Construction 24805 SW Gage Road, Wiilsonville, OR 97070 503-708-4580 Cell 503-638-6406 Office 503-638-3219 Fax www.BraunConstruction.org | |||||
| PCN 6-22 | 10/10/2024 12:31:25 AM | 10/9/2024 8:11:19 AM | General Comment | kellybartholomew@wavecable.com | ?Public comment by Kelly Bartholomew Regarding SSR and staff opening testimonies: 1. On page 6, line 12 PUC opening testimony states “importantly, except for the portion of line that crosses Interstate 205, the line will follow an existing transmission corridor which has an existing PGE owned transmission line” Stafford Road has an existing DISTRIBUTION corridor (15kV) NOT a TRANSMISSION corridor(115kV). 2. Page 59 line 12 PUC states “under OR 860–0 25–0040(3), “the the commission may rely on the LUCS if it (c) states the proposed transmission project will be compatible with the jurisdictions acknowledged comprehensive plan if the petitioner obtains the land use permits identified in the LUCS and the LUCS confirms that plan provisions will not be substantially affected by issuance of a certificate if those permits are obtained” The County issued LUCS is currently being appealed to LUBA. The alteration of non-conforming use permit does not require compliance with the comprehensive plan. Hence, the LUCS cannot legally state that “if the appropriate permit is obtained, the project will be in compliance with the comprehensive plan“ 3. Page 59 line 4 PUC states “to issue a CPCN, the commission must adopt findings that the proposed transmission line complies with state wide planning goals and is compatible with the acknowledge comprehensive plan and land use regulations of each local government where the project is to be located” Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan (section 5.1) specifically designates Stafford Road as “rural scenic road” with very specific development requirements. This plan is NOT consistent with the Clackamas County Comprehensive plan. 4. PUC staff opening testimony states that “PGE is capable of constructing and operating the Rosemont Wilsonville line in a manner that applies rigorous safety standards and protocols that are in conformity with industry standards” Yes, PGE is “capable” of constructing….. but is the proposed line safe? The Oregon Electric and Magnetic Field Committee was established in November 2009 to review the health risks of EMF exposure. Their recommendation is prudent avoidance to limit exposure to electromagnetic fields because of the potential risks associated with EMF produced by transmission lines. * Many papers show a significant increase in the risk of childhood leukemia for children living within 50 m of high-voltage transmission lines. * There are 25 homes on the proposed route along Stafford Road that will be within 50 m of the high-voltage transmission line. The World Health Organization has classified electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic, meaning that these lines could cause cancer. Additionally, there are many peer-reviewed research papers that suggest a relationship between electromagnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia: THE PUC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING PUBLIC SAFETY. Can the PUC definitively say that the children in these homes are at no greater risk of developing childhood leukemia through exposure to the EMF produced by the 115 KV transmission line versus the current 15 KV distribution line? 5. On page 6 – line 7 – PUC states that there is “5 miles of entirely new construction”. The county permit that PGE applied for is an “alteration” of non-conforming use - not a new construction permit. THIS “ENTIRELY NEW“ CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT CRITERIA. 6. Page 25 line line 18 “staff must rely on PGEs analysis in the docket as it does not have the resources to access or access to the data to complete its own analysis of PGEs projections” Save Stafford Road hired a technical expert who refuted much of PGEs analysis. Why is PGEs analysis given more credence than an outside expert? 7. Page 26, line 7 PUC states “analysis of PGEs claim that the Tonquin project as a whole is necessary to accommodate additional capacity indicates that PGEs analysis is reasonable.” This docket is regarding the Rosemont Wilsonville portion of the project. As such, the Rosemont Wilsonville line needs to be evaluated alone. Did you find these evaluations in PGEs data? 8. Page 46 line 10 PUC states “staff review of PGEs evidence indicates that the impacts of the line are minimal and only slightly greater than the impact on the local community by the existing transmission infrastructure in the area” The existing lines are DISTRIBUTION (15kV) LINES—NOT TRANSMISSION (115kV) LINES Additionally, cutting down 250 trees and installing hundred foot tall high voltage powerlines In a residential neighborhood, over homes will not have “minimal impact” 9. Page 56 line 16 “coordination indicated that there are five fire stations within a short distance of the proposed line and 99% of the line is within five minutes response time”. Fire departments cannot begin firefighting until PGE turns the power off. Did PGE analyze | |||||
