Public Comments Banner
Docket Number Docket Name Company
PCN 9 PACIFICORP PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY PACIFIC POWER
Created Date Comment Type First Name Last Name Comment
9/9/2026 12:32:32 AM General Comment From: Jonathan Tallman <1stjohn217llc@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:57 PM To: PUC PUC.PublicComments * PUC <puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov>; Subject: Fwd: PacifiCorp Morrow County transmission line public comment meeting To whom it may concern: Please accept this email as a supplemental public comment and record-preservation request concerning PacifiCorp’s proposed Apex-to-Maverick 500-kV transmission line and Oregon Public Utility Commission Docket PCN 9. Please place this correspondence in the official PCN 9 public-comment record. PacifiCorp and Morrow County should also preserve it as part of the project’s ORS 469.442 public-review record and any present or future County land-use, road, access, or permitting record concerning this project. I incorporate by reference my July 30, 2026 email to PacifiCorp attorney Zachary Rogala, together with all of my previous correspondence, comments, attachments, exhibits, and supporting materials concerning this project. I previously referred to a “future CPCN proceeding.” I now understand that the PUC opened PCN 9 on July 6, 2026, although the docket continues to describe PacifiCorp’s substantive filing as forthcoming. Modified Protective Order No. 26-235 was entered on July 8, 2026. This correction does not withdraw or modify any issue raised in my July 30 comment. July 30 public-comment meeting records I have not received a recording, transcript, chat log, participant list, or complete compilation of the oral comments made during PacifiCorp’s July 30, 2026 virtual public-comment meeting. Please provide and preserve any recording, transcript, meeting notes, Zoom chat, questions and answers, attendance information, presentation materials, oral-comment summaries, and other records created during or following that meeting. If no transcript or recording was created, please explain: 1. How PacifiCorp documented and preserved the oral comments; 2. Who prepared or reviewed the summaries of those comments; 3. Whether commenters will be permitted to review those summaries for accuracy; and 4. How PacifiCorp will ensure that each concern and recommendation is accurately included and specifically answered in its final ORS 469.442 report. Without this information, affected landowners cannot verify whether the comments made during the conference call were accurately preserved, considered, and answered. August 19 disclosure concerning County route meetings The August 19, 2026 Morrow County Board of Commissioners meeting disclosed additional information that must be preserved and addressed. During her Planning Department report, Planning Director Tamra Mabbott stated that she and Commissioner Gus Peterson had held meetings during the preceding month concerning a shorter route for PacifiCorp’s approximately 31.8-mile, 500-kV transmission line. She also stated that she attended PacifiCorp’s public meeting, provided testimony, and encouraged PacifiCorp to provide direct notice to landowners and adjoining property owners. Please identify: 1. The date, time, location, and purpose of every meeting or communication involving Ms. Mabbott, Commissioner Peterson, another County representative, PacifiCorp, PacifiCorp’s representatives, consultants, affected landowners, or other outside parties concerning the route; 2. Every person who participated in or received information from each meeting or communication; 3. Who requested or proposed the shorter route; 4. Every route, alternative alignment, property, tax lot, road, substation, access corridor, utility corridor, or easement discussed; 5. Whether PacifiCorp supplied maps, surveys, GIS data, LiDAR information, engineering information, landowner information, route studies, or draft application materials; 6. Whether County officials supplied PacifiCorp with County maps, property information, road information, planning analysis, route recommendations, or other assistance; 7. Whether written notes, emails, text messages, calendar entries, maps, memoranda, presentations, or recordings exist; 8. Whether any County official expressed support for, opposition to, or a preference among particular routes; 9. Whether any commitment, assurance, recommendation, or understanding was communicated concerning a route or a future County decision; and 10. Whether any other County commissioner was briefed about, consulted concerning, or asked to express a position on these discussions. Public Meetings Law and serial communications I recognize that a meeting involving one commissioner and County staff is not automatically a meeting of a quorum and that communications between County staff and a governing-body member may receive different treatment from communications involving outside parties. Nevertheless, the record should establish whether these contacts involved direct or indirect deliberations among a quorum of the Board, including serial communications or communications conducted through an intermediary. Please disclose whether Ms. Mabbott, Commissioner Peterson, PacifiCorp, or any other participant communicated the views, questions, preferences, or proposed positions of one commissioner to another commissioner concerning the transmission-line route or any related County action. Please also disclose: 1. Whether two or