The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-429-Minutes for Meeting May 02,2001 Recorded 5/18/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 429 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *CJ2001-429 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/22/2001 11:10:56 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: May. 18, 2001; 1:02 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 56 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEY NCH D MA 2 2001 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2001 Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Chris Schmoyer, Kevin Harrison, Christy Morgan and George Read, Community Development; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Anne Carlson, Commission on Children and Families; Tom Blust and Roger Olson, Road Department; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Jason Carr, .Z-21 TV KBND Radio; and approximately 20 citizens. o 1. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. i� 2. Before the Board was a Presentation of the Annual Skip Prante Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Award to the Family Support Team. Anne Carlson said she organized this annual award; she then turned the microphone over to Stan Owen, Vice Chair of the Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee. Mr. Owen said that Skip Prante was a close friend of his, and that they had worked together in the south county area trying to help people experiencing alcohol and drug abuse problems. He said that Skip Prante was very cooperative and was a true believer that no matter who you are, you can help people; and he had a terrific sense of humor as well. Mr. Owen then presented the Award to a representative of the Family Support Team. Minutes of Board of Commissio ers' Meeting Page 1 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing of an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision to Deny Central Electric Cooperative's Application for a Conditional use Permit to Establish a New Double -Circuit Electric Power Transmission Line (off Pleasant Ridge Road near Gift Road). Chris Schmoyer gave a brief overview and history of the appeal; he also indicated the 150 -day time period expires on May 16th. He said the Hearings Officer denied it because of non-compliance relating to a safe environment. He then gave an overview of the tax lots involved and showed their location on an oversized map. Commissioner Luke asked why the Hearings Officer felt it was dangerous. Mr. Schmoyer replied that the Hearings Officer felt the separation between the two power lines might not meet the ten -foot spacing required by federal regulations. He said that he received additional documents last Friday, April 27, clarifying this issue. Chair De Wolf then opened the de novo hearing at 10:10 a.m. He then read the opening statement regarding applicable procedures. Applicable Procedures. The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing, and it's also available at our Community Development Department during normal working hours. All information on this application and appeal is open to the public. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations that any person believes apply to the decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal at the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 DEWOLF: The Order of Presentation. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. Deschutes County staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues before the Board. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony into evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation, as well as anybody else - this isn't just proponents and opponents; but any interested party or anyone who has questions. After both proponents and opponents have made a presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the Chair may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses by anyone in the audience will not be allowed. If a person wishes a question to be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct those questions to the Chair after being recognized. If you really feel you need to ask a question at that time, let me know by raising your hand. The Chair is free to decide whether to ask such questions of the witnesses. The one thing that we require in any hearing of land use issues or otherwise is that everyone will conduct himself or herself in a respectful manner. Anyone who makes any sort of personal attack on anyone else, including the Board, County staff, the applicants or the opponents, will be cut off from further oral testimony today, and will be limited to submitting written testimony. Pre -Hearing Contacts. I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including me, has had any pre - hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of those pre -hearing contacts, so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts, and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 3 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 LUKE: Dave Markham of Central Electric Cooperative has talked with me and sent me an e-mail, but it had nothing to do with the context of this hearing; it was a clarification on when the hearing would be held. DALY: I had no contacts. DEWOLF: I didn't, either. DEWOLF: Ex -Parte Observations At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex -parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal? Ex -parte means any contact that has taken place with either supporters or opponents relative to this particular application. DALY: None. DEWOLF: None. LUKE: Just that I lived out there for a while. Rebuttal Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Does anyone have anything that they would like to rebut, or anything that you feel we might not have remembered that someone has had communication with us about? (There was no response from the audience.) DEWOLF: Not seeing any, I'll move on. Challenges of Bias, Pre judgment or Personal Interest. Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners as a whole or any member thereof of bias, pre judgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by fact. I will accept any challenges now. (There was no response from the audience.) Chair DeWolf then asked for the staff report to be presented. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 4 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Chris Schmoyer gave an overview of the issue, and added the following Exhibits to the record: The packet received from the appellants on April 27 (Exhibit A, as attached to these minutes); The federal documents - National Electric Safety Code Clearance Requirements (Exhibit B, as attached to these minutes); and Exhibit E of Exhibit 5 (attached as Exhibit C to these minutes), the last item in the packet, which is a diagram that sums up the issue regarding clearance. (For clarification purposes, Mr. Schmoyer referred to an oversized diagram at this time.) Chair DeWolf asked is there is another land use process when they do upgrade. Mr. Schmoyer said he believes that it would be included in this process. Commissioner Luke asked if this goes to the Public Utilities Commission for its approval if the County approves it. Mr. Schmoyer said that this is a question to direct to the applicant's attorney. Commissioner Luke said he is satisfied that the drawings submitted are adequate. He asked if this information had previously been presented to Hearings Officer, would she have approved the application? Mr. Schmoyer replied that he believes she would have. Martin Hansen then spoke. He represents Central Electric Cooperative, and explained that it is a member -owned cooperative, and is not a part of the Public Utilities Commission. He stated the lines have been overbuilt, and that the distances far exceed the requirements. He further said that they are going to utilize an old substation; it will be re -energized with the transmission line to provide better service. Commissioner Luke asked about the protection of wildlife. M. L. Norton of Central Electric Cooperative replied this has been taken into consideration; that birds of prey are usually only affected by transmission tops, not the lines. Chair DeWolf asked if anyone else wishes to testify. No response was received. Chair De Wolf closed the public hearing at 10:20 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Chris Schmoyer said the time limit expires on May 16Ih; and, if the Board approves, staff can prepare the findings. LUKE: I move approval, subject to legal review of the map, drawing and federal documents that have now been submitted into the record; and the Hearings Officer's decision except for what has been modified by the Board. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2001-020, an Amendment Allowing the Placement of Water Storage Facilities in the Surface Mining Zone. Christy Morgan stated this is a public hearing to consider a proposed text amendment to Section 18.52.050 of the Deschutes County Code - File No. TA - 01 -4, which would allow for the placement of water storage facilities in the surface mining zone, where it can be demonstrated not to interfere with the mining of the resource affected. George Read told the Board that this is a legislative matter, which was referred to the Board by the County Planning Commission, and the Board does not have the same requirements for a quasi-judicial application and reading the criteria. This could be adopted today, as it includes an emergency clause. Commissioner Luke said the reason for the emergency clause should be explained. He said he has known the applicant, Fred Schilling, since about 1973. Mr. Schilling owns Apache Water Company, and came to Commissioner Luke to say he was ready to put his water storage tank on a mining site in Deschutes River Woods, but he found that it wasn't legal to put a water tank on surface mining land. They then spoke with George Read, who said it should go to the Planning Commission, and then to the Board. Commissioner Luke said he wants it on the record that he has known Fred (Schilling) for a long time, but it wasn't his intention to get the ordinance changed when he got involved with this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 George Read explained that it was probably an oversight that this wasn't considered in the ordinance in the first place. He further said that this particular water district serves a large area and would also provide for increased fire flows. Both of these are good reasons to move this forward quickly. This only allows them to apply; they will have to apply for a conditional use permit as well. Mr. Read reminded the Board that this change would affect the entire County; it does not just affect this specific site. He stated that the question is whether it is reasonable to consider allowing water storage facilities in surface mining zones. The Planning Commission and staff feel that it is reasonable, as long as it doesn't affect the mining itself. Chair De Wolf opened the public hearing at 10:27 a. m. No one in the audience indicated they wished to testify. Chair De Wolf closed the public hearing at 10:28 a.m. LUKE: I move for first and second reading, by title only, amending Title 18, Section 18.52.050, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2001-020, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-020, by title only, declaring an emergency. Chair DeWolf then did the second reading of Ordinance No. 2001-020, by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-020. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 7 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2001-004, Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance of the Deschutes County Code, to Amend (Making More Restrictive) Regulations for Building Height Exceptions. Christy Morgan explained that this proposed amendment would limit the types of structures that are allowed in outlined exceptions of the height structures, as proposed in 18.120.040 of the Deschutes County Code (a) and (b). Barns are not included. Chair DeWolf said that flagpoles are still included, at forty feet. The City of Bend has a twenty-five foot restriction. He asked if this is an issue for the County; he has never heard anything about it. Ms. Morgan stated that Planning has not received anything on it, either. Chair DeWolf stated that he understands that changes to existing regulations for height limits on barns and other agricultural structures, as well as wireless telecommunications towers, will be considered separately at a later date. Commissioner Luke asked what kind of testimony occurred before the Planning Commission on this issue. Ms. Morgan said about there was little discussion about this; it focused primarily on the barns. Chair DeWolf opened the public hearing at 10:30 a.m. George Winterfeld spoke. He said he lives on 17577 Plainview Court, approximately five miles east of Sisters. He said he would like to see some consideration when these folks are making height restrictions by including some things. He said he keeps hearing about the lack of energy, or the possible lack of energy, the high cost of energy, and the need for energy conservation. He has been doing some research, and understands that there is a tax incentive for people purchasing alternative energy resources. Mr. Winterfeld said the Plainview area has plenty of wind, so he has been doing some research as to whether it would be feasible for him to place a wind turbine on his property. He said he spoke with Central Electric Cooperative, and from what he understands they would meter what he generated and then reduce his bill by that much; and if he generated more power than he used, they would pay him for the excess. (He gave the Commissioners some information of wind turbines, attached to these minutes as Exhibit D). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 8 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Mr. Winterfeld further explained that he contacted the Burgey Company, which sells wind turbines, and they have a new model coming out this fall that is designed to meter usage. He said that at this time he hasn't contacted them about the different height towers they offer, or if a lower tower would even work. At the present time, the shortest tower they list is thirty feet high, and with the blade at five feet, this makes a total height of thirty-five feet. He said he understands this is five feet higher than the existing ordinance allows. He stated he has talked with Matthew Martin in Community Development, who advised Mr. Winterfeld that there is a thirty-foot maximum height allowed in the County. Mr. Martin further said that it would take either a judicial type of decision or a conditional use permit to place one. Either way, it would cost Mr. Winterfeld $455.00 to apply, with no promise that either option would work. Mr. Winterfeld said he asked specifically about windmills, and Mr. Martin indicated he'd check with his supervisor. Mr. Winterfeld was then told that a wind turbine didn't qualify as a windmill. Mr. Winterfeld then explained that he believes that with the wind power available in this county, conserving energy by citizens in this manner should be encouraged. It doesn't pollute the air, it doesn't kill fish, it doesn't make noise, and at most it might kill a bird that doesn't see it. Commissioner Luke asked if it really doesn't make noise. Mr. Winterfeld responded that he didn't know for sure, but he understands that they don't make noise, except maybe a swooshing sound. Chair DeWolf said that type of noise could be comforting. Mr. Winterfeld said that of course, the huge commercial ones make some noise. Mr. Winterfeld then requested that the County study this idea, and not make the permits and rules so strict and expensive that a common citizen can't afford it. George Read stated that he thought this issue was not specifically discussed by the Planning Commission. He said that the way the barn exemption is worded, an agricultural windmill is considered an agricultural structure, so one that pumps water would be allowed. One that solely produces electricity would not be allowed. He explained that this is a valid issue to consider. The question is, how tall. He said he understands that if these are to be encouraged they would be allowed without review to be taller; otherwise an administrative determination would need to be made, which does cost money. Notice must be sent out, a written findings and decision must be done, and they must go through all the paperwork. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 9 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Commissioner Luke said that he understands what Mr. Read is saying is that under the current code, if including the propeller this tower is thirty feet high, it could be done as an outright use in a residential neighborhood, no matter how much noise it produces. Mr. Read said up to thirty feet high is an outright use in the County, but it must comply with the noise ordinance. A structural and electrical permit would be needed for safety reasons. Chair DeWolf stated that energy is getting to be an important issue, and asked for an opinion of how the County should deal with this. Mr. Read said that there are several options. One thing is that they are regulated now, before this ordinance is adopted. Since this ordinance for exceptions is before the Board at this time, it is a good time to look at it. However, this is adding an exception instead of getting rid of one. He said the fact that you can have an agricultural windmill because it's in conjunction with farm use makes this close enough, with notice, if the Board did want to allow something like this. He said the County does have an exception standard for up to thirty-six feet but that it requires a land use permit. Chair DeWolf asked what the height limit is for agricultural use. Mr. Read said there isn't one; it could be much taller. Mike Maier asked that if it were on a farm, perhaps powering a chicken coop, would it be permitted. Mr. Read said he couldn't answer that question. It triggers the land use process, and could be an interpretive call. Commissioner Luke stated that with the amount of disturbance caused by something that could block people's views, he is really reluctant to throw in an exception. He said he would be much more willing to have an applicant come to the Board and ask to waive or modify the fee for a conditional use application for a particular project. He expressed concern about doing an exemption, as he feels this could be a problem. Chair DeWolf said the Board could ask the Planning Commission to consider the various options for wind power, as it certainly appears to be a viable option in this area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 10 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Commissioner Daly asked if that would be the next logical choice, to send this to the Planning Commission for consideration. George Read replied that this could be done if the Board wants. He said he feels that this is closely related to what the Board is doing today, so the Board could make it an exception. He stated, however, that the Board could choose to send it back to the Planning Commission. Chair DeWolf stated that they are already allowed outright for agricultural use if it involves water; but because this involves power, it isn't. George Read responded that if it was clearly to pump water for agricultural use, the applicant would probably get an exemption across the counter, because it's clear that that there isn't any discretion as to whether it is an agricultural structure. In the case of one to generate power, it wouldn't be clear and there would probably have to be some kind of land use decision. Chair DeWolf explained that his inclination is not just to respond to this particular request, but also to consider it because of the issues involving the entire nation regarding power. Mr. Winterfeld asked that this should be made halfway feasible so that people can know what is allowed so they can help with the power situation. Ms. Morgan said that during the Planning Commission work session and hearings, there was some discussions regarding windmills in residential areas. The Planning Commission was fairly concerned about that; there was a lot of reservation about whether they wanted to see something like this. They felt that there was more concern in opposition toward it, but didn't take it very far. Chair DeWolf asked, what if the Board adopted this today and asked that this particular issue go back to the Planning Commission. This is one type of windmill that happens to be thirty-six feet tall, but there may be a variety of others of different heights that might be examined. He expressed concern about making a hasty decision on this. Mr. Winterfeld said he would do further research, as he might be able to get it under the thirty feet, if it will operate properly. He said it only takes winds of five miles per hour to operate, according to the manufacturer; he lives on 2.5 acres and has a good open area for the wind to get to it. He stated that because of energy problems, he feels that it is something that the County should be looking into if its representatives are really interested in today's energy problems. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 11 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Christy Morgan said that it seems reasonable to take this particular issue back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Daly said he has been notified that his power bill will double on October l; he further stated that he feels the County should seriously look at some of these alternatives. Chair DeWolf recommended to Mr. Winterfeld that he stay in touch with Ms. Morgan and that the Planning Commission might be interested in what he has to say about this. He then directed that this issue go back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. No other testimony was offered. Chair DeWolf then closed the public hearing at 10:45 a.m. LUKE: I move first reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 2001-004. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf then did the first reading, by title only. At this time, by consensus of the Board, this is to go back to the Planning Commission to consider changes in regard to this issue. The second reading, by title only, was scheduled for the regular Board meeting of May 23, 2001. 