| PCN 6-23 | 10/17/2024 1:17:01 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | General Comment | Web | Cindy | Walker | TUALATIN | To All it may concern at the PUC, We are respectfully requesting that you retain the record of all testimonies and emails related to the PGE expansion on Stafford Road by Save Stafford Road and ourselves, as individuals, living and participating on Stafford Road. We have contributed a considerable amount of money and time. These records should be attached to our name and the names of others who have been participants. By your own definition, your mission and vision is to: promote the public interest, holding utilities to high standards of performance and value, and adapting regulatory processes to improve inclusion, learning, collaboration, and problem-solving. The PUC’s Values define Inclusion as engaging in diverse perspectives, promoting collaboration, and recognizing our impact on all communities. I would expect a high standard of performance and value to include integrity. PGE has admitted to lying to the PUC and homeowners about the need for the expansion and confiscation of our property and home values. The high standard of performance and value I have experienced with PGE during the February 14, 2021 storm was to be without power for 6 days while all of my neighbors had power in 3 days. PGE restored our power by tying up our power pole with a piece of rope. Five phone calls and 10 months later our power was still contingent on a decaying piece of rope with the next winter’s storms just weeks away. The new pole that had been lying there for over 4 months was only installed after my complaint to the PUC. I would also expect engaging in diverse perspectives, promoting collaboration, and recognizing our impact on all communities to include retention of records, recognizing the time and efforts of homeowners. Our health and safety should be considered as impact on the community along with the unacceptable amount of radiation, by PGE’s own definition, for families to be living in. Virtually all of us would be unable to escape our own property in the event of downed lines or fire. Past experience tells us that Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue are not allowed to address fire from electric poles. This holds the potential for our death. Isn’t it rich and indigestible of PGE to ask the PUC to expunge the record for their own benefit and to deny homeowners their record of representation. PGE’s intention is to manipulate everything for their own financial gain at the expense of the life, health and prosperity of homeowners. Please don’t allow this. Jim and Cindy Walker SW Stafford Road | ||
| PCN 6-24 | 10/23/2024 12:31:25 AM | 10/21/2024 9:49:31 AM | General Comment | Kimberly.TOEWS@puc.oregon.gov | These look like public comments for PCN 6. Kim From: mej5225@aol.com <mej5225@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 10:24 AM To: PUC PUC.FilingCenter * PUC <puc.filingcenter@puc.oregon.gov>; Randall Yamada <yamada2@mindspring.com> Subject: Transmission lines objection mej5225@aol.com<mailto:mej5225@aol.com>. Dear PUC and county Representative There has been a lot of valid opposition to the PGE high voltage transmission lines on Stafford Road in rural Clackamas County , part of both the Urban Growth Reserve and the Rural Land Reserve. There are other options to using the prime Stafford corridor routing and Reserve lands, such as using the parallel I-5 corridor routing. As opposed to permanently degrading the aesthetics and country feel, and property values. And encroachment on the Growth Reserve lands. The Electricity Act of 1989 requires study to compare underground and overhead transmission lines. While installation of underground high voltage lines has a higher initial installation cost as compared to overhead lines, a conclusion is reached that underground lines have a lower impact on the land in both rural and urban areas. What is the conclusion of such a study? Has there been any studies on the electrical radiation? There is still a long debate ongoing on health risks, with no agreed conclusions. How can PGE and the county be allowed to condemn and utilize privately owned Urban Reserve Lands? As a local resident, I, and my family are opposed to the location and implementation of the huge transmission lines. Please consider other alternative locations or methods than intrusive high voltage installations on Stafford Road Thank you Mitch Jones 1850 Sw Ek Road West Linn Clackamas County Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS | |||||
| PCN 6-3 | 5/22/2024 12:15:58 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | General Comment | Web | James | Bresee | TUALATIN | reference Waiver request: OAR 860-025-0030(3) I would like to request that this waiver from PGE not be granted. There is no urgent need for PGE to circumvent the typical process, and granting such a waiver does not serve the public interest. PGE is in the process of going through the conditional use permit and the nonconforming permanent for a destructive project in a residential area. Please do not grant a waiver for PGE. Thank you. | ||
| PCN 6-4 | 6/3/2024 3:02:27 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Calvin | Wigant | TUALATIN | To the PUC, We have been asked to keep our paragraph short that said I have attached a picture because a picture is worth a thousand words of our frontage to Stafford Road and some of the trees which will be removed PGE has forgotten that they serve the public and it was wrong for PGE to Plan, Engineer, layout and survey this project in secret without the input from the public which it serves. It is wrong for PGE to step onto my property and tell me they are going to take my property for their use cut down 10 of my Fifty year old Fir Trees. I have a 200 year old Tree, 50” in diameter. PGE told me they are going to shave all the branches on one side from top to bottom. PGE thinks they can damage our property and leave us no aesthetic value on our frontage to Stafford Road. PGE is ignoring the total value loss we and all the other property owners will experience, the total value loss is staggering. Cal Wigant Diane Wigant 23662 SW Stafford Road Tualatin, Oregon | ||