more commissioners were contacted separately concerning the same route proposal; 2. Whether any person acted as an intermediary between commissioners; 3. Whether responses from individual commissioners were collected, compared, circulated, or reported to other commissioners; 4. Whether a quorum of the Board developed or discussed a collective position outside a properly noticed public meeting; 5. Whether any County committee, working group, or informal group was formed to evaluate or recommend a shorter route; and 6. If so, whether its meetings were noticed and documented in accordance with Oregon Public Meetings Law. This request does not assume that a violation occurred. It seeks the records necessary to determine whether the discussions remained lawful staff and individual-commissioner communications or became serial or intermediary deliberations subject to Oregon Public Meetings Law. Ex parte contacts and future land-use proceedings The shorter-route discussions may also be relevant to future quasi-judicial land-use proceedings in which Commissioner Peterson or other commissioners could participate as decision-makers. Please preserve and disclose the substance of all communications with PacifiCorp, its representatives, consultants, landowners, or other outside parties that concern: 1. The preferred or alternative route; 2. Properties or landowners that would be affected or avoided; 3. Project need; 4. Agricultural impacts; 5. Road access; 6. Utility crossings; 7. Construction routes; 8. Applicable approval criteria; or 9. The anticipated outcome of a future County proceeding. If Commissioner Peterson or another commissioner participates in a future quasi-judicial proceeding involving Apex-to-Maverick, I request that any qualifying ex parte contact be disclosed on the record in accordance with ORS 215.422, including the substance of the communication and the identity of the person making it, with an opportunity for parties to rebut the substance of the communication. To the extent a communication was solely between County staff and a governing-body member and is excluded from the statutory definition of an ex parte contact, please identify it as such. That exclusion should not be applied to conceal or recharacterize communications originating from PacifiCorp or another outside party that were conveyed through County staff. Impartiality, prejudgment, and conflicts of interest Please confirm that no County decision-maker has made a commitment concerning a preferred route, promised an approval, or prejudged any application before receiving the complete public record and applying the applicable approval criteria. The fact that County representatives explored a shorter route does not, by itself, establish prejudgment. However, the public should be able to determine whether the discussions were limited to information gathering or whether any decision-maker expressed an irrevocable commitment to a particular route or outcome. Please also disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that must be announced under ORS 244.120, including any financial, business, employment, property, or organizational interest held by a participating decision-maker that could be affected by the project or a proposed route. I am not alleging that any particular official has such a conflict. I am requesting compliance with the applicable disclosure and participation requirements if one exists. ORS 469.442 notice and commencement of permitting Please state whether the contacts described above constituted a preapplication conference, route review, application assistance, completeness review, or any other part of a process to obtain local permits. Please identify: 1. Whether application materials were submitted; 2. Whether an application or project number was assigned; 3. Whether any fee was quoted, invoiced, or paid; 4. Whether County staff began reviewing the project against land-use criteria; 5. Whether County staff prepared draft findings, conditions, route recommendations, or application guidance; 6. Whether a preapplication meeting occurred or was scheduled; and 7. The date PacifiCorp or the County contends the local permitting process began or will begin. These questions are important because ORS 469.442 requires qualifying notice at least six months before beginning any process to obtain local permits. Please identify: 1. The date of PacifiCorp’s first qualifying notice under O
9/24/2026 12:32:35 AM General Comment From: Jonathan Tallman <jonathan@tallman.cx> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 10:01 AM To: Tamra Mabbott <tmabbott@morrowcountyor.gov> Cc: DL_Planning Dept <PlanningDepartment@morrowcountyor.gov>; PUC PUC.PublicComments * PUC <PUC.PublicComments@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUC.FilingCenter * PUC <puc.filingcenter@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUCHearings * PUC <puc.hearings@puc.oregon.gov>; zachary.rogala@pacificorp.com Subject: Re: 0929026 Planning Commission Packet jonathan@tallman.cx<mailto:jonathan@tallman.cx>. Charla, Tamra, Zach, and all, Charla, please place my entire September 23 comment in the PCN 9 public record, including the sections addressed to Morrow County, along with this follow-up. Please do not include the older forwarded email trail, its recipient list, or a duplicate of the County’s large packet. The County materials are available here: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/pc/page/09292026-planning-commission-meeting Tamra, please also place my September 23 comment and this follow-up in the Well Springs land use record for AC-167-26 and CUP-N-397-26. Please correct the application number if the County uses a different designation. My concern is straightforward: the public is being asked to evaluate a solar project with a proposed generation tie line to the existing Apex Substation, while the County’s materials also discuss the proposed Apex–Maverick line. An earlier MN8 map depicts a further connection labeled “To Hemingway 500 kV.” Where is the public explanation showing which facilities are necessary, which have approval, and what happens if one is delayed or denied? That explanation is part of planning. Residents should not have to assemble separate maps and proceedings to discover what infrastructure the proposed findings assume. Planning should identify those dependencies before asking the public to evaluate a decision, rather than react after residents raise them. There is a related question about who decides what. My and other people’s earlier PCN 9 comments raised whether these facilities are subject to state, federal, or County review and how those processes fit together. I cannot locate those comments in the public PCN 9 materials I have reviewed. Please identify where my earlier comments were entered—or tell me if they were not—and explain which agency has authority over each proposed line, substation connection, and land use approval. If another federal or state process applies, identify the agency, proceeding, and public record. This jurisdictional uncertainty adds to the difficulty of reviewing the projects together. Please also have County staff clarify whether the projected Well Springs tax revenue rests on an approved SIP agreement or a contemplated one, and whether the proposed land use findings rely on that estimate. I ask that these questions and the agencies’ responses be placed in their respective public records before those records close. Please confirm the PCN 9 comment or filing reference and where the Planning Commission and public can review my County comments. Thank you, Jonathan Tallman
9/24/2026 12:32:39 AM General Comment From: Jonathan Tallman <jonathan@tallman.cx> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 6:01 AM To: PlanningDepartment@morrowcountyor.gov; Tamra Mabbott <tmabbott@morrowcountyor.gov>; PUC PUC.PublicComments * PUC <PUC.PublicComments@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUC.FilingCenter * PUC <puc.filingcenter@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUCHearings * PUC <puc.hearings@puc.oregon.gov>; zachary.rogala@pacificorp.com Subject: Fwd: 0929026 Planning Commission Packet jonathan@tallman.cx<mailto:jonathan@tallman.cx>. Zach, PacifiCorp, Oregon PUC Staff, and Morrow County Planning, Please include these comments in the public records for PUC docket PCN 9 and Morrow County applications AC-167-26 and CUP-N-397-26. Please confirm how to submit them separately if needed to ensure they enter both records. I am requesting a clear public explanation of the transmission network topology and project dependencies involving Well Springs Solar, the Apex Substation, the proposed Apex–Maverick 500 kV line, and any further 500 kV connections. The September 29 County packet says Well Springs proposes to connect to Apex through a separately reviewed 230 kV generation tie line. Its proposed findings discuss the future Apex–Maverick line. An earlier MN8 presentation also depicts a line east of Maverick labeled “To Hemingway 500 kV.” PacifiCorp separately describes its Apex–Maverick project and Blueprint South 500 kV project . The public materials I have seen do not establish precisely how these facilities connect or which connections are necessary for their claimed benefits. To PacifiCorp and the PUC: 1. Does Maverick have a planned physical connection to Boardman–Hemingway, Blueprint South, or another 500 kV line? Identify every intervening line and substation, its owner, approval status, and expected in-service date. If no such connection is planned, explain the MN8 slide’s “To Hemingway 500 kV” label. 2. Provide a public geographic map and simplified electrical one-line diagram that distinguishes facilities that are operating, under construction, approved but unbuilt, or merely proposed. 3. Can Well Springs interconnect and deliver its proposed output at Apex if PCN 9 is denied, delayed, or routed differently? Identify the transmission path, available capacity, required upgrades, and engineering study supporting the answer. 4. For each claimed benefit of PCN 9—serving new customers, providing redundancy, and interconnecting new generation—identify which existing or future facilities are required for that benefit to occur. 5. Do PCN 9’s load forecasts include Well Springs, its battery storage, particular data center campuses, Boardman–Hemingway transfer capacity, or Blueprint South? Identify which loads have firm commitments and which are projections. Explain how the studies avoid counting the same projected demand or benefit more than once. 6. What feasible alternatives were evaluated, including use or upgrades of existing lines, a smaller or lower voltage line, different routes, and a later construction date? How do their costs and effects on landowners compare? 7. Who will pay for PCN 9, the Well Springs interconnection, and any related substation upgrades? What costs are expected to be borne by PacifiCorp’s Oregon customers, project developers, or specific large customers? 8. Are relevant connection diagrams, forecasts, or studies filed under PCN 9’s modified protective order? If so, identify the documents and filing dates and provide a meaningful public summary or redacted version. Please specify what information is withheld and why. To Morrow County: 1. Which proposed findings for Well Springs assume that Apex–Maverick, the Well Springs tie line, or another future transmission connection will be approved and built? What evidence supports those findings if a connection is denied or delayed? 2. Why is a 6,352-acre Goal 3 exception needed when the preliminary layout describes approximately 5,217 acres of arrays or other infrastructure? Please identify on a parcel-level map why the full exception area is necessary and address whether a smaller area could accommodate the project. 3. What is the application number and proposed parcel-level route for the Well Springs 230 kV tie line? How will the County consider the combined effects of the solar facility and tie line on farmland, neighboring owners, habitat, roads, and emergency response? 4. Which changes to the solar layout, battery capacity, tie line route, or connection point would require new public notice and review after this decision? 5. What happens to the conditional use permit and Goal 3 exception if the tie line, interconnection, or transmission capacity needed for the project cannot be secured? Please address whether any condition of approval would resolve that issue before construction. 6. The packet describes a possible phase entering service after 2030. Please identify the statutory and tax-credit basis for reviewing that phase under the County permitting process and the evidence supporting its proposed schedule. To all three: Please identify any study, permit, agreement, or map relied upon in one proceeding that is not available to the public in the other. A proposed route, a land use compatibility statement, and an anticipated interconnection should each be described according to its actual approval status. I request written responses in the respective public records before they close. Please confirm receipt, identify the docket or record entry for these comments, and tell me where the supporting public documents can be reviewed. Thank you, Jonathan Tallman
9/25/2026 12:32:56 AM General Comment From: Jonathan Tallman <jonathan@tallman.cx> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2026 6:01 AM To: PlanningDepartment@morrowcountyor.gov; Tamra Mabbott <tmabbott@morrowcountyor.gov>; PUC PUC.PublicComments * PUC <PUC.PublicComments@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUC.FilingCenter * PUC <puc.filingcenter@puc.oregon.gov>; PUC PUCHearings * PUC <puc.hearings@puc.oregon.gov>; zachary.rogala@pacificorp.com Subject: Fwd: 0929026 Planning Commission Packet jonathan@tallman.cx<mailto:jonathan@tallman.cx>. Zach, PacifiCorp, Oregon PUC Staff, and Morrow County Planning, Please include these comments in the public records for PUC docket PCN 9 and Morrow County applications AC-167-26 and CUP-N-397-26. Please confirm how to submit them separately if needed to ensure they enter both records. I am requesting a clear public explanation of the transmission network topology and project dependencies involving Well Springs Solar, the Apex Substation, the proposed Apex–Maverick 500 kV line, and any further 500 kV connections. The September 29 County packet says Well Springs proposes to connect to Apex through a separately reviewed 230 kV generation tie line. Its proposed findings discuss the future Apex–Maverick line. An earlier MN8 presentation also depicts a line east of Maverick labeled “To Hemingway 500 kV.” PacifiCorp separately describes its Apex–Maverick project and Blueprint South 500 kV project . The public materials I have seen do not establish precisely how these facilities connect or which connections are necessary for their claimed benefits. To PacifiCorp and the PUC: 1. Does Maverick have a planned physical connection to Boardman–Hemingway, Blueprint South, or another 500 kV line? Identify every intervening line and substation, its owner, approval status, and expected in-service date. If no such connection is planned, explain the MN8 slide’s “To Hemingway 500 kV” label. 2. Provide a public geographic map and simplified electrical one-line diagram that distinguishes facilities that are operating, under construction, approved but unbuilt, or merely proposed. 3. Can Well Springs interconnect and deliver its proposed output at Apex if PCN 9 is denied, delayed, or routed differently? Identify the transmission path, available capacity, required upgrades, and engineering study supporting the answer. 4. For each claimed benefit of PCN 9—serving new customers, providing redundancy, and interconnecting new generation—identify which existing or future facilities are required for that benefit to occur. 5. Do PCN 9’s load forecasts include Well Springs, its battery storage, particular data center campuses, Boardman–Hemingway transfer capacity, or Blueprint South? Identify which loads have firm commitments and which are projections. Explain how the studies avoid counting the same projected demand or benefit more than once. 6. What feasible alternatives were evaluated, including use or upgrades of existing lines, a smaller or lower voltage line, different routes, and a later construction date? How do their costs and effects on landowners compare? 7. Who will pay for PCN 9, the Well Springs interconnection, and any related substation upgrades? What costs are expected to be borne by PacifiCorp’s Oregon customers, project developers, or specific large customers? 8. Are relevant connection diagrams, forecasts, or studies filed under PCN 9’s modified protective order? If so, identify the documents and filing dates and provide a meaningful public summary or redacted version. Please specify what information is withheld and why. To Morrow County: 1. Which proposed findings for Well Springs assume that Apex–Maverick, the Well Springs tie line, or another future transmission connection will be approved and built? What evidence supports those findings if a connection is denied or delayed? 2. Why is a 6,352-acre Goal 3 exception needed when the preliminary layout describes approximately 5,217 acres of arrays or other infrastructure? Please identify on a parcel-level map why the full exception area is necessary and address whether a smaller area could accommodate the project. 3. What is the application number and proposed parcel-level route for the Well Springs 230 kV tie line? How will the County consider the combined effects of the solar facility and tie line on farmland, neighboring owners, habitat, roads, and emergency response? 4. Which changes to the solar layout, battery capacity, tie line route, or connection point would require new public notice and review after this decision? 5. What happens to the conditional use permit and Goal 3 exception if the tie line, interconnection, or transmission capacity needed for the project cannot be secured? Please address whether any condition of approval would resolve that issue before construction. 6. The packet describes a possible phase entering service after 2030. Please identify the statutory and tax-credit basis for reviewing that phase under the County permitting process and the evidence supporting its proposed schedule. To all three: Please identify any study, permit, agreement, or map relied upon in one proceeding that is not available to the public in the other. A proposed route, a land use compatibility statement, and an anticipated interconnection should each be described according to its actual approval status. I request written responses in the respective public records before they close. Please confirm receipt, identify the docket or record entry for these comments, and tell me where the supporting public documents can be reviewed. Thank you, Jonathan Tallman
9/29/2026 12:32:46 AM General Comment From: Jonathan Tallman <1stjohn217llc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:31 PM To: Matthew Jensen <mjensen@morrowcountyor.gov> Cc: PUC PUC.PublicComments * PUC <puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov>; Rogala, Zachary (PacifiCorp) <Zachary.Rogala@pacificorp.com>; Jake Weigler <jake@praxispolitical.com>; Tamra Mabbott <tmabbott@morrowcountyor.gov>; DL_Planning Dept <PlanningDepartment@morrowcountyor.gov>; David Sykes <Dsykes@morrowcountyor.gov>; Jeff Wenholz <jwenholz@morrowcountyor.gov>; August Peterson <apeterson@morrowcountyor.gov>; Valerie Ballard <vballard@morrowcountyor.gov>; svelez@naegeliusa.com; Sam.myers84@gmail.com; timesjournal1886@gmail.com; INFO DLCD * DLCD <dlcd.info@dlcd.oregon.gov>; HERT Dawn * DLCD <Dawn.Hert@dlcd.oregon.gov>; MOLES Vicki L <vicki.l.moles@odot.oregon.gov>; ott.irene@frontier.com; Barrett Dash <microbatchor@gmail.com> Subject: Re: PacifiCorp Morrow County transmission line public comment meeting Mr. Jensen and all recipients: Thank you for confirming that Morrow County received my September 2 email, placed it in the Planning Department’s correspondence file, and has not received a formal land-use application for the Apex-to-Maverick project. However, your response redirects several issues without answering the central concerns. This type of response is part of the transparency problem: affected landowners ask direct questions in public, while County officials acknowledge holding nonpublic meetings about shortening PacifiCorp’s route, yet the dates, participants, subjects, records, and results of those meetings remain undisclosed. First, my September 2 email was sent directly to puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov<mailto:puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov>. Therefore, the statement that PCN 9 comments must be filed directly with the PUC does not address my request. I did send the email directly to the PUC, while also sending it to PacifiCorp and the County. I continue to request confirmation from the PUC that the email has been entered into the PCN 9 record. Second, I understand that Morrow County may not possess or control PacifiCorp’s original recording, transcript, or attendee log from its July 30 meeting. However, my request was not limited to PacifiCorp’s private files. Planning Director Tamra Mabbott publicly stated on August 19 that she attended PacifiCorp’s public meeting, provided testimony, and that she and Commissioner Gus Peterson had held meetings during the preceding month about finding a shorter route for the transmission line. The County should therefore identify and preserve its own records, including: * Calendars and meeting invitations; * Emails and text messages; * Notes and memoranda; * Maps, route alternatives, and GIS information; * Written testimony or talking points used by Ms. Mabbott; * Communications with PacifiCorp or its representatives; * Communications between Ms. Mabbott and Commissioner Peterson; * Communications with other commissioners; and * Records concerning Immigrant Lane, Baker Lane, Wellspring Solar, MN8 Energy, substations, construction access, or utility crossings. Please do not treat my request for County-created or County-retained records as a request for PacifiCorp’s private recording. Third, stating that no formal land-use application has been submitted does not answer whether a preapplication process, informal route review, application assistance, or another process to obtain local permits has begun. ORS 469.442 refers to notice at least six months before “beginning any process to obtain local permits,” not merely six months before filing a completed application. Please answer the following basic questions: 1. On what dates did Ms. Mabbott and Commissioner Peterson meet concerning the shorter route? 2. Where did the meetings occur? 3. Who attended or participated in each meeting? 4. Did PacifiCorp, its attorneys, consultants, or representatives participate directly or indirectly? 5. Who proposed that the route be shortened? 6. What route alternatives, roads, properties, tax lots, or substations were discussed? 7. Were maps, surveys, GIS files, LiDAR information, or engineering materials reviewed? 8. Did County staff provide planning advice, route recommendations, application guidance, or analysis of County approval criteria? 9. Were any other commissioners briefed before or after these meetings? 10. Did Ms. Mabbott or Commissioner Peterson communicate another commissioner’s views, preferences, or proposed position? 11. Does the County consider these discussions to have been preapplication assistance or part of a process to obtain local permits? 12. Did the discussions involve Immigrant Lane, Baker Lane, Wellspring Solar, MN8 Energy, construction access, equipment delivery, or utility crossings? I recognize that a meeting between one commissioner and County staff is not automatically a meeting of a quorum or a violation of Oregon Public Meetings Law. I am not asking the County to admit to a violation without evidence. I am asking for the facts and records necessary to determine whether the communications remained limited to lawful staff discussions with one commissioner or involved serial or intermediary communications among a quorum. I also want to emphasize that public-records requests often take months to process and may cost substantial amounts of money. In addition, documents have previously been withheld or not disclosed even when I specifically requested them please refer to the open OGEC case(s) against Morrow county officials that are over 4 years old with no accountability in site. That process is especially problematic when no one is addressing the central issue: the project’s conceptual design may already be shaping the route, affected properties, access requirements, and permitting strategy before a formal application is submitted. The County should not require affected landowners to spend months and potentially significant sums pursuing records merely to obtain basic information about meetings and communications that County officials have already acknowledged and hide behind. Nor should the County avoid discussing the substance of those meetings by characterizing every question as a formal public-records request. Similarly, a statement promising that future ex parte requirements will be observed does not explain what communications have already occurred. If Commissioner Peterson or another commissioner later participates in a quasi-judicial proceeding concerning this project, all qualifying outside communications should be preserved and disclosed on the record, with the legally required opportunity for rebuttal. I understand that Oregon Public Records Law generally requires production of existing records and does not require the County to create new documents or answer every narrative interrogatory. Nevertheless, many of my requests expressly identify existing records. I will use the County portal for a separate formal public-records request, but that procedural requirement should not be used to avoid straightforward public-accountability questions concerning meetings already acknowledged by the Planning Director. Please also clarify whether placing my September 2 email in a general “correspondence file” means that: * It will be preserved for the applicable retention period; * It will be included in any future Apex-to-Maverick land-use, road, access, or permitting record; * My July 30 email and earlier submissions are also preserved; and * Records of the Mabbott-Peterson route meetings are subject to a preservation hold and will not be deleted under routine retention practices. For matters within PacifiCorp’s responsibility, PacifiCorp should respond specifically and in writing as required by ORS 469.442, including the questions concerning the July 30 public meeting, project need, customer-load evidence, PCN 4 overlap, and the shorter-route discussions. I am asking each recipient to answer the matters within that recipient’s responsibility. Please do not simply redirect the entire submission to another agency when the questions concern different records and responsibilities held by the County, PacifiCorp, and the PUC. The basic transparency concern remains unresolved: County officials were able to hold meetings about changing PacifiCorp’s route, while affected landowners have not been told when those meetings occurred, who participated, what route was discussed, what records were exchanged, how the project’s conceptual design was considered, or how those discussions may affect their property. Please provide a substantive written response. Thank you, Jonathan Tallman Boardman, Oregon 97818