HomeMy WebLinkAbout20193052.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Public Service Company of CO Case Number USR18-0100
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1
Long,
Letter
in Opposition
X
2
Kutak
Rock
LLP, Letter
in Opposition
X
3
Fisher,
Brown, Bartlett & Gunn,
PC,
Letter
in Opposition
X
4
Trujillo,
Letter in Opposition
X
5
Metal
Solutions, Letter
in Support
X
6
Power Point Presentation
by Applicant
X
I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners hearing.
Chris athman, Planner
December 3, 2018
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Commissioners
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case R 1 100
Planner Chris Gathman
To: Weld County Department of Planning Services, and
Weld County Commissioners
ncrrnifF,r)
tO
tA1A
We are writing this letter in opposition to the proposed project location of the
Public Service transmission line in the Auft area. It is proposer, to run along the west
side of our property_
We live at 40471 County Road 33, Ault, CO; one mile west of Ault. One of the
main reasons we purchased our property was for future development as Ault grows.
This property has an outstanding western view, and will be prime development ground.
County Road 33, along our property, has already been annexed into Ault, with another
annexation along Highway 14. There is currently a new development lust west of Ault,
already under construction. We feet the proposed loatn of this transmission line
along our property will definitely decrease our property value, and will hinder future
western development of Ault.
We also have concerns about the effect of our present farming oiler on, and
crop production. There is an irrigation well within 10 to 20 feet of our property line,
which would make it unsafe to get our well worked on. Also, there is a pivot sprinkler ler at
the same location with an electric instrument panel and pump on the pivot. There is
concern of safety for anyone operating the pivot, Also, along the east side of the fence
line, there are several underground lines carrying irrigation water to other parts of the
farm, and across Highway 14 to the neighboring property. The neighboring property to
the west also has an irrigaiton underground line vethin the easements
We currently pasture beef cows and have feeder cattle. After harvest, our cattle
pasture our entire property, usually calving along the west side of our propel where
the trees - prime protection from the weather. These trees are necessary and not to be
removed. This is the area where the proposed transmission line is to be located. We
are concerned what effect this will have on our livestock.
We purchased the neighboringk property to protect our view and future
development intentions. But now we have to contend with unwanted transmission lines
intruding on us, decreasing our property value. We strongly oppose the proposed
'location of these transmission e .
We respectfully ask that you please take these concerns under consideration,
and request Public Service locate an alternate location; where it would not affect current
farming operations, livestock operations, and future property development. These lines
will be destructive to our property.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Harold L Lo
Carol A. Long
40471 ty Rd.. 3
Ault, CO 80610
KUTAKROCK
Kum Rock UP
1801 California Street. Suite 30007 Denver, CO 80202-2652
office 3012972400
303.207.2400
KENNETH
/{�EJ'��N N E./r.Tj/H�/�� K. S K o O G
3 „3.207,240 Y
Kenneittsicaggelkidakteckcom
April 26, 2019
Via
Email: ctathman( eld.pov com
Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Cis Gathman
1555 N. rith Avenue
Greeley, CO 80613
Re: Public Service Company of Colorado Special Review Permit Application
Case No. R18-0100
Dear Mr. Gat man:
This letter is written on behalf Fagerberg Produce, Inc., Lynn Fagerberg, Ryan Fagerberg,
Keirnes Land Company, Brad Keirnes, Spencer Kelrnes, Arlen Anderson, Vic Leffler & Sons,
Ins., Leffler Brothers, LLC, Russell Leffler, Ted and Sheri Carlson, and Lynn Otteson (collectively
referred to herein as "Landowners") in opposition to Public Service CompEmy of Colorado's
t'tSCo") Amended Section 1041 Application ("Amended Application"), concerning PSCo's
Northern Colorado Area Plan Project ("Project") filed under Case No. U8R1 -0100: The
Landowners own, or otherwise have interests in, pre agricultural farmland, residential and
commercial development properties, andior farming and other business operations located in Weld
County in close proximity to the Town of Eaton that are subject to being adversely impacted by
PSCo's Project
To assist them in reviewing PSCo's Project, PSCo's original Section 1041 Application
ron&na' Application") filed with the Weld County Department of Planning Services in August
2018; and (ii) PSCo's Amended Application, the Landowners, through counsel, have engaged the
services of Eponential Engineering Company ("EEC"). An affidavit from Thomas A. Ghidossi,
PRE, ("(Thidossi Affidavit"), addressing the Project and deficiencies and issues associated with
PSCo's Amended Application is enclosed herewith and incorporated herein by reference.