| PCN 6-5 | 6/6/2024 1:06:29 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Susan & Mike | Vandenburgh | TUALATIN | TO: Oregon Public Utility Commission RE: PGE Waiver Request OAR 860-025-0030(3) We are writing in opposition to the above referenced Waiver Request by PGE. As you know, PGE is planning a new high voltage power line from the Rosemont Substation to the Tonquin substation that will run along Stafford Road. This project would replace the current 40’ poles with 100’ poles carrying 115kV high voltage lines. There is a great deal of opposition to this project from residents along Stafford Road as this project will have significant adverse affects on the quality of life and the property values for those on Stafford Road. Approval of this Waiver Request to change the Conditional Use process would allow this project to go through without allowing the people most affected to voice their opposition, have their concerns and questions addressed, and would basically eliminate any public comment. In addition, there is a meeting on June 12 of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners to accept or reject a County Planning Commission recommendation regarding the ZDO-288 policy change. Their decision will have an impact on PGE’s project. For the PUC to grant PGE’s Waiver Request prior to the decision of the Clackamas County Board would be premature. As to our particular situation, PGE’s proposed project would be very detrimental to us in several ways. According to the easement proposal we received from PGE: “Said Easement and right of way shall be for the following purposes: the non-exclusive, perpetual right to enter upon and to construct, maintain, repair, replace (of initial or any size), operate and patrol, electric power lines including the right to install such poles, wires, cables, guys and support as are necessary thereto, together with the present and future right to clear said right of way, without Grantee (PGE) paying compensation, as necessary to accomplish the above purpose and as Grantee deems necessary to comply with state or federal regulations. Solely to the extent necessary to exercise its rights under the Easement, Grantee (PGE) has ingress and egress rights over and across the Property and Grantors adjoining property interests, in connection with or related to all or any portion of the foregoing” To us, this paragraph from their proposal is very scary. It gives PGE open-ended access to our property to do everything included in the above excerpt from their proposal. What is not taken into consideration is that the property they want to include in this easement is 65-70 feet from our bedroom, our deck and our main living areas. In addition, our house is surround with fields that become very dry in the summers. There has already been a pole fire on a neighboring property, and a situation nearby where a barn burned down. In one case, fire trucks were not able to access water to put the fire out. In the other, the transformer exploded causing a blaze at the top of the pole, about 25’ from a field and dwellings. Even though the fire department arrived within 15 min., they were not allowed to do anything until PGE arrived about 2 hours later. We were fortunate there were no winds that day. What will happen if there is a fire with the newer proposed high voltage lines? We are all on wells – if there is a pole fire and the power goes out, then there is no water. A grass fire in this area could have catastrophic consequences. Lastly, We are both in our 70’s and have been in our home for nearly 30 years. We have been investing in this property during those 30 years with the idea that when we sell it, it will help to fund the next chapter in our lives. The main selling feature of our property is the view. We currently see four PGE 40’ utility poles that, visually, are just below the tree line – still allowing an expansive view north and west. The new poles would be 100’ tall! Over twice the size of the current poles, and would carry many more wires across the view. According to a realtor that spoke at a recent Clackamas County Board meeting and also from what we have seen from on-line articles, power lines like what PGE is proposing could reduce our property value 30-40%. That is a very hard hit for us to absorb as we look to this property to help fund our future. Please reject this Waiver Request and give us the opportunity to voice our comments and concerns. | ||