6. Before the Board was a Decision Whether to Close or to Continue a Public Hearing on an Ordinance Implementing Measure 7. Chair DeWolf asked that the public hearing be continued until July 11, 2001, by which time the controversy surrounding the passage of Measure 7 should be settled by the Legislature and the courts. LUKE: I move that we continue the public hearing until July 11, 2001. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 12 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 7. Before the Board was a Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision to Deny a Variance to the Density and Open Space Standards to Add Lots in an Existing Planned Unit Development (Odin Falls Ranch). Chair DeWolf said that this has been postponed for one week at the request of the applicant. (This will be addressed at the next regular Board meeting, May 9, 2001.) 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Public Health Plan and Grant Award from the Oregon Health Division. Dan Peddycord explained that every year the Oregon Health Division requires that Deschutes County submit how it would meet public assurances in the grant. It involves a grant of $811,975; this year the amount went down because the Governor submitted a budget that eliminated the "Babies First" program, a program covering medically high-risk children. At this time the Governor is proposing to reinstitute those dollars - about $27,000 for Deschutes County - back into the budget, so there may be a grant revision to come in that regard. LUKE: I move for Chair signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001- 029, Approving the Receipt and Distribution of National Forest Related Safety -Net Payments. Tom Blust gave a brief overview of this item. He said that this includes the decisions that the Board needs to make regarding the forest safety -net payments. He explained that there are three decisions to be made. The first one is for the life of the bill, and whether the Board wants the safety net money versus the actual timber revenue dollars. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 13 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Tom Blust explained that the second decision is the allocation of the amount of dollars taken off the top that goes to Title II and Title III funds. That must be not less than 15% or greater than 20%. The Resolution reflects 15% off the top for these projects. That is an annual decision. The third decision is how the 15% is to be split between Title II and Title III projects. The 15% equates to $667,000 in the first year. The Resolution has the first year amount being split between Title II and Title III. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of an Intent to Award a Contract for the Purchase of Liquid Asphalt. Roger Olson explained that there are two contractors; one is for asphalt materials - and there are seven different grades of asphalt materials. One contractor only makes one of the products, so the contractors really didn't oppose each other. DALY: Move approval to award this contract. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of an Intent to Award a Contract for Furnishing, Loading and Hauling Mineral Material to Knott Landfill for Operational Needs. DEWOLF: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 14 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 12. Before the Board was Consideration of the Dissolution of the County's Building Code Board of Appeals Committee. George Read explained that this Board is now inactive, and has been for about seven or eight years. New state laws allow them to handle things differently. DEWOLF: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes, with great reluctance. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was the Consent Agenda. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 13. Signature of Order No. 2001-043, Authorizing the Termination of an Offer to Purchase County -Owned Property, and the Return of Earnest Money Pursuant to Order No. 2001-036 (Rock Rim, LLC); and 14. Signature of a Letter Appointing Beverly Granlund to the Board of Special Road District No. 8. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $3,351.05. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 15 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $47.80. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $449,907.13. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 18. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. A. The Board then discussed a letter drafted by the City of Redmond regarding possible future road improvements in the Deschutes Junction/ I9t" Street area, and the costs associated with those improvements. The discussion included the Bureau of Land Management's master plan for Deschutes County. No formal action was taken. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 16 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 B. Mark Amberg and Gary Smith then discussed with the Board a grant that was received from the state to assist with the purchase of a manufactured home to be utilized as transitional housing for mental health patients (located next to the existing County property known as Park Place). They explained that the home has already been sited there. The State has conditioned the grant on the County signing a note and trust deed to assure that the County continues to use the property for this purpose. Mr. Amberg said that the Board must formally approve any encumbrance of County -owned property. He further explained that this would obligate the County for a period of thirty years. It is structured that the County gets a credit for every month it is used in this manner. He said he has discussed with Rick Isham the possibility of having a sunset clause in this, to have the debt forgiven after a number of years. He also said that the terms of the note say "property", so it appears that it means the real property. Gary Smith said that he has worked with the State for about twenty years on this type of program, and they are flexible. He explained that he feels it doesn't have to be used just for mental health purposes, that it could also be used for other programs. Chair DeWolf asked that this document be revised into a format acceptable to the State and the County. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:1 S a.m. DATED this 2nd Day of May 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Ael--�Aq 44( Michael M. Daly, Co missioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 17 of 17 Pages Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Denn is C. Karnopp James E. Petersen James D. Notehoom Martin E. Hansen' Howard G. Arnett ThomasJ. Sayeg •'+ Ronald L. Roome . Michael L. Dillard " BrentS. Kinkade William F. Buchanan Also admitted in Washington " Also admitted in California + LI.MAn Taxation April 27, 2001 Via Hand Delivery Karnopp, Petersen Noteboom. Hansen Arnett & Sayeg, LLP ATTORNEYS AT 1AW Board of County Commissioners Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Rivepointe One 1201 N.W. Wall Street, Suite300 Bend, Oregon 97701-1957 (541)382-3011 Fax(541)388-5410 Re: File Nos.: CU -00-132, SP -00-59 Applicant: Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Dear Board of Commissioners: Associates Tamara F. MacLcrxt John M. Wilson, Ill Josh Newton John C. Me f e-mail: mail®kamopp.com www.kamopp.com RECEIVED APR 2 7 2001 DES CMUT50UNTY CDC Enclosed are documents to supplement the Memorandum in Support of Notice of Appeal that was submitted to you on April 2, 2001, on the above -referenced matter for Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("CEC"). Given that the appeal will be heard on a limited de novo basis, we hereby submit the following in support of our request to reverse the hearing's officer's decision below. Included in the record below and supplemented herein, CEC has shown that its proposed power transmission lines not only comply with national safety standards but in fact exceed those standards. In addition, the CEC proposal satisfies the "informal" construction standard utilized by Pacific Power & Light/PacifiCorp ("PP&L") when it constructs crossing power transmission lines. Included herein are the following documents to supplement the record: Exhibit 3. Letter from PP&L's attorney dated April 25, 2001 stating that PP&L does not object to CEC's proposed development and further stating that PP&L withdraws its opposition to CEC's land use application. Exhibit 4. Affidavit of Kathleen Rose, current contract right of way agent for CEC and former engineering technician doing pole replacement and contract development for PP&L. Ms. Rose testifies regarding minimum clearance required between crossing power transmission eq lubcl A - Serving ClimtsNeedsforOver50 Years Board of County Commissioners April 27, 2001 Page 2 lines. The Affidavit includes exhibits referenced therein: Exhibit A 1998 PP&L standard construction clearances for crossing lines Exhibit B NESC requirements for clearances for crossing lines Exhibit C Rural Electrification Administration table regarding clearances Exhibit 5. The Consent to Common Use Agreement between PP&L and CEC, including exhibits referenced therein: Exhibit A PP&L Easement Exhibit B Map No. PD -8357 Exhibit C CEC Easement Exhibit D Two diagrams showing general location of subject area Exhibit E Diagram showing clearances to be utilized for subject construction Please supplement the record with this information. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, TAMARA E. MacLEOD TEM:blc Enclosures cc: Client (w/enc.) RPR -25-2001 17:28 JONES, WRLDO, ET AL 801 328 0537 P.02i02 Tones Waldo JONES WALOo HOLBROOK a MCDONoucH K A=RNEYs AND CouNsmoits 126 YEARS OF SERvicr VIA FACSIMILE (541-383-7073) Martin Hansen 1201 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 300 Bend, OR 97701-1957 Dear Martin: April 25, 2001 This is to confirm our conversation of today's date concerning PacifiCorp's position with respect to the appeal of Central Electric Cooperative's (CEC) application for a conditional use permit required for the construction of its proposed transmission line. This afternoon, I spoke with Sue Berndt, PacifiCorp's Managing Director of Property and Facilities, who confirmed that PacifiCorp is willing to withdraw its opposition to the application, provided that CEC executes the agreed upon Consent to Common Use Agreement I faxed to you earlier this afternoon. Ifyou have any further questions or concerns about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Sue Berndt Bill Prentice A22796A Sincerely, JONES, WALDO, HOLBROO & M DONOUGH R.Je 'chards Exhibit 3 Salt Lake civ ofllee St. GC0r9C Office Salt Lake City Office Washington, D.C. Office 301 North 200 F.aut, Suite 3-A 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 412 First Street S.E. St. Georgc, Utah 84770 170 South Main Strcct Washington, D.C. 20003 T.t.pt.e,..e (435) 628-1627 Sale Lake City, Vtob 84101-1644 Telephone (202) 4AAJA02 Fax (435) 628-3225 Telephone (901) 521.3200 Fax (202) 494-0109 Fax (801) 328-0537 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11 12 In the Application of CENTRAL ) ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ) File No. CU -00-132 & SP -00-59 13 ) AFFIDAVIT OF KATHLEEN ROSE 14 ) 15 State of Oregon ) 16 )ss County of Deschutes ) 17 18 I, Kathleen Rose, first being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as 19 follows: 20 1. I am over the age of 18 and am competent to testify to the matters set 21 forth herein based on my own personal knowledge. 