In attempting to advance its own interests, PSCo's Amended Application fails to address
the Project and all of its impacts in their entirety. The Project, as approved by the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission ("CNJC") contemplates a compete transmission project that is not limited
to the construction of the Graham Creek Substation and a 230 kV transmission line from the
existing Auld Substation to the new proposed Graham Creek Substation as described in the
Amended Application. Rather, as described in PSCo's Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity ("CPCN") Application for the Project filed with, and approved by, the CPUC, the
EXHIBIT
4823-1411.4893.1
LtiSK 1 $-i l j0
KUTAKROCK
April 26, 2019
Page 2
Project includes, among other things, 'l) approximately 25 miles of new 115/230 kV -capable
transmission facilities originating at the Western Area Power Administration WAPA') Ault
Substation northwest of Greeley, Colorado and terminating northeast of Greeley at Public
Service's modified Cloverly Substation, and 2) two new and one modified substations
(respectively, Husky, Graham Creek, and loverl) which will enable the Company to retire and
decommission three existing substations (Public Senrice Ault, Eaton, and Pleasant Valley)."
The Weld County Code mandates that a 1041 "application shall not be accepted or
processed unless it is complete." Weld County Code § 21-2-200(B). Through its Amended
Application, PSCo seeks to omit from consideration a crucial component necessary to provide for
a complete Project as approved by the CPUC 4* namely the transmission line section between the
proposed Graham Creek Substation and the existing Cleverly Substation. The removal of the
transmission tine section from PSCo's Section 1041 Permit Application renders the Amended
Application substantially incomplete on its face and is not in keeping with Project that was
described in PSCo's CPCN Application and approved by the CPUC. (See + jhidossi Affidavit, Ili
5, 74, and 15)
Po's justifications for removing the Graham Creek to Cloverly transmission line section
from its Amended Application are suspect at best. PSCo contends that its Amended Application
allows PSCo time to expand the Graham Creek to Cloverly line siting study area to examine
additional possible mutes and to provide extra time to address concerns that have been expressed
about PSCo's preferred Graham Creek to Cleverly transmission route. The impacts of the
transmission line routes are, however, significant for this transmission -driven project and need to
be considered as part of any substation location determination or Project evaluation. Once the
preferred locations for the substations are defined, the transmission corridors will become
significantly constrained. (See Ghidossi Affidavit, ¶IT 9-13 and 15.) The Landowners suggest that
by attempting to amend its application and limit it to portions of the Project north of proposed
Graham Creek Substation site, PSCo is engaging in a "slight of hand" that is intended to preclude
the Planning Commission from addressing ALL of the impacts of the Project. The impacts of the
substations and all future transmissions lines associated with the Project will be 1 w a;. -term, lasting
for decades to come. The overall Prot has far reaching consequences that are not properly
addressed in the Amended Application, and which cannot be fully and properly evaluated through
a pig -meal approach that PSCo is now seeking to embark upon through its Amended
Application.
In short, PSCo's Amended Application is substantially incomplete and should not be
accepted or further processed by the Department of Planning Services. Instead, the Department of
Planning Services and the Planning Comrriission should require PSCo to start over and submit a
new Section 1041 Permit Application that meets all of the requirements of Weld County Code and
Comprehensive Plan and presents the entirety of the Project — at full build out — so all can see the
true impacts of the Project and avoid making decisions based on partial information; Without
considering the entire Project and all of its impacts in a single application, it is inconceivable hew
the Project can be receive proper evaluation to ensure that it is in the best interests of the citizens
of Weld County.
4823-1411-41803,1
KLJTAKROCK
April 26, 2019
Page 3
Should the Amended Application be accepted and allowed to proceed, the Landowners
have further substantial otiection s to the Amended Application and proposed siting of the Graham
Creek Substation that will be submitted under cover of a separate letter.
Sincerely,
Ke Y eth K. Skogg
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Barber, Esq.
Landowners
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
-
RE: Public Service Company of Colorado's
Special Review Amended Section 1041
Permit Application
Case No. USR1840100
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS A. GHIDOSSI, P.&.
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Thomas A. Ghidossi, Pt,, having first been sworn upon my oath, state as follows:
1. My name is Thomas A. Ghidossi. I am a professional engineer duly licensed in the
State of Colorado. I am the President and Principal Engineer with Exponential Engineering
Company ("EEC"). EEC's principal place of business is located at 2950 East Harmony Road,
Suite 265, Fort Collins, Colorado 80528.