| PCN 6-6 | 7/9/2024 1:13:48 PM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Jason and Kay | Lee | TUALATIN | 1. My family has lived on this property since late 1800s to early 1900s. From Great grandparents to great grandchildren. This is 7 generations. We love our home and our view. Cutting down the trees in front of our home isn't just that... it is taking away the memories and the love that went in and still goes into our beautiful landscape and shelter for many wild animals. 2. At no time has anyone had or have an easement to this said property, the utilities took it upon themselves to put pole in our yard push lines over into our trees and cut down a very old Madrone tree as well as a Myrtle Wood tree planted by my grandmother, we had been told that 'they' Asplundh tree service had the right to cut these trees down without any explanation. At the same time they had been taking pieces of the Myrtle Wood tree and sticking in truck to use to make canes. Their boss had been called to come out and grind ALL of the tree up. 3. These lines would be close to my home in case of fire our health risk interfere with my fruit trees, trees cutdown would kill all under tree vegetation take away a landmark. I do not want these lines going over my fruit trees or having my animals anywhere near them. They hum and be to close to my bedroom windows, interfere with my TV and Radio and sleep 4. The land if taken will not be the responsibility of ours to care for it will be the PUC or PGE. It will knock value of home by 40% at least, and will never be able to sell. | ||
| PCN 6-7 | 7/23/2024 9:56:05 AM | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC | Oppose Docket | Web | Randall | Yamada | LAKE OSWEGO | TO: State of Oregon Public Utility Commission RE: 7/23/2024 Virtual Public Comment Hearing for PGE Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Public Comment from the Stafford-Tualatin Valley CPO on the PGE Petition The 6/24/2024 Request for Land Use Decision Waiver to Begin a Condemnation Evaluation for the PGE Tonquin Stafford Road Properties was based on 2 specific criteria identified by the PUC. The “delayed by forces beyond their control” and “identified Demand Loads” were deemed to be needing verification by the PUC at the time of the hearing. The Waiver was granted by the PUC. Based on these conditions the 2 criteria need to be met before further proceedings. I have not seen or heard this process and am requesting text of the arguments and decisions. As I remember, over the last 3 decades residents and groups of residents within the Stafford area have organized to resist urbanization of this beautiful rural area surrounded by growing suburban communities. Resident activists have turned back many attempts at inclusion of areas of Stafford into the METRO Urban Growth Boundary to gain access to additional land or development. We are seeing efforts by public agencies and private developers to begin urbanization by changing and re-interpreting existing conditional allowed uses to make way for new development in Stafford. As the Stafford Urban Reserve, OAR Chapter 660-27 states “(2) In order to maintain opportunities for orderly and efficient development of urban uses and provision of urban services when urban reserves are added to the UGB, counties shall not amend comprehensive plan provisions or land use regulations for urban reserves designated under this division to allow uses that were not allowed, or smaller lots or parcels than were allowed, at the time of designation as urban reserves until the reserves are added to the UGB, except as specified in sections (4) through (6) of this rule.” No new applications to Metro for UGB expansion have been initiated by the Five Parties involved in the Stafford Five Party Urban Reserve Agreement. The Stafford Hamlet and the Stafford-Tualatin Valley CPO community organizations have voted unanimously for the county to require transmission lines outside of existing easements to follow the public process required by the current version of the zoning ordinance. This was in opposition to their proposed zoning modification that would eliminate the public process from their ordinance. In similar Stafford development attempts, the residents have always been 80+% in opposition to development. In talking to Stafford Residents in general I am sure this is the case in this instance. We do not want such a huge and unsightly development in the Stafford area. Stafford is not the only area informed about PGE’s efforts to develop transmission line projects. The Far West and Ladd Hill CPO’s are also watching this process closely. Their outlook is also 80% in opposition to development. I believe opinion on this type of industrial development here, as well as throughout the active CPO’s in the county is the same. Although area polling seems to follow Republican candidacy, it actually follows candidates support for opposition to issues like urbanization of rural areas, and changes affecting resident’s current quality of life. We are living in this area because of it’s rural character. Stringing huge transmission lines projects all over the state destroying the natural visual character of the state is not an acceptable solution. The PUC needs to discuss and implement alternate methods of energy management with the many developers of these types of energy supply solutions and create a pilot program to resolve the energy needs for this project and others throughout the state. We know off peak power is 3 times less expensive than on peak power. Multiple forms of energy, fuel, and material storage and energy recovery can be used with off peak power to reduce on-peak demand. I think there are also solutions involving system wide management. In other words, many smaller projects instead of a few large projects. Oregon is the State of innovative solutions. I am sure there are other efficient solutions to providing power to Washington County and the rest of the State as a whole. Like our land use system, environmental policies, early recycling laws and urban/rural reserve system, we should be the place where innovation is used to solve problems with power demand and resiliency. Randy Randall Yamada Stafford-Tualatin Valley CPO Chairperson 3291 SW Childs Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Cell: (503) 799-4990 yamada2@mindspring.com | ||