22 2. 1 am currently employed as a contract right-of-way agent for Central 23 Electric Cooperative, Inc. 24 3. 1 previously worked at Pacific Power and Light ("PP&L") for approximately 25 19 years. During my employment, I worked in the transmission -engineering group for 26 approximately 12 years. For approximately six years therein, I was employed as an Page. 1 AFFIDAVIT OF KATHLEEN ROSE Karnopp, Petersen, Noteboom, Hansen, Arnett & Sayeg, LLP 5.187�Rose Aff ATTORNEYS AT LAW Exhibit 4 Riuerpointe One ' 1201 N.W Wall Street, Suite 300 ' Bend, Oregon 97701-1957 ' (541) 382-3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 engineering technician doing power pole replacement and contract development for PP&L. My work in this area covered the States of Oregon, California, and Washington. 4. As part of my employment as an engineering technician with PP&L, I became familiar with the standard construction procedures for PP&L, specifically regarding the clearance requirements between power transmission lines, including clearance requirements when power lines cross each other (hereinafter "crossing lines"). As part of my current employment, I stay familiar with PP&L clearance requirements. 5. It is standard PP&L construction policy that crossing lines have a minimum of ten feet vertical clearance. On occasion, PP&L deviates from the ten -foot clearance requirement for limited circumstances., requiring less than ten feet. 6. The ten -foot PP&L clearance standard is in full compliance with the National Electric Safety Code ("NESC") minimum clearance requirements for crossing lines. The NESC requires less than ten feet clearance between both 69kV crossing lines and 11 5k crossing lines. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference is PP&L standard construction clearances for crossing lines. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference is the NESC statement for calculating crossing line clearance requirements. Finally, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference is a table published by the Rural Electrification Administration regarding the same. As these exhibits indicate, CEC's proposed 10 foot clearance satisfies the multiple standards and requirements. Page. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF KATHLEEN ROSE Kamopp, Petersen, Noteboom, Hansen, Arnett & Sayeg, LLP 5.18TRose Aff ATTORNEYS AT LAW Riverpointe One ' 1201 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 300 ' Bend Oregon 9 7701-1957 ' (541) 382-3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. As demonstrated above, proposed clearance distance that satisfies the 11 5k crossing lines requirement imposed by the NESC necessarily satisfies the lesser clearance required by the NESC for 69kV crossing lines. Dated this 26th day of April, 2001. Kathleen Rose SUBSCRIBED & SWORN to before me this4rday of _ '2001. NO ARI PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL M E LEBOW NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON %h1RbrSF•' �N NO. 331334 MY COMM16SION EXPIRES MAR. 11, 2004 Page. 3 AFFIDAVIT OF KATHLEEN ROSE Karnopp, Petersen, Noteboom, Hansen, Arnett & Sayeg, LLP 5.187\Rose Aff ATTORNEYS AT LAW Riue"inte One ' 1201 N.W Wall Street, Suite 300 ' Bend, Oregon 97701-1957 ' (541) 382-3011 APR -26-2001 06:12 PM P.02 1 PACIFICORP TC PACIFIC POWER UTAH POWER Construction Standard—Transmission Overhead Lines Table of Contents TC -- Clearances Contents NUMBER TITLE REVISION DATE Information Standards TC 001 Clearances—Index .................................... 2 Oct 95 TC 011 Clearances—General Information . . ................. . .. 2 Oct 95 TC 101 Clearances --from Structures to Other Objects (NESC 231) 1 Feb 96 TC 111 Clearances—above Ground, Roads, Rails, or Water Surfaces (NESC 232) ................................. 1 Apr 97 TC 141 Clearances --between Conductors on Different Supporting Structures ........................................... 2 Oct 95 TC 151 Clearances—from Buildings, Bridges, and Other Installations (NESC 234) ,.......... I ........... . . ................ 17 Oct 95 TC 161 Clearances—for Conductors on the Same Support ...... 23 Jan 98 TC 191 Clearances --Climbing Space (NESC 236) ...... . ........ 1 Aug 97 TC 311 Clearances—above Ground, Roads, Rails, or Water Surfaces --California (G.O. 95, Rule 37) ................. 1 Aug 97 TC 391 Clearances—Climbing Space --California ............... 1 Aug 97 Date: 30 Jan 98 Page i L' ALluli A Affidavit of Rose APR -26-2001 06:12 PM f P. 03 TC 001 TC 141 Clearances between J. Wind Conductors on Different Supporting Structures (NESC 233 A). Adjacent Conductors Vertical Clearances at Conductor Crossing on different Supporting Structures. (NESC 233). Conductor Crossing TC 151 f •- C–� C Clearances of Conductors From Other Support- ing Structures (NESC 234 B) (Light Poles. C Traffic Signals, Other Poles, etc.) OTHER SUPPORTS TC 151 C Minimum Clearances of conductors from Build - Ings for Conductors'Not Attached to the Building r (NESC 234 C) C BUILDINGS AND OTHER INSTALLATIONS Transml$slvn MrIFICORP Construction standard Clearances—index F*CrK POWER UrAm POWER Stas Team Loader (c. L. Wright): 2 Oct 95 TC 001 Standards Services (M. BrimhO): 3 Pape 3 of 6 RPR -26-2001 06:13 PM P.04 rrDD gg A Ti D _ - aDRA g G 9 O ' QRF� o CL -s CL _ ,... cn a>�' o 0 oto oio 0 qR oq c?) ` d agig ^ ty '.� ?I}i Oh OP Oh 0 m O�'t t t I t -CD r I� o ss B U e 4 ea etq e� t s Z t�q tn� � �?Fn V 41 i3 1 *3as M g� a o 4 m o: o d of a 1 ,•gr bt�S U z 4.yi�ui o0 00 os Oo oo t f t 1: t g o �f! d ori oEi i�• of Illlil i w n � N � 00 00 oS OS V 1 1 i i t 0. NCD Vft on -M FSS B H B a H D a i Y •4 7y (�, N F a $ S lr a CO tt 73i NNN s& s g R a n H Transmission F1 COW Construction Standard Clearances—Between Conductors of Different P�clFic Powell UTAH Powsa S4is Team Leader (c. L. Wright): CIV Supporting Structures 2 Oct 96 TC 141 mh Standards $ervlces (M. Briall): 4"4-(5Page 5 01 a Accredited Standards Committee C2-1997 National Electrical Safety Code® Secretariat Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Approved 15 March 1996 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Approved 6 June 1996 American National Standards Institute 1997 Edition Abstract: This standard covers basic provisions for safeguarding of persons from hazards arising from the installation, operation, or maintenance of 1) conductors and equipment in electric supply stations, and 2) overhead and underground electric supply and communication lines. It also includes work rules for the construction, maintenance, and operation of electric supply and communication lines and equipment. The standard is applicable to the systems and equipment operated by utilities, or similar systems and equipment, of an industrial establishment or complex under the control of qualified persons. This standard consists of the introduction, definitions, grounding rules, list of referenced and bibliographic documents, and Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the 1997 Edition of the National Electrical Safety Code. Keywords: communications industry safety; construction of communication lines; construction of electric supply lines; electric supply stations, electric utility stations; electrical safety; high-voltage safety; operation of communications sys- tems; operation of electric supply systems; power station equipment; power station safety; public utility safety; safety work rules; underground communication line safety; underground electric line safety The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2394, USA Copyright ®1996 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Published 1996 Printed in the United States of America National Electrical Safety Code® and NESe are registered trademarks and service marks of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. The NESC logo is a trademark the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The National Electrical Code® and NEC®are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association. ISBN 1-55937-715-1 Public authorities are granted permission to republish the material herein in laws, regulations, administrative orders, ordinances, or similar documents. No other party may reproduce in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, any portion of this document, without the prior written permission of the publisher. I August 1996 SH94406 Exhibit B Affidavit of Rose 233A1a PART 2. SAFETY RULES FOR OVERHEAD LINES 233A1a A Ev DIRECTION OF WIND E A \ CONDUCTOR MOVEMENT ENVELOPE Point Conductor Temperature Sag Ice Loading Wind Displacement 1 A 60 OF 5 initial none none B 60 OF S initial none 61b/ft2 (note 2) C 60 °F5 final none none D 60 OF' final none 6 1b/ft2 (note 2) Et 3.4 The greater of 120 OF or maximum operating temperature final none none E2 3.4 32 OF final as applicable none t The direction of the wind shall be that which produces the minimum distance between conductors. The displace- ment of the wires, conductors, or cables includes the deflection of suspension insulators and flexible structures. 2 Wind loading may be reduced to 4 Ib/ft2 in areas sheltered by buildings, terrain, or other obstacles. 3 Point E shall be determined by whichever of the conditions described under EI and E2 produces the greatest sag. 4 Line D—E shall be considered to be straight unless the actual concavity characteristics are known. 5When one conductor movement envelope is lower than that of the other conductor, the lower conductor envelope shall be developed with points A, B, C, and D at a conductor temperature equal to the ambient temperature used in de- termining E of the upper conductor movement envelope. Fig 233-2 Conductor Movement Envelope ft 87 233B PART 2. SAFETY RULES FOR OVERHEAD LINES 233C2a CLOSEST ALLOWABLE POSITION OF CONDUCTOR NO 2 ` H V CONDUCTOR NO 1 H H4 H—► CONDUCTOR NO 1 CONDUCTOR NO 1 V V\ if if if H>V H=V H<V Fig 233-3 Clearance Envelope B. Horizontal Clearance 1. Clearance Requirements The horizontal clearance between crossing or adjacent wires, conductors, or cables carried on dif- ferent supporting structures shall be not less than 1.50 m (5 ft). For voltages between the wires, conductors, or cables exceeding 129 kV, additional clearance of 10 mm (0.4 in) per kV over 129 kV shall be provided. EXCEPTION: The horizontal clearance between anchor guys of different supporting structures may be re- duced to 150 mm (6 in) and may be reduced to 600 mm (2 ft) between other guys, span wires, and neutral conductors meeting Rule 230EL 2. Alternate Clearances for Voltages Exceeding 98 kV Alternating Current to Ground or 139 kV Di- rect Current to Ground The clearances specified in Rule 233B 1 may be reduced for circuits with known switching -surge factors, but shall be not less than the alternate clearance derived from the computations required in Rules 235133a and 235B3b. C. Vertical Clearance 1. Clearance Requirements The vertical clearance between any crossing or adjacent wires, conductors, or cables carried on different supporting structures shall be not less than that shown in Table 233-1. EXCEPTION: No vertical clearance is required between wires, conductors, or cables that are electrically in- terconnected at the crossing. --�► 2. Voltages Exceeding 22 kV a. The clearance given in Table 233-1 shall be increased by the sum of the following: For the upper-level conductors between 22 and 470 kV, the clearance shall be increased at the rate of 10 mm (0.4 in) per kV in excess of 22 kV. For the lower -level conductors exceeding 22 kV, the additional clearance shall be computed at the same rate. For voltages exceeding 470 kV, the clearance shall be determined by the method given in Rule 233C3. The additional clear- ance shall be computed using the maximum operating voltage if above 50 kV and nominal voltage if below 50 kV. - 233C2b PART 2. SAFETY RULES FOR OVERHEAD LINES 2330c EXCEPTION: For voltages exceeding 98 kV ac to ground or 139 kV do to ground, clearances less than those required above are permitted for systems with known switching -surge factors. (See Rule 23303.) b. For voltages exceeding 50 kV, the additional clearance specified in Rule 233C2a shall be in- creased 3% for each 300 in (1000 ft) in excess of 1000 in (3300 ft) above mean sea level. 3. Alternate Clearances for Voltage Exceeding 98 Kilovolts Alternating Current to Ground or 139 kV Direct Current to Ground The clearances specified in Rules 233C 1 and 233C2 may be reduced where the higher -voltage cir- cuit has a known switching -surge factor, but shall be not less than the alternate clearance, which is computed by adding the reference height from Rule 233C3a to the electrical component of clear- ance from Rule 233C3b. For these computations, communication conductors and cables, guys, messengers, neutral conductors meeting Rule 230E1, and supply cables meeting Rule 23001 shall be considered at zero voltage. a. Reference Heights The reference height shall be selected from Table 233-3. b. Electrical Component of Clearance (1) The electrical component (D) shall be computed using the following equations. Selected values of D are listed in Table 233-2. [VH D = 1.00 (PU) + VL J a11.667 500K J bc(m) r [ VH • (PU) + VL ]a 1.667 D = 3.28 L SOOK J be (ft) where VH = higher -voltage circuit maximum ac crest operating voltage to ground or maximum do operating voltage to ground in kilovolts; VL = lower -voltage circuit maximum ac crest operating voltage to ground or maximum do operating voltage to ground in kilovolts; PU = higher -voltage circuit maximum switching -surge factor expressed in per-unit peak voltage to ground and defined as a switching -surge level for circuit breakers corre- sponding to 98% probability that the maximum switching surge generated per breaker operation does not exceed this surge level, or the maximum anticipated switching -surge level generated by other means, whichever is greater; a = 1. 15, the allowance for three standard deviations; b = 1.03, the allowance for nonstandard atmospheric conditions; c = 1.2, the margin of safety; K = 1.4, the configuration factor for conductor -to -conductor gap; (2) The value of D calculated by Rule 233C3b(1) shall be increased 3% for each 300 m (1000 ft) in excess of 450 m (1500 ft) above mean sea level. c. Limit The alternate clearance shall be not less than the clearance required by Rules 233C 1 and 233C2 with the lower -voltage circuit at ground potential. R9 233C1 PART 2. SAFETY RULES FOR OVERHEAD LINES 233C 1 ft Table 233-1 Vertical Clearance Between Wires, Conductors, and Cables Carried on Different Supporting Structures (Voltages are phase to ground for effectively grounded circuits and those other circuits where all ground faults are cleared by promptly de -energizing the faulted section, both initially and following subsequent breaker operations. See the definitions section for voltages of other systems. See Rules 233C I and 233C2a.) I This clearance may be reduced where both guys are electri- cally interconnected. 2 The clearance of communication conductors and their guy span, and messenger wires from each other in locations where no other classes of conductors are involved may be reduced by mu- tual consent of the parties concerned, subject to the approval of the regulatory body having jurisdiction, except for fire -alarm conductors and conductors used in the operation of railroads, or where one set of conductors is for public use and the other used in the operation of supply systems. 3 Trolley and electrified railroad contact conductors of more than 750 V should have at least 6 ft of clearance. This clearance should also be provided over lower -voltage trolley and electri- fied railroad contact conductors unless the crossover conductors are beyond reach of a trolley pole leaving the trolley -contact conductor or are suitably protected against damage from trolley 91 poles leaving the trolley -contact conductor. 4 Trolley and electrified railroad feeders are exempt from this clearance requirement for contact conductors if they are of the same nominal voltage and of the same system. 5 This clearance may be reduced to 4 ft where supply conduc- tors of 750 V to 8.7 kV cross a communication line more than 6 ft horizontally from a communications structure. 6 This footnote not used in this edition. 7 These clearances may be reduced by not more than 25% to a guy insulator, provided that full clearance is maintained to its metallic end fittings and the guy wires. The clearance to an insu- lated section of a guy between two insulators may be reduced by not more than 25% provided that full clearance is maintained to the uninsulated portion of the guy. 8 This clearance may be reduced to 2 ft for supply service drops. In general, this type of crossing is not recommended Upper level Supply guys, span wires, Supply cables Open supply neutral meeting Rule conductors 0 to conductors 230C1, and 750 V, and meeting Rule Communication supply cables of supply cables 230E1, and conductors and 0 to 750 V over 750 V Open supply surge- cables, and meeting Rule meeting Rule conductors over protection wires messengers 230C2 or 23003 230C2 or 23003 750 V to 22 kV Lower level (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Supply guys, span wires, neutral conductors meeting Rule 230E1, and surge -pro- tection wires 2 1,2 2 1, 2 22 2 2 2 Communication guys, con- ductors and cables, and messengers 21 21.2 2 48 55 3. Supply cables meeting Rule 230C1, and supply cables of 0 to 750 V meeting Rules 23002 or 230C3 2 2 2 2 2 4. Open supply conductors, 0 to 750 V; supply cables over 750 V meeting Rule 230C2 or 230C3 2 49 2 2 2 5. Open supply conductors, 750Vto22kV 2 55,9 29 29 2 6. Trolley and electrified rail- road contact conductors and associated span and mes- senger wires 43 43 43 4 3, 4 6 - I This clearance may be reduced where both guys are electri- cally interconnected. 2 The clearance of communication conductors and their guy span, and messenger wires from each other in locations where no other classes of conductors are involved may be reduced by mu- tual consent of the parties concerned, subject to the approval of the regulatory body having jurisdiction, except for fire -alarm conductors and conductors used in the operation of railroads, or where one set of conductors is for public use and the other used in the operation of supply systems. 3 Trolley and electrified railroad contact conductors of more than 750 V should have at least 6 ft of clearance. This clearance should also be provided over lower -voltage trolley and electri- fied railroad contact conductors unless the crossover conductors are beyond reach of a trolley pole leaving the trolley -contact conductor or are suitably protected against damage from trolley 91 poles leaving the trolley -contact conductor. 4 Trolley and electrified railroad feeders are exempt from this clearance requirement for contact conductors if they are of the same nominal voltage and of the same system. 5 This clearance may be reduced to 4 ft where supply conduc- tors of 750 V to 8.7 kV cross a communication line more than 6 ft horizontally from a communications structure. 6 This footnote not used in this edition. 7 These clearances may be reduced by not more than 25% to a guy insulator, provided that full clearance is maintained to its metallic end fittings and the guy wires. The clearance to an insu- lated section of a guy between two insulators may be reduced by not more than 25% provided that full clearance is maintained to the uninsulated portion of the guy. 8 This clearance may be reduced to 2 ft for supply service drops. In general, this type of crossing is not recommended REA BULLETIN 1724E-200 DESIGN MANUAL FOR HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES ELECTRIC STAFF DIVISION RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 Exhibit C Affidavit of Rose Bulletin 1724E-200 Page 4-8 TABLE 4-3 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE IN METERS (FEET) BETWEEN CONDUCTORS WHERE THE CONDUCTORS OF ONE LINE CROSS OVER THE CONDUCTORS OF ANOTHER WHERE UPPER CONDUCTOR HAS GROUND FAULT RELAYING o4i27i01 FRI 11:51 FAX 5038136214 PROPERTY MUT When Recorded, Return to: PacifiCorp Property Management Department 825 N.E. Multnomah, Ste 1000 Portland, OR 97323 CONSENT TO COMMON USE AGREEMENT Z002 This Consent to Common Use Agreement (the "Agreement') is entered into this day of & , 2001, by and between PacifiCorp, an Oregon corporation ("PacifiCorp"), and Central Electric Cooperative, an Oregon Electric Cooperative ("CEC"). RECITALS A. In 1927, the Deschutes Power & Light Company acquired certain transmission line easements (the "1927 Easements") over and across that certain parcel of land (the "Servient Propery) located within the southwest one-quarter, northwest one- quarter (SWI/4NW1/4) of Section 24, T. 16S., R12E, 'Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, State of Oregon. The two separate easements encumbering the above-described parcel of land were duly recorded with the Deschutes County recorder as Entry No. D3604 at Book 4, Page 466, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 13. Thereafter, Deschutes Power & Light Company constructed certain electric transmission lines and distribution lines (together referred to herein as the `°Transmission Lines') over and across the Servient Property in the locations set forth in Map No. PD -8357, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein. C. PacifiCorp is the successor in interest to Deschutes Power & Light Company, the Grantee under the 1927 Easements. D. On the I CP day of May, 2000, CEC acquired an easement (the "CEC Easement') from the fee title owner of the Servient Property for the purpose of constructing an additional electric transmission line (the "CEC Transmission Line") thereon. The CEC Easement is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and by this reference incorporated herein. E. The transmission line to be constructed by CEC will be built in that certain location and in accordance with the map and construction drawings attached hereto as Exhibits "D" and "E". respectively, and by this reference incorporated herein. As depicted on Exhibit "D", the CEC Transmission Line crosses PacifiCorp's existing Transmission Line. Exhibit 5 04/27/01 FRI 11:51 FAX 5038136214 PROPERTY MGMT F. CEC has requested that PacifiCorp give consent to CEC to construct a CEC Transmission Line that will cross over PacifiCorp's existing easement at the locations depicted on Exhibit "D" (the "Crossing") and PacifiCorp has agreed to grant such consent to CEC based upon the representations and warranties made by CEC herein, and the construction drawings and other information submitted to PacifiCorp by CEC, that the construction, use, and maintenance of the CEC Transmission Line will not materially interfere with PacifiCorp's existing and future operations of its Transmission Lines. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. PacifiCorp hereby gives consent to CEC for the construction of the CEC Transmission Line, provided, however, that such construction shall be made in accordance with Exhibits "D" and "E". Upon completion, CEC shall provide PacifiCorp with a set of as -built drawings identifying its structures and facilities in reasonable detail 2. PacifiCorp, by this consent shall not be deemed. to have subordinated any of its right, title, or interest in or to the use and occupancy of the Servient Property arising from the 1927 Easements. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement shall not in any way be deemed to alter, modify, waive, or terminate any provision contained in the 1927 Easements, or any other rights or interests arising therefrom 3. PacifiCorp does not hold fee title to the Servient Property. The consent given herein shall not be construed as granting any permission or right to use the Servient Property. 4. CEC agrees to use, operate, and maintain the CEC Transmission Line in a manner that will not materially interfere with the use, operation, maintenance, replacement, or removal of PacifiCorp's Transmission Lines or any transmission or distribution line that may be constructed in the future pursuant to the 1927 Easements, including ingress and egress thereto. 5. CEC agrees to notify PacifiCorp at least ten (10) days in advance of any routine construction work within fifty feet (50) of the Transmission Lines or any other work performed by CEC or its contractor that may affect the Transmission Lines. In the case -of an emergency CEC agrees to use reasonable efforts to give PacifiCorp prior notice of the need for emergency construction or repair. If such prior notice is not practicable under the circumstances involving the emergency repair or construction, CEC agrees to promptly notify PacifiCorp of the emergency work that was performed.. 6. CEC agrees to protect, indemnify and hold harmless PacifiCorp, its officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any losses, claims, liens, demands and causes of action of every kind, including the amount of any judgment, penalty, interest, court cost or legal fee incurred by the Indemnities or any of them in the defense of same, arising in favor of any party, 2003 04/27/01 FRI 11:51 FAX 5038136214 PROPERTY MGMT including governmental agencies or bodies, on account of taxes, claims, liens, debts, personal injuries, death or damages to property, violations of environmental laws and regulations, and all other claims or demands of every character arising directly or indirectly out of CEO's construction, use, operation, and maintenance of the CEC Transmission Line. 7. The parties acknowledge that construction, use, operation, and maintenance activities may, from time to time, require that the other party incur an outage or other protective alternatives to safely perform such activities. To that end, the parties agree to cooperate and reasonably work in good faith to accommodate such outages and other protective alternatives. The party requesting an outage or protective alternative shall make its request in writing and reasonably in advance. The request shall specify the date, time, and duration of the proposed outage or the manner in which the protective alternative will be performed. Once given approval, the requesting party shall perform the construction or maintenance work in accordance with the provisions of ORS §§ 757.800 and 757.805 as well as all other applicable local, state, or federal laws and regulations, and the National Electric Safety Code as may be amended from time to time. If a party agrees in writing to perform an outage on a specified date and for a specified period and then fails to provide such outage, the parties agree that the party failing to perform shall reimburse the other parry for its actual costs (including overtime payments to personnel) incurred by reason of such failure; provided, however, that such reimbursement shall be limited to actual costs only and nothing herein shall be construed as allowing or providing for consequential damages. 8. In the event one party damages or causes injury to any facility owned by the other party at any time, the party causing such damage shall promptly notify the other party. The party causing the damage shall promptly repair or cause to be repaired the damage to the reasonable satisfaction of other party. If the damage is not repaired within a reasonable period of time and to the other party's reasonable satisfaction, such party may repair the damage at the cost and expense of the other party. 9. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors and permitted assigns. 10. The prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and court costs, including fees and costs incurred through any applicable appeal process. It. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each has been represented by legal counsel and that each of the parties has participated in the drafting of Agreement. Accordingly, it is the intention and agreement of the parties hereto that the language, terms and conditions of this Agreement are not to be construed in any way against or in favor of any party by reason of the responsibilities in connection with the preparation of Agreement. 12. If a party is delayed or hindered in, or prevented from the performance required under this Agreement by reason of strikes, lockouts, failure of power, riots, 0 004 O4./27/0'1 FRI 11:52 FAX 5038136214 PROPERTY MGMT insurrection, war, acts of God, or other events beyond the reasonable control of a party, other than the payment of money, such party is excused from such performance for the period of delay. The period for the performance shall be extended for the period of such delay. 13. In the event that any part ofthis Agreement is found to be illegal, or in violation of public policy, or for any other reason unenforceable, such finding shall in no event invalidate or render unenforceable the other parts of this Agreement. 14. No provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be waived by either party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the party against which enforcement is attempted. No custom or practice course of dealing which may develop between the parties in the administration of the terms of this Agreement, or course ofperformance or failure of either party to enforce any term, right or condition is to be construed to waive or lessen any party's right to insist upon strict performance of the terms of this Agreement. With respect to the parties' obligations under this Agreement, time is of the essence. - 15. Neither this Agreement, nor the actions of either party with respect thereto or with respect to each other, shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint venture, or agency relation between the parties. 16. All notices, requests, drawings, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed — certified maul, return receipt requested — or sent by overnight carrier to the following addresses: To PacifiCorp: 825 N.E. Multnomah, Portland, OR 97232 To CEC: P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 17. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements with respect hereto. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the authorized representatives of both parties. IN WITNESS W41EREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as ofthe date first written above. PACIFICORP By. —La—jclv�— SUE BERNDT Managing Director of Property and Facilities CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE By: DAVE MARKHAM Chief Operating Officer zoos 04_/27/01 FRI 14:36 FAX 541 389 7953 CEC Bend Ser Center insurrection, war, acts of God, or other events beyond the reasonable control of a party, other than the payment of money, such party is excused from such performance for the period of delay. The period for the performance shall be extended for the period of such delay. 13. In the event that any part of this Agreem eat is found to be illegal, or in violation of public policy, or for any other reason unenforceable, such finding shall in no event invalidate or render unenforceable the other parts of this Agreement. 14. No provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be waived by either party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the party against which enforcement is attempted. No custom or practice course of dealing which may develop between the parties in the administration of the terms of this Agreement, or course of performance or failure of either party to enforce any term, right or condition is to be construed to waive or lessen any party's right to insist upon strict performance of the terms of this Agreement. With respect to the parties' obligations under this Agreement, time is of the essence. 15. Neither this Agreement, nor the actions of either party with respect thereto or with respect to each other, shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint venture, or agency relation between the parties. 16. All notices, requests, drawings, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed — ccstified mail, return receipt requested or sent by overnight carrier to the following addresses: To PacifiCorp: 825 N.E. Multnomah, Portland, OR 97232 To CEC: P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 17. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements with respect hereto. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the authorized representatives of both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date fust written above. PACIFICORP CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE BY: SUE BERNDT Managing Director of Property and Facilities. DAVE MARKHAM Chief Operating Officer Z002 u . R A S D U R N T D . E :•� D XWOW ALL XRN BY THESE FRIMSENITTS, That the Desert Land Board of the State of Oregon, acting for and on behalf' of said, State, for and in consideration of One Do]lar (01.00) In hand paid,, ha -s remised ;anti released, and by these presents does rerr_ise, release and Forever. quitolaim to Deschutes Power Light comp=y, an Oregon corporation, its successors and assigns, an easement or rls t -of --veep for an electric transmis- sion line with all necessary or desirable appurte=ianees, of whatever right the Grantor may have in and to the 1s-nds here- inafter described, such easement or right -of -ware to cozen the .transmission line of the Grantee as n.ow constructed along the westerly line of the right-of-way•of the Oregon Trunk RallwaT and across the lands of the Grantor described as follows: The vrest half (W;: ) of the northeast quarter (NE4•) a=dthe southwest quarter (Sl`J°) of the southtrest quarter Section twenty-one (21.) and the northwest quarter (N1it) of the southeast quarter (SR--) Section twenty-n1ne (29), Township fifteen (15) south, Rarige thirteen (1S) east, .%V:Ulamette Herid.ian. The southeast uarter (sE ) of the southwest quarter (SV7 ) Section six 6) Township sixteen (16) s outla, 11ange thirteen (15) � eas• , Willamette Zleridian. The southeast quarter (SE=') of the southeast quarter (5E4) Section twelve (12), tY_e southwest quarter (3'r-%�) of the northeast quarter (NZ-gtt the northwest gnartei,.(R�ijof the southeast qua_�ter (SES 1 And the southeast quarter (SES•) of the southwest quarter (S?r. ) Seotion thirteen (13) the northeast quarter .(Nr?:) of the northwest quarter (Nth) and the «est half IM of the northwest quarter (NV14) Of t e Wes _sIV- —COPPyl or the northwest quarter (N'JJ4, of Section thirty_ -five .M), the southeast quarter (SE -1,) of the northeast quarter �(NEZ), the•oast half (E) of the southeast quarter (SZ -z-) and the southwest quarter (S:7?-) of the southeast quarter (SZ -Al) Seotion thirty -pour 6(314). Tor ante twelve east 1.411- lamette Meridian and the west ha Ylz) or the nor east quarter, (NFj-) and tee northwestquarter Mli-,;p) of the south- east quarter (SE?) Section three (8) Township seventeen .(17) south, Rmage twelve (12) east, *111amette lle_id.ian, located in Deschutes counts, Oregon. To getl-Aer with right of ingress and egress over the addjotning lands of the Grantor For the purpose of constr%tetion, raclntaining, replacing car recioving said electric transm3-se9.on Exhibit A -- and distributing line and appurtenancea, and exex•cising' other rights hereby granted. All rights hereunder shall cease when said lines have been, abandoned. DATED tb-ts clay of , 3.9219. ATTEST: 5 cr® e.ry -2- DESERT LAND RD OF OREGON sy a rma�n � � ` . ... ,� , •y .� r`f'��, ' ^may f' � • _ IN 4��j 11 .14 BEND.ORE6oN J„lyt 14:th . 1934. Paoi.fie Tnvmr comnerfy S?*SL,:; 34 is la E -.J,- iL� 34 X.6 l :: Portflor0.. Ore *ron Loll I I -A 'J. 437 .111 3 1'h 1T \ wki jf 4J6 )'J 4J9 - Fj - dig, yj 441. Ij t < 7j I -A•4dz, 76 d4l, lrzjclu?,r 'OK j 440.18 pelt 049-16 • t.of .45d'11 NIF.'4 4XX,53 A— NY" ..c :J. l A^ 1 d.57 0 zi 4 r�r WIG 455,79 I Ir . 1464"92 will, 1467, 49NIi r/.f..4 6S* mrA CLI 411,70 r7. C_ C.) ot_4.r 1477190 60 1463, jo _fj • 466 4 00 It n4- 4.r If—i 4eA , 40 iSI ----- 45 Tl1PA 0 491,15 mml :C.) 01493.90 60'1111 PA CL 2 fool S 49d , PO a ki I 503.96 oiw fool JO's- .11 A- .109 r06 51, 1 60 Gli 1111'n Cl Z ' X I o 0 'T/d 6d Z. n It m r V a 0 0, 01. P. z 0 - M - '524,jo Jif -1) A- 0 m , 0 M - 15Z4 8$ :;1- x 0 0 < 1; . .11 4 r mr 0 7`3 c z z �D W Z 4 0 00 ....... 0 n r) 01� VOL: 2000 PAGE: 18938 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *2000-18938 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/15/2000 12:40:08 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: RECEIPT NO: DOCUMENT TYPE: FEE PAID: May. 15, 2000; 12:39 p.m. 20796 Easement $36.00 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK Exhibit C Deschutes Tap Project POWER LINE EASEMENT The undersigned, Deschutes County Sheriff's Posse Grantor, conveys to CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., A Cooperative Corporation, Grantee, an easement on the following described real property in Deschutes County, State of Oregon: A strip of land sixty (60) feet in width located in the Southerly portion of a parcel of land situated in the SW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 24, T. 16 S., R. 12 E., WM. Said parcel is more particularly described in that Statutory Warranty Deed recorded on October 17, 1996, in Book 426 of Deeds, Page 1050 of Deschutes County Records. The southern most edge of said sixty (60) foot strip is parallel to and coexistent with the southern most boundary of said parcel, with the centerline traverse of said strip being more particularly described in Exhibit "A', attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Assessor's Tax Account No. 16-12-24-210 This easement is granted on the following terms and conditions: 1. SCOPE. This easement shall be of a width reasonably necessary for the installation, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of an electric transmission or distribution line of one or more wires and all necessary or desirable appurtenances (including, but not limited to towers, poles, props, guys, guy stubs, anchors and other supports); and includes the right to place all or any part of such lines underground and the right to place guys and guy stubs and anchors outside of the easement. Central Electric Cooperative shall also have the right to permit other utilities such as telephone and T.V. cable to use the facilities installed in this easement. This easement also gives Central Electric Cooperative the right to go upon adjacent lands of the grantor for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, stringing new wires on, maintaining, inspecting and removing such lines and appurtenances. Central Electric Cooperative has the right to clear the easement of brush, trees and structures; and the right to top, trim, clear or cut away trees outside of the easement which might endanger such lines. 2. LOCATION. The centerline of said easement shall be located as determined by Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3. GRANTOR'S WARRANTIES. Grantor warrants that grantor has the right, title and ability to convey valid title to this easement. 4. GRANTOR'S RIGHTS. Grantor shall have the right to use the land subject to this easement so long as grantor's use does not interfere with this easement; provided that grantor shall not place any structure upon the easement without the prior written consent of Central Electric Cooperative. Dated this /o tk day of tifA 1/ , 20p0 . FOR INDIVIDUALS: STATE OF ) County of ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .20 by Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: After recording return to Right of Way Agent, Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 FOR CORPORATIONS: BY: By: T4Ti:&. MIL L+_ STATE OF 02�60n/ ) County of re -S ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /Ods day of AU e1 . 20LV7 by grtaitjUras FkMjett.1_4/ 14A o/%w who is Vrtntsccvec of c 4hevc (corporation), a Hanf c+Fc corporation, on behalf o t rporation. /« i Nota Public for Oregon My Commission expires: T. 16 S., R. 12 E., S. 24 C.E.C. Easement Na PWRLNEAs.'/2 W =PUBUC-OREGON EAROSE L REGON30496M1, 2004 Zj p V W .D QOD -T W r �c Q � aw�do�l Q Z o c \ N uJi z J o V .10 7 c1 0 � p �o� d pa Z W x O W L1J \ N uJi z J N .10 7 c1 0 � p �o� d N z Q t,4 o a � \ \33 w Vl 0 •ori 91.oN mss) 1.N3►43sva c�,l Mfg '.)30 ,09----'f} -- -- — — ,'of—+ Lryrsvg7d Z 4 O Q N N 1 m N Z 4 O Q D� __ . , .--:.:' , •----. – --- T- - 4 .. ,JFK . T•�G Ap V) Ci cr m z � ~ `J15 � lR�-~ c / '•.,_,moi' ' i a 4fP`r I ! � '�' r � ' — �_�y � I '� _. ` � ,� _ \ � � , .. - � •. \��`\ ��` i � J -3 -.:.$QUI m^v�--- tnm - ,m =.. 1 _ _ .b \S � m z � CD �'• _ m mto CD IV aCD •fir toCD pr I. 92p cjq C 0 m Exhibit D O w YNo a/ M 330,,yv a m Q rnN N W W U) � h O + N J I -j "A V • � � � „J6 M 1 I/A/IIJ' O w YNo a/ M 330,,yv a m Q rnN N W W U) o g w V Z. .,qt— a r� Q N :s1 W W N _ � h O + N o g w V Z. .,qt— a r� Q N :s1 W W N _ U L7 O W U O � z S'L S79 a U �a tf�V N U �o u W z 0 N 09 U pp p p U ri ,0'£S a i � a U � � a 00 a 09 'S'L 40'89 ,0'08 a W O H Z o 0 a U II o o WW U a o W H + o U a a U � a + a� ^ II AN o oW + 0 V � U U `p b W N O G r' a) U �. O U Q V a) V1 " U N ;C4 U U a � W � @ zx o p cd 'dcn a� U w 0 � a U zA � o N O U U C4: O U 0 U cn MM O N o 4-4 o II o U II tl II AN o �o II03 U ^ ^ `p N r' >~ a Cd " Wcn a) V1 " C14 N N ;C4 U E- @ o p cd 'dcn a� U U o N O U U C4: U 0 U cn MM w N V o U w w Cd 10, O CA O U �" H M N "d o U o w ►-a U U W U a o U U a UI., U v w o o0 04 o P-4 b Q -d G > o U U U A W H a a 3 pq bo Z � ri 9 �a II tl N N N II 42 a S a� C;3 a� C,j N v U U � M M N N w � V Pr O U N U U U `" o o4� U b 'b0 U U �Q, a 0 0 N m 7uaF r�gg 1§01 } THE -BWC 1500 WIND TURBINE SYSTEM The BWC 1500is a modern 1500 watt wind turbine f y} y { designed for high, reliability, low maintenance and auto- M��matic operation,in adverse weather conditions. It is G}am u s available m both„battery charging and water -pumping �3an t riJ r r t,y a versions.. c vgBattery charging BWC l 500's can be supplied with outputs Ylk of1"2, 24, 36, 4& and 120-VDC They are well suited for M3 +,'5i , '£.Tlj F#1 �, Y 'A� t h F �ixs+��. rural homes, cabins; remote villages,, and telecommunica- , tion sites; where'they can support continuousloads-of 175- Y� 300 watts or more. As a water pumper, the: BWCr 1500 can be located as much as 300 m 1000 ft from the well to take advantage of ( ) 9 mprove "win con itlons Kt�S`t `te fia snorr,fn tha a BWC:1500 PD'`s'more'cost effective than a conventional s mechanical- wind pumperAt is two or three times more cosf effective than; PV -powered -.pump systems. _ B C 150i� PERFORMANCE • ” - may be used to increase the<power avail MS ,� 1� t� ° able;at a given srte Wmd Speed Average Wind Speed - Authorized Dealer.: The ;performance data shown in the, two v START-UP WIND SPEED...:.... 6 mph (3.6 m/s) CUT -4N WIND SPEED .. .K. 8mph (3 6 mis) = graphs have been comp,led,n accordance '� 1500 soot RATED POWER .................. 1500 Watts , CUT-OUT WIND SPEED... ............. None w,thmdustry standards as established by ¢ MAX DESIGN WIND SPEED.. 120 mph (53:6:m/s) 1501jj ;a the American W,nd Energy Association The' 1200 ROTOR DIAMETER ............. 10. It (3.0 m) I ^- WEIGHT ................ 16t3lbs (76 kg) ' BLADE PITCH CONTROL ...... POWERFLEX® OVERSPEED PROTECTION ..... AUTOFURLTm / DRIVE ........................... Direct - power curve is corrected to standardtem TEMPERATURE RANGE ....... -40° to +140° F I 1 (--400 to +60° C) 0 400c pecature and pressure The estimated 5 soo R� � I.:. OUTPUT FORM . 3 Phase AC, Variable Frequency Annuat Energy Output (k,fowatt hours) o assumes the AWEAstantlard dstribution of oc soo a z Wind speeds` In order to account for non _ 't1J ^ 200c J standard wind distnbut,ons, a -range of AEO ;o soo`' � - . outputs shown - a z . r z Q yo 20 -' 30 40 Multiple units or windlPV hybnd systems n °o may be used to increase the<power avail MS ,� 1� t� ° able;at a given srte Wmd Speed Average Wind Speed - Authorized Dealer.: BWC 1 SOO SPECIFIC/►TION:S v START-UP WIND SPEED...:.... 6 mph (3.6 m/s) CUT -4N WIND SPEED .. .K. 8mph (3 6 mis) RATED WIND SPEED ::. 28,m h, 12.5 m/s p ( ) RATED POWER .................. 1500 Watts , CUT-OUT WIND SPEED... ............. None FURLING WIND SPEED . - :.'32 mph (14:3 m/s) MAX DESIGN WIND SPEED.. 120 mph (53:6:m/s) 1501jj TYPE ..................... 3.Blade Upwind ' ROTOR DIAMETER ............. 10. It (3.0 m) I ^- WEIGHT ................ 16t3lbs (76 kg) ' BLADE PITCH CONTROL ...... POWERFLEX® OVERSPEED PROTECTION ..... AUTOFURLTm / DRIVE ........................... Direct - TEMPERATURE RANGE ....... -40° to +140° F I 1 (--400 to +60° C) I GENERATOR ..... Permanent Magnet Alternator �`--- _ Z.2m OUTPUT FORM . 3 Phase AC, Variable Frequency The Bergey XL.1 is the most technically advanced small wind turbine ever. It comes from the world's leading manufacturer of small wind turbines and is backed by a full 5 -year warranty. The XL.1 wind turbine is designed for high reliability, low main- tenance, and automatic operation in adverse weather conditions. And the XI -Ts "all -in -one" PowerCenter provides complete hybrid system integration, including an optional on -board sine wave inverter. Owner installations are a snap with Tilt -up Tower options from 30 -104 ft. Easy to install, extremely reliable, and a solid value, the Bergey XL.1 is the clear choice for your home energy system. Tornado—Tuff Designed, Built, and Proven in Americas Tornado Alley RERGEY I ' www.bergey.com - 5 - YEAR WARRANTY - MAINTENANCE FREE DESIGN - NEARLY SILENT OPERATION EXCELLENT LOW WIND. PERFORMANCE AUTOFURL AUTOMATIC STORM PROTECTION STATE-OF-THE-ART AIRFOIL (PAT. PENDING) - DIRECT DRIVE NEODYMIUM PM ALTERNATOR POWERCENTER MULTI-FUNOTION CONTROLLER BATTERY -FRIENDLY OPTICHARGE REGULATION - OPTIONAL INTEGRATED 500 W SINE INVERTER COMPLETE TUBULAR TILT -UP TOWERS AVAILABLE - COMPLETE "PLUG AND PLAY" SYSTEMS AVAILABL ., ., v = �r Battery Bank Status System Status l" ° M WINDPOWER BERCEY XLI BWC XLA PowerCenter Controller THE ONLY MOVING PARTS ARE THE PARTS YOU SEE MOVING . _ 6.9 ft -- 12.1 m) 8.2 ft (2.5 m) Rotor Diameter Net Weight: 75 Itis (34 kgs) Shipping Weight: 95 Itis (43 kgs) L imER ntl\b flfr-' T/ Performance Start-up Wind Speed ... 6.7 mph (3 m/s) Cut -In Wind Speed ... 5.6 mph (2.5 m' s) Rated Power... 1,000 Watts Rated Wind Speed ... 24.6 mph (11 m!s) Rated Rotor Speed ... 490 RPM Furling Wind Speed ... 29 mph (13 ads) Max. Design Wind Speed... 120 mph (54 m/s) All -Inclusive Tilt -up Tower Kits Available: 30 ft (9 m) 43 ft (13 m) 64 ft (20 m) 84 ft (26 m) 104 ft (32 m) 30 ft Tilt -up Tower, with Optional 200 W Solar Array Predicted Energy Production Wind Speeds Taken at Top of Tower Annual Average wind Speed (m!") 3.5 A 15 5 5.5 1 6 1 65 Annual Avenue wind Speed (mph) 7A 89 10.1 ttd 123 13A 145 Produgloa " -Dat - 1.9 1 2.8 3.9 5.1 6.4 7.7 89 4: can -, -;�., x Yon 55 OS 715 155 195 235 270 d(, kcm- -A :��fAnnual - 680 1,010 1,410 185tl 2,320 1 2,790 3.260 Wind Speeds Taken at 10 meters(per standard wind resource maps) US -DOE Wind Power Clazal 1 1 2 3 4 11 1 6 7 Annual Average wind Speed (mph) - 8.9 -10.7 - 12.1 - 13A - 13.9 -15A - 18J Assumptions: Inland site, Rayhegh Wind Dlstrubuhon, Shear Exponent =0.20, Altitude = MUM (300n Note: Battery charge regulation (batteries full) and wire run losses will reduce actual xL.1 performance. Your Performance May Vary. Dealer: 2001 PRIEBTLEY AvE. NORMAN, OK 73069 T: 405364.4212 Retail Price List: XLA Wind Turbine Me r -. Wind Turbine (Information, Click Here) Model No. Price 24 VDC Includes PowerCenter Controller BWC XL.1-24 $1,495 48 VDC In development, inquire about availability SWC XL. 1-48 N.A. 1 kW y GridTek 240 VAC direct grid intertie, in development; 50 Hz version will be available, inquire about BWC XL. i -S N.A. availability Optional Enhanced Turbine Corrosion Protection, for marine sites, in development, ECP N.A. inquiry? -about availability Tilt -Up Tubular Towers (Information, Click Here) Model No. Price i?r" :�",Y.:a.Sxk* 'sx'"iELE.""RC" '}L'�2'uY'-L3::A"«`3`s"`"•''`s,mr- :.�."` .rcs.-3esmanzm ^'rte.—••^^-• i'a"37:<�'u1S"i' 9m (30 ft) Tower kits include galvanized 2 m (6 ft), 89 mm 1 TU9 $490 (3.5 in) diameter tubular tower sections and associated hardware, guy anchors, guy wires and associated hardware, and gin -pole. UPS shippable. Tower electrical wiring is not included. 13m (42 ft) 1TU13 $690 1 k 19m (64 ft) 1TU19 $990 Tower kits include galvanized 2 m (6 ft), 114 mm (4.5 in) diameter tubular tower sections and 25m (84 ft) associated hardware, guy anchors, guy wires and associated hardware, and gin -pole. UPS 1 TU25 $1,190 shippable. Tower electrical wiring is not included. 32m (104 ft) 1TU32 $1,490 Effective 1/1/2001 - All Prices are Subject to Change Without Notice. U41Vt! Vl mU1V 14:1V rAA 041 V4L) 0046 tXALDAL r,Lbl !rill. 4V -Ur August 1, 20011 CENT"L ELECTRIC COOP.ERATIVE,17VC. NET -METERING POLICY AVA11,ABMrrY Net -metering service is available to any Customer -generators who own and operate a net - metering generating facility subject to the following conditions: • Uses solar, wind, fuel cell or hydroelectric power to generate electrical power • Nameplate generating capacity of not more thm twenty-five (25) kilowatts • Located on the Customer -generators' premises • Interennnects and operates in parallel with the CEO's existing transmission and distribution system • Intended primarily to offset part or all of the Customer -generators' own electrical requirements This policy is offered in compliance with ORS 757.262, as amended by House Bill 3219, dated July 8,1999. Avoided Cost The avoided cost is the cost for wholesale electric power purchased by CEC. This cost is based upon time -of -use charges, capacity charges, including heavy and light load wholesale rate and any applicable charges. These charges vary over time (e.g., daytime vs. nighttime, summer season vs. winter season) in order to reflect differing wholesale market conditions. Excess energy generated by net -metering facilities can offset or displace a portion of these wholesale electric power purchases. Consequently, the value of excess energy from a net -metering facility shall be CEC's melded wholesale rate, that includes Bonneville Power Administration's rates and other prevailing market rates, that were offset or displaced (i.e., avoided). 40VUI 7.00FA 40-01 OiMWT9 'IVWJS90 MC CH T6S M OS:6T NOW TO/90/60 04/02/01 RUN 14:20 FAX 541 823 3548 CL'NIRAL EUVERiC (;U -U? tpJU0 Bl -directional Metering Specialized metering that can measure and record the flow of electrical power in two directions is termed "bi-directional" metering. This type of metering can measure both the electrical power used by Customer -generator and any excess energy genmited by a net -metering facility. This metering equipment can also record the day and time (i.e., hour of day) when the excess energy was generated. Capacity With respect to the net -metering program, "capacity" refers to the excess energy generated in the same hour as the monthly peak hour. The monthly peak hour represents the maximum hourly electrical energy usage as determined by the Bonneville Power Administration The peak hour varies month-to-month depending on weather patterns, electrical usage by consumers, and other factors. Excess energy generated in the monthly peak hour decreases capacity charges for CEC. Consequently, the savings resulting from decreased capacity charges is credited to the Customer- generator ustomergenerator whose net -metering facilities generated excess energy in the monthly peak hour. Capacity is measured in kilowatts (kW). Energy With respect to the net -metering program, "energy" refers to the total monthly amount of excess electrical energy generated by a not -metering facility. Energy is measured in lrilowatt-hours (kWh) and is valued differently for various time periods and seasons. Excess Energy Any electrical energy generated by the net metering facility that is surplus to the simultaneous electrical usage of the Customer -generator is termed `excess energy." This electrical energy then flows into CEO's system and displaces wholesale electric power purchases. The value of the displaced wholesale electrio power purchases is credited to the Customer -generator's account. Net -metering Net -metering is the measurement of the difference between the electricity supplied to an eligible Customer -generator by CEC and the electricity (1) geaerated by an eligible Customer- generatoes net -metering facility and (2) fed back to CBC over the applicable billing period. 2 04/02/01 MON 14:25 FAX 541 923 3549 CENTRAL ELECTRIC CO-OF 1, 2CCG CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. P.O. BOX 846 REDMOND, OREGON 97756 NET METERING SERVICE SCHEDULE N AVAILABLE Net -metering service is available on a first come, first served basis to any Customer, herein referred to as a 'Customer - generator; that owns and operates a solar, wind, fuel cell or hydroelectric generating facalilyy with a capacity of not more than 1wenty4ve (26) kilowatts. This service is offered in compliance with ORS 757.282, as amended by House Bill 3219, July B, 1999. APPUCAMA Applicable to such a facility as described above that is located on the Customer -generator's premises, interconnects and operates in parallel with CEC's existing transmission and distribution facilities, and is intended primarily to offset part or all of the Customer -generator's own electrical requirements. This provision shall be available until the time that the total rated generating capacity used by the eligible cuellorner-generators equals 0.5% of CEC's prior years' (October i through September 30) system coincident peak demand as measured in W. RATE ENERGY CHARGE Applicable CEC rata Schedule for kilowatt hours used DEMAND CHARGE Applicable CEC rate Schedule for kW demand charges FACILITIES CHARGE Residential Customer -generator $9.75 CommercWCustomer-generator, 1S KW or lees $17.60 Commercial Customer -generator. 16 ttvough 25 KW $27.00 UNUSED CREDIT Excess power generated shall be credhed to the Customer -generator's account at CE -Vo prevailing "avoided cost" DEFINMON Net energy Is the difference between the electricity supplied by CEC and the electricity generated by an eligible Customer - generator and fed back to CEC'a eleetrk:ai system over the applicable bi&g period. MONTHLY BILUNG The electric servioe charge shall be computed in accordance with the monthly billing in the applicable CEC standard rate schedule. VALUE OF EXCESS POWER GENERATED Any elecMeal power generated by the Customer -generator and supplied to CEO's system, shag be valued at the prevailing "avoided cost" of wholimple power purchased by CEC. The valuation shall Include time -of -lyse charges, capacity ch2lrges, including heavy pend light load wholesale rates and any other applicable charges. The basis for the valuation shall be CEC's melded wholesale ratd, that includes SonnevRk's rates and other prevailing market rates. The period of the "avoided cost' valuation shall be the previous 19 -month average annual cost of wholesale power as measured between October 1 and September 30 of each calendar year and shall be adjusted effective November 1 of each year. DIsBUli;.4EWENT OF UNUSED CREDIT The value of any excess power generated shall be credited to the Customefs-generator's account. This credit shall be used to otleet future billings for electrical power oorieumed. All nit -metering accounts shall be cleared (i.e.. returned to a $0.00 balance) annually. For each 12 -month period ending in Qeoember, any remaining oredit in the Cust4rners-genewtor's account shall be returned to the respective Customer -generators. RULES AND REGULATIONS Service under this classification is sub;ect to present and future rules and. regulations of CEC. Effective with all power net - metered on or after August 1, 2000. 4 012