2. EEC is a full -service engineering consulting firm that provides services to rural
electric association; public and investor -owned utilities, municipalities, and a variety of other
organizations and individuals in the Rocky Mountain Region and throughout the country. Services
that EEC provides include, but are not limited to, (1) designing and delivering new electric
substations as well as substation upgrades, station plans and arrangements, and analysis. and
assistance with commissioning of substations; (ii) planning, designing, managing and delivering
electric transmission and distribution lines and corridors; and (iii) developing feasibility, system
impact and facility studies, including stability, coordination and complete utility system analysis
studies.
3. I have personally reviewed materials concerning Public Service Company of
Colorado's ("PSCo') Northern Colorado Area Plan Transmission Project ("Project"), including (1)
materials related to PSCo's regulatory filings with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission
CUM") concerning PSCo's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN)
Application for the Project; (ii) PSCo's Section 1041 Permit Application ("1041 Application") for
the Project filed with the Weld County Department of Planning Services in August 2018; and (ii)
PSCo's Amended Section 1041 Permit Application ("Amended 1041 Application") filed with the
Weld County Department of Planning Services in March 2019. This Affidavit concerns
deficiencies and issues associated with PSCo's Amended 1041 Application.
48140585-71731
4. In its Amended 1041 Application, PSCo notes that "the Project is part of the long --
tern transmission plan for northern Colorado" l and that the CPCN for the Project was granted by
the CPUC on March 1, 2018. The purpose of the Project, Mich is "...driven by electrical
transmission and the need to improve the safety and reliability of the transmission system..."2 has
not changed from what was approved by the CPUC.
5. As described in PSCes CPNC Application and as approved by the CPUC, the
Project includes, among other things, "I0 approximately 25 miles of new 115/230 kV -capable
transmission facilities originating at the Western Area Power Administration ("WAPA' Ault
Substation northwest of Greeley, Colorado and terminating northeast of Greeley at Public
Service's modified Cloverly Substation, and 2) two new and one modified substations
(respectively, Husky, Graham Creek, and Cloverly) which will enable the Company to retire and
decommission three existing substations (Public Service Ault, Eaton, and Pleasant ey).”3
In its Amended 1041 Application, PSCo also states that the "...Project also will
allow for a future interconnected grid system to other planned transmission and generation
facilities in the area by creating a higher voltage "backbone" transmission system."'
7. PSCo has not requested that the CPUC modify the CPCN and does not contend that
there is no longer a need for the transmission connection between the Ault Substation and the
Greeley area.
. Although the Project, as described in CPCN Application and as approved by the
CPUC, contemplates a complete transmission project, PSCo has submitted to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services an Amended 1041 Application for the Project, removing the
transmission line section between the proposed Graham Creek Substation and the existing
Cloverly Substation from the application.
9. The Amended 1041 Application does not, however, provide for a complete
electrical transmission project as approved by the CPUC. The transmission line between the
Graham Creek and Cleverly Substations is a critical link required to make the connection between
the Ault Substation and the Greeley area. PSCo states that "[tithe 230W -capable transmission line
connecting the new Graham Creek Substation to an interconnection point near the existing
Cloverly Substation has been removed... and will be submitted separately following a good faith
effort by PSCo to expand the siting area and continue to identify other routes and evaluate them
against the current preferred alternative."s The final t insmission line route will, however, be
dictated by the location of Graham Creek and Cloverly Substations.
10. PSCo selected its preferred substation sites and then determined transmission
corridors between those substations. Substation sites determine the terminals of the transmission
lines and therefore the starting and ending point of any preferred corridor. Importantly,
' Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire 190402, Notice of Application Amendment, page 1
2 Revised Appendix E_ Siting tudy 190329, page 2.14, paragraph
3 P" 's Verified Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, page 1
# Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire 190402, page vii, paragraph 4
5 New Appendix Ificel Comment Response Letter Sumary 190329, page 1
2
4814458541711
transmission lines create significantly greater impact to land use and landowners than substation
sites. The overall Project siting analysis should take both substation sites and their associated
potential transmission line corridors into account in total to fairly assess the complete impact of
the Project on the County.
11. Approving the Amended 1041 Application will have the effect of neglecting to
consider the impacts of the Graham Creek Substation to loverl Substation transmission route
on the entire eject, even though that final transmission link is known to be required.
12. Since, according to PSCo, the original 1041 Application and study was "a thorough
siting study analysis"6, one must ask what different conclusion would be drawn by a subsequent
siting study analysis for the transmission line between the Graham Creek and °loverly Substations
if the substation sites are already approved.
13. Based on PSCo's prior analysis and statements in its original 1041 Application, the
resulting siting analysis could be biased toward PSCo's "preferred" alignment. Further, approval
of the Amended 1041 Applicati will most likely constrain the transmission corridors to the west
side of the Town of Eaton, regardless of PSCo's purported good faith efforts to expand the siting
area and identify and evaluate alternative mutes against the current preferred transmission route.