| PCN 6-8 | 7/26/2024 12:31:27 AM | 7/23/2024 3:26:59 PM | General Comment | kellybartholomew@wavecable.com | ?Hello. I am writing to provide public comment in advance of the virtual PUC Public Comment Hearing 7/23/2024 for PGE Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - PCN 6 My name is Kelly Bartholomew. I live on Stafford road where my husband and I have raised our two boys. I am also a board member of Save Stafford Road. I would like to make 3 very important points: 1. I want to make clear that we are not opposed to the Tonquin Project at large. We ARE opposed to: * routing 100ft tall industrial high voltage transmission lines through a rural residential area, * chopping down hundreds of old growth trees and * creating an additional fire hazard in an increasingly hot, dry climate - where we all have wells, no city water and no fire hydrants. We are scared to death of being the next Lahina. 2. The Stafford Triangle is a small remaining area of farmland situated between 3 cities (West Linn, Wilsonville and Tualatin). As such, Stafford Road is classified as “unincorporated” and is designated by the Clackamas County comprehensive plan to be a “rural scenic road”. The local farms attract hundreds of visitors from the surrounding cities (and Portland) every year. Routing the Tonquin project through Stafford will not only destroy our neighborhood but will eliminate the last remaining wild space separating three cities. There MUST be a better route for this industrial-style high voltage transmission line. PGE says they investigated routing the line along the freeway (which would only be 1/4 mile longer). ODOT has advised that power lines cannot be placed WITHIN their right of way along interstate freeways (I-5 and I-205). However, did PGE investigate placing these lines along the freeway OUTSIDE the ODOT right of way? There are many other possible routes that do not involve destroying residential neighborhoods, violating the Clackamas County comprehensive plan, eliminating the last wild space between three cities and affecting the livelihood of the local farms along the well established “Potlandia farm loop”. 3. The last point I would like to make is regarding the waiver of land use approval that this commission granted PGE on June 11, 2024. When we attended the PGE waiver request hearing, all the commissioners noted that this request would have no impact on the final decision….. It would simply allow the process to move forward. Since then, Clackamas County did NOT grant land use approval as PGE anticipated (and there is a high likelihood it will not be granted). The three large deficiencies in PGEs County land use application are going to be extremely difficult to remedy. Save Stafford Road has scraped together thousands of dollars from our small community to be involved in a process against a multi billion dollar company - that may not even proceed if these land use deficiencies cannot be overcome. We ask that you PLEASE consider the financial burden that is placed on our community with these proceedings. If PGE goes through the normal process of land use approval, and then PUC approval, this immense dual-process financial (and logistical) burden could be avoided. Thank you for your attention to these important issues. Sincerely, Kelly Bartholomew 22900 SW Stafford Rd Tualatin, OR 97062 | |||||
| PCN 6-9 | 7/26/2024 12:31:31 AM | 7/8/2024 2:28:38 PM | General Comment | ellie.knoll@puc.oregon.gov | From: Carol Schaaf <cschaaf@teleport.com<mailto:cschaaf@teleport.com>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:57 AM To: KNOLL Ellie * PUC <ellie.knoll@puc.oregon.gov<mailto:ellie.knoll@puc.oregon.gov>> Subject: Nesting Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcon are Federally protected and their nests too close to new proposed high tension power lines Oregon PUC, RE: Stafford Road and PGE high tension power line proposal. We have two nesting bald eagles. And this week , we think their noises overhead mean they are mating. The nest is within the boundaries set by the Federal Fish and Wildlife for protection of this bird. In addition, we have Peregrine Falcons nesting near 200 feet from the new proposed power lines. BOTH of our birds are Federally Protected and that high tension power lines pose a real threat to them. Both birds are specifically named in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (in 2023 they continued to be specifically listed as Federally protected). For this reason, we are putting the Oregon PUC on notice to stop the high tension power lines until a full and complete study is done. The study will show * the protected Bald Eagles nest is too close to the proposed high tension power lines (<660ft). * The study will find that our Peregrine Falcon nest is too close to the proposed high tension power lines. * The study will show the humming during moist weather (10 months out of the year) are harmful for both of these birds. PGE representative told us there would be humming ‘anytime’ moisture is in the air. Results of this study will show the high tension power lines not be able to be built on Stafford Road. Concerned for our beautiful and protected birds, Carol Schaaf 21929 SW Stafford Rd, Tualatin, OR 97062 ________________________________ |