14. The incomplete Project described in the Amended 1041 Application does not
improve upon the service reliability to the Eaton community or other loads to be served from
Graham Creek Substation compared to the existing transmission system. In fact, building just the
Husky to Graham Creek transmission line segment would result in the Graham Creek Substation
being served by only a single transmission line as ",.. y one circuit would initially operate at
.115kV."17 Therefore, the Graham Creek Substation, and its distribution feeders and loads would
be out of service for any single contingency failure of the transmission line. This outage could
have significant consequences to the customers in the area since "[t]he existing PSCo Ault and
Eaton Substations will be decommissioned after the new transmission fine and substations are
constructed and operational, "8 The transmission line segment between the Graham Creek and
Clover.ly Substations is necessary to provide PSCo's typical level of redundancy and reliability to
the Graham Creek Substation.
15. The overall Project, as approved by the CPT, is not limited to the construction of
the Graham Creek Substation and a 230 kV transmission line from the existing Ault Substation to
the new proposed Graham Creek Substation as described in the Amended 1041 Application, but
rather includes other components thatinfluence the Project's overall impacts on surrounding land
uses and the citizens of Weld County. Consequently, the Amended 1041 Application is incomplete
as it fails to address the Project and its impacts in their entirety, in keeping with the CPCN;ranted
by the CPUC.
16. PSCo is not changing the Project or reducing the Project's scope through the
Amended 1041 Application, but rather is avoiding the inclusion of issues raised by the Town of
S Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire 190402, page vii, paragraph 5
' Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire 190402, page 2
• Revised 1041 Permit and USR Queskinneire 190402. page WI, paragraph 2
3
4814•0585-71731
Eaton and other concerned parties in the overall impacts of the Project. This approach will not
adequately consider alternative substation locations east of the Town of Eaton and corresponding
transmission routes between the Husky and Cleverly Substations s that are wholly on the east side
of Ault and Eaton.
Dated: April . 2019
Thomas A. Ghidossi, P.E.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this &Lp_. day of April, 2019, by
Thomas A. Ghidossi.
TINA S KNOX
Notary Public
State of Colorado
Notary I D 0 20194002442
ityssr miss ion xpires 01,17-2023
4814-0585-7173,1
lit
My CommIssion Expires:jj,_pigsakt.5
MARGARET A. (Meg) BROWN
DANIEL R. BROWN
BRENT A. BARTLETT
LISA A, LARSEN
SARA AL IRBY'
DONALD E. PRICK
TODD W, ROGERS
FISCHER, BROWN, BARTLETT & GUNN, PC
wpm
adsCrirrentin
Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Chris Gathman
1555 N. 174k Avenue
Greeley, CO80631
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1319 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
iISI-:�,•
May 21, 2019
WARD H. FISCHER (1929-19%)
WILLIAM HI BROWN (Of Counsel)
WILLIAM C. GUNN (Of Counsel)
WILLIAM R. FISCHER (Of Counsel)
Phone: 970A01.9000
Fax:910.407.1055
Website: www.tbbglaw4com
SENT VIA EMAIL AND/OR REGULAR MAIL
RE: Comments on behalf of Keith Amen, agricultural landowner
Application of Public Service of Colorado Company
Case No. UR l S-0100
Dear Mr. Gathman,
Please be advised that our firm, Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn, P.C., represents Mr.
Keith Amen, a third -generation farmer who owns agricultural land located in the NW '4 of
Section 3, Township 7 North, age 66 West of the 6'h P.M. ("Amen Property"), and who also
farms land owned by Dixie Meisner, located directly south of the Amen Property in the SW 'A of
Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. This letter is in response to Public
Service Company of Colorado's ("PSCo") Section 1041 Application filed under USR 184)100
("Application"), as amended in April under the same record number ("Amended Application").
The Application was originally foie construction of an. approximately 21 -mile 230-KV
transmission ission line in Weld County. The Amended Application proposes to reduce the scope of
the project by only installing the portion of the transmission line between the WAPA Ault
Substation and the Graham Creek Substation.
On the surface, PSCo is now asking the Board of County ommissioners to approve a
shorter transmission tine, which if taken at face value, impacts less land. However, it is
inevitable, and., abundantly clear, that PSCo will use any approval to bolster its position to extend
the transmission ission line to its originally proposed 21 miles in the near future. Acconiingly, Mr.
Amen sees the Amended Application as an attempt by PSCo to undermine and skirt Weld
County's authority over land use by obscuring the much larger impact of PSCo's ultimate
preferred mute from the Graham Substation to Cloverly Substation.
EXHIBIT
a owe
As proposed, a portion of the transmission line from the WAPA Ault substation to the
Husky substation will cut through the southern half of the Amen Property and the northern half
of Ms. Meisner's property, and, in turn, will severely debilitate Mr. Amen's fanning and
irrigation operations. Accordingly, Mr. Amen, objects to PSCo's proposed Preferred
Transmission Line Route for the reasons set forth below. Ms. Meisner shares Mr. Amen's
concerns and jcins in the filing of this letter, as set forth in the attached affidavit.
Although Mr. Amen was hopeful that delays to the hearing schedules would mean that
PSCo is taking a closer look at impacts to agricultural land and operations, the Amended
Application is no different in that regard than the original, and Mr. Amen's and Ms. Meisner's
land will be impacted in the same ways as they originally feared. Thus, those delays have done
nothing more than drag out the uncertainty of the future of Mr. Amen's farming operation while
he continues to incur costs and fees to protect their land.
A. PSCo's Fai%ure f *i tly de &insider broads gaits to Agriculture
Approval of PSCO's project as proposed would directly contradict key requirements in
the Weld County Code and Weld County's dedication to its Right to Farm policy.
In its growth and land -use plan, the County not only recognizes the importance of its
agricultural heritage, but also agriculture's critical role in the County's economy. See Chapter 22
of the Weld County Code, the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Right to Farm policy
highlights that "[tlhe intent of the agricultural goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to support all
forms of the agricultural industry and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the private
property owners to convert their agricultural lands to other appropriate land uses?'
Because of the County's reliance upon and commitment to its agricultural community,
Chapter 21 of the Weld County Code mandates that PSCo's Application be approved only if
certain criteria are met, including in part that the project:
(3) is compatible with and represents the best interests of the people of the County
and represents a fair and reasonable utilization of resources in the impact area ...;
(5) [the nature and location or expansion of the facility complies with all
applicable provisions of the master plan of this County • .. ; and (18) [title
benefits of the proposed developments outweigh the losses of any natural
resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of the
proposed development..
21-3-340(A)(3X5) and 08)(Emphasis added).
Even in its Amended Application, PSCo still fails to provide any in-depth analysis of the
impacts to agricultural land, and, instead, includes "Table 2- Compliance with Weld County
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies," that makes generalized, unsubstantiated conclusions.
See Amended Permit Application at 3 5.36. Rather than concentrate information on how the
transmission line is compatible with the agricultural community and the continuation of those
operations, PSCo's discussion focuses heavily on the notion that the project will "provide
improved electrical capacity and reliability for development." Id. (Emphasis added). Instead of
coordinating with landowners prior to submitting the Application, PSCo simply repeats that it
"will work with affected landowners to reduce effects in agricultural uses," -- a promise PSCo
has failed to keep in Mr. Amen's case. In fact, Mr. Amen has reached out to PSCo's
representatives on more than one occasion to voice his substantial concerns, and, to date, PSCo
has failed to directly contact Mr. Amen concerning the proposed installation of the Transmission
Line, towers, and other structures on the Amen Property.
P Co's perfunctory treatment of impacts to agricultural land, along with its failure to
meaningfully consult Mr. Amen and other landowners, not only shows the lack of consideration
PSCo has given to the agricultural community, but also goes against the County ode's
requirements that the project be "compatible with and representative of the best interests of the
people of the County" and that "[Ube benefits of the proposed developments outweigh the losses
of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of the
proposed development" 21-3-340(A)(3)(5) and (18). Had PSCo reasonably coordinated with
l andowners'farmers prior to submitting its Application, it would have been apparent that the
Preferred Route creates more burdens than on the agricultural community than its siting studies
indicate. Therefore, the County should not approve PSCo's Application, and, instead, should
require PSCo to resubmit its Application once it can show with substantial evidence that it meets
all of the County's Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements.
B. Impact on Mr. Amen's Irrigation Practices and Crops
Besides PSCo falling short on meeting the requirements outlined in the County Code and
Comprehensive Plan, the impacts to Mr. Amen's property, and some of the most productive
farmland in Weld County, is far more harmful than PSCo has portrayed.
PSCo's o's .pplication states that it has worked to "assure that only a minor, localized effect
would occur" and that "[Sere possible, the transmission line was sited along the edge of
cultivated areas , * + in order to minimize effects on cultivation, particularly in areas irrigated with
center pivot" Amended Application at 21, They go on to mistakenly conclude that "Agricultural
activities can continue within the transmission line ROW and only a small amount of land would
be taken out of production as a result of Project construction and operation." itt Based on these
statements alone, PSCo appears to be completely ignorant of — or indifferent to — how the
transmission lines, towers and other infrastructure would actually impact irrigation operations
and productivity.
Further, in its Siting Study (Revised Appendix B to the Amended Application), PSCo
again demonstrates its ignorance on how the Projectwould impact agriculture. For instance,
Table 4-3, labeled "WAPA Ault Substation to Husky Substation Route Evaluation Results,"
arbitrarily states that the PSCo 's Preferred Route would potentially impact zero "pivot Irrigation
systems," although Mr. Amen's pivot irrigation system exists on that route and would certainly
be impacted. Revised Siting Study at 4-15. And, in its Amended. Permit Application, PSCo
depicts in Figure 5 "[t]ypical examples of how PSCo will work to avoid conflicts" with irrigation
pivot circles. Id. at 22-23. However, those images depict the exact opposite by showing
transmission line cutting into irrigation circles in ways that, in Mr. Amen's case, would
undoubtedly disable his guided pivot irrigation system a fact clearly not taken into account by
PSCo.
Moreover, in Table 3-1 to the Revised Siting Study, Po lists incorrect information on
the types of crops grown in the area. based solely on 2016 USDA data — further showcasing its
obvious lack of effort to gain an understanding of the agricultural community. Id. at 3-24.
In Mr. Amen's case, regardless of whether transmission structures are placed along the
edge of his cultivated area or not, as long as they are placed on his property, they will disable his
pivot irrigation system and other irrigation structures. Such infrastructure includes without
limitation 1) underground overflow pipelines and underground drainage pipelines, which exist
within the path of the proposed transmission line, and 2) a center pivot system that is run by an
underground guidance system that runs the entire per n eter of his property* Without expensive
and extensive modifications, this irrigation system would be completely incapacitated, or, worse,
permanently unusable, if the Preferred Transmission Line Route is approved. Moreover, the
drainage lines located in the southern portion of the Amen Property drain excess water from his
land, and, in tern, enable Mr. Amen to have greater production from these acres.
With regard to Ms. Meisner's property, the Preferred Route would impact underground
irrigation supply pipelines and the ability to maintain the pivot supply pond located thereon,
Simply put, Mr. Amen risks losing the use of his entire irrigation system, and, in turn, his ability
to grow and produce any crops on the Amen Property, if the County accepts the Preferred
Transmission Line Route — a reality that would be apparent to PSCo had it conducted a more
thorough inquiry into the impacts on agricultural operations.
Additionally, the presence of high.#voltage overhead lines will have impacts far beyond
those that PSCo has presented in its Application. Specifically, high -voltage power lines and
substations may cause interference with. UPS signals that are essential to the operation of
precision agriculture technology, including UPS -based guidance systems for all types of
equipment. In Mr. Amen's case, he stands to lose the functionality of not only his own
AutoTrac-guided equipment, but also that of equipment used by contractors on his crops after he
plants them. PSCo has given no consideration whatsoever to the impact that the high -voltage
power lines will have on those GPS-guided systems, nor have they taken intoconsideration the
obvious impact they will have on airplane and helicopter spraying operations and the
effectiveness of the same.
Lastly, despite PSCo's assertion that the project will promote development, Mr. Amen's
ability and right under the Code to "convert this] agricultural lands to other appropriate land
uses," will be significantly lessened if the Preferred Transmission Line Route is approved.
An approval by the County to accept PSCo 's Preferred Transmission Route is an
approval by the County to threaten Mr.Amen's and other farmers' livelihood, not to mention
their significant contribution to the County's economy. Accordingly, the County should deny
PSCo's Application.
C. Alternatives.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Amen recognizes that, as Weld County grows, there
will be a greater need for utility services. But such needs can be addressed in congruence with
current agricultural practices, as long as Weld County officials stand behind the County Code
and Right to Farm policy by holding project proponents to a high standard for collaborative and
creative solutions.
For inslance, the County should require PSCo to provide more support for not utilizing
existing utility easements to avoid creating yet another footprint across primary agricultural
property in Weld County. Additionally, PSCo should provide additional reasoning and factual
support on why it refuses to install the transmission line and towers within the road ri .teof-way,
where impacts to private property could be avoided. Regardless of which route is selected, PSCo
is required to work closely with landowners to determine a route that would work for the
agricultural community as a whole, which it has not done. Mr.. Amen and Ms. Meisner ask that
the County not reward PSCo for simply picking the simplest route and hoping to buy off
landowners.
D. Conclusion.
PSCo's Preferred Transmission Route bisects and threatens some of the most productive
irrigated farmland in Weld County, including Mr. Amen's property. Therefore, for the reasons
set forth herein, Mr. Amen respectfully requests that the Nanning Commission recognize PSCo's
blatant disregard for Weld County's agricultural community by recommending that the Board of
County Commissioners deny PSCo's Application.
In addition to the comments provided in this letter, Mr. Amen also supports the April 26,
2019, letter provided by attorney Ken Skogg on behalf of several agricultural landowners. In
particular, Mr. Amen, as indicated above, shares their concerns that PSCo's Amended
Application is merely an attempt to break one large project into two parts — an attempt that goes
directly against the Weld County Code.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of Mr. Amen and Ms.
Meisner.
Sincerely,
Nara J.L. lity
WhitneyPhillips
Cc: Keith Amen
Dixie Ivieisner
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF Se Pwarso
AFFrDAM
Affiant, being first sworn upon oath, and being over the age of 18 years, hereby states
and affirms the following:
1. I reside at 10270 West 74th Place, in Arvada, Colorado 80005.
2 I own agricultural property in, Weld County, Colorado, located in the SW 1/4 of
Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 66 West of the eh P.M. (the "Meisner Property").
3. My property is located directly south of property owned and farmed by Mr. Keith
Amen, located in the NW 'A of Section 3, Township 7 North, ,an a 66 West of the 6th P.M.
4. Mr. Amen has farmed the Meisner Property for approximately 15 years, and he
understands the impact the installation of infrastructure, utilities or other facilities would have on
his farming operations, not to mention the damage it could cause to my property.
5. I have read Mr. en's letter addressed to Mr. Chris Gathman at the Weld
County Planning Commission, titled "Comments on behalf of Keith Amen, agricultural
landowner, Application of Public Service of Colorado Cominny, Case No. USR 1 S- 1 ,t' (the
"Amen Letter"), attached hereto as Attachment A.
6. I understand the statements and assertions in the Amen Letter and hereby affirm
and fully join Mr. Amen in. the concerns set forth in his letter.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
seniZedyi 44--er
STATE OF COLORADO)
ss,
COUNTY OF le -Carson )
The foregoing Affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me this 3os day of 341 9Ol9, by Dixie
Joyce Meisner.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: 0
o4 a i
1
June 11, 20rt 9
Weld County Department of Planning Services,
We are property owners, Leonard and Dolores Trujillo, that will be
impacted by the Xcel Energy transmission line, case #USFR1 8O1 00,
planner Chris Gathman. We own property that the transmission line will
run on the east end of our 75 acres and that Xcel wants an easement.
Our concerns are:
We will lose farm production due to the change of the pivot with the
easement
Lose a future sale of the approximate 7 acres in the south east corner of
the 75 acres, that we are planning sell to the future, that the pivot does not
irrigate
Devaivation of the whole 75 acres due to the transmission line.
Devaluation of our residence due to the transmission line.
We will be attending the June 18, 2019 PC hearing.
Thank You,
Leonard and Dolores Trujillo
40866 a 31
Ault, CO
Chris:
Metal Solutions, Inc
PO Box 1435-330 S. 3rd Ave
AtilCO OftL i fl
t , tO MA)
stip sr
3
. ; CERTIFIED
•• . FABRICATOR
970.834.2700 Ph.
970.834.2727 Fax.
Nskt;
'African Salm Sault!
We're writing regarding Case R 18 -0100 concerning XceEnergy's plan to
upgrade the electrical power system in and around Ault, where our business is
based.
Given that we've experienced issues with our electrical power service and that
we've been unable to make plans to expand due to the unreliability of the system,
we are in support of this project.
We run Metal Solutions, a full -service commercial fabrication and installation
business. We've been in Ault since 2009 and serve much of Northern Colorado and
beyond. Power outages have been a big enough problem for us that we've
approached the Ault Mayor and Town Council in the past.
Please ensure that our letter of support for this project is entered into the public
record as this project goes through the approval process.
Sincerely,
Greg Biehl and Steve Kattnig
Co -Founders, Metal Solutions
330 S. 3rd Ave.
Ault, CO 806 10
/1-0
Xcel Energy4
�J• rthern Co • rada /�r�� P��r�
WAPA. Ault Substation to Graham Creek Substation
230kV Ira.nsnhission/SU bstati eli. Project
SUMMARY
1041 Permit Application
Substations
• New Terminal at WAPAAuIt
• Graham Creek
Transmission Lines
• WAPAAult Sub to Husky Sub
• Husky to Graham Creek Sub
BENEFITS
• Increased electrical safety and
service reliability
• Replace the existing aging 44kV
electric infrastructure
XceiEnergy
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
WAPAAuIt Substation
3
XceiEnergy
PROJECT DESCRIPTION XceiEnergy°
Husky to Graham Creek Transmission Line
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Design — Graham Creek Substation
County
•
'OR IA 1
fit 3TURFMAN. a «
t.. ••.a.e• .• • w,JTK UTII.
GRAHAM CREEK SUBSTATION
PLOT PLAN
Vicinity Map
7N 66W
Weld
Legend
• Enitro E*Ont
■ S E ',gong Di( r
•�gi•ElSItig�esLne
C'*tng Mut L?*
Contour I net
iWIrFen:eine
tirtrW , Sttst:Ica snares
eta. E.ntrniul
Ei Rom ROB'
I :VI Jan C �Srra
OP O' & r•is Vetts
1 edbt :len* can p I • "' 1L
t.I%J'I tS kV' re
"( ./•'T :tow :v
I. '--t
Zings, .
moo+. C\••I '7s➢ tn.
�7 Xcel Energy
• Ultimately 3
Transformers
• Buss
• Electric Equipment
Enclosure
• Distribution
switching cabinets
• Switchgear
• Deadend Structure
Average Height 60 feet
9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Design - Transmission
• Easement — 100-150 feet
wide
• Galvanized steel monopole
structures
• Typical span between
structures — 800-1,200 feet,
or 6-6.5 structures/mile
• Typical Height — 80-130 feet
• Typical Pole Diameter — 4-8
feet
10
7 XceiEnergy°
Typical Transmission Structure
Slide 10
iLC 1
Larry Claxton, 6/17/2019
PERMITTING
Section 1041 Permit Application Timeline
XcelEnergys
• Community Outreach (2017 2018)
• Pre Application Meeting
• 2018 Application
• 2019 Amended Application
Responds to Town of Eaton and stakeholder
concerns
Opportunity to work with stakeholders
PERMITTING
Other Local Permits and Approvals
XcelEnergys
Weld County Permits and Agreements after 1041 Permit Approval
• Grading Permit
• Final Drainage Plan
• County Road ROW Access / Driveway Permits
• Road Maintenance Agreements
• Final ROW Transmission Plats
Town of Ault
/Site Plan (Husky Substation and 1 mile of transmission line), Town of
Ault, February 2019
• Town Road ROW Access / Driveway Permits
13
PERMITTING
Other Permits Authorizations and Reviews
13
XcelEnergys
State of Colorado
VCertificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), Colorado
Public Utility Commission, March 2018
• Colorado Discharge Permit
• Stormwater Management Plan
• CDOT Utility Crossing Permit
Other Development Permits I Reviews
• Western Area Power Administration NEPA
• Railroad Crossing Permit
• Pipeline Coordination
• Irrigation Ditch District Coordination
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
SITING STUDY
Process
Project
Definition
Opps +
Constraints
r
14
XceiEnergy
• Develop utility engineering requirements
• Estailish the siting area and project scope
J
• Analyze existing policy framework and guidance
• Collect relevant land use and environmental data
• Open House #1
• Define preliminary substation sites and alternative transmission routes
• Develop community -based evaluation criteria
• Open House #2
J
• Field surveys
• Landowner meetings
• Additional data c•llection, substation site and transmission route refinements
• Open House #3
J
Section 1041 Application and Appendix B: Siting Study
SITING STUDY
Constraints
• Agricultural lands,
infrastructure, and uses
15
.<:17M
7 -
731.te ,
.%/; it
Husky to Graham
Creek Route 1
(Preferred)
Non -Residential
Buildings
Non -Residential
100' buffer
Pivot Irrigated
Agriculture
Non -Pivot Irrigated
Agriculture
Drip Irrigation
Agriculture
Existing Feedlots
1:34,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Mile
HUSKY TO GRAHAM CREEK
Agricultural Land Uses
�� Xcel Energy s
Exported at L'Wi ii
SITING STUDY
Constraints
• Residential land uses
16
Exported Ore Ci$il+lU
Husky to Graham
Creek Route
(Preferred)
e Residences
,r-- Residential 200'
buffer
0.2 0.4
1 :34,000
0.8
HUSKY TO GRAHAM CREEK
Residential Land Uses
Xcel Energy s
SITING STUDY
Constraints
• Industrial and commercial
uses
17
C
Husky to Graham
Creek Route 1
(Preferred)
Commercial
Buildings
Commercial
Buildings 100'
buffer
• Oil & Gas Wells
Oil Gas Tank
Battery
cp Oil & Gas 200'
buffer
1:34,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Mile
HUSKY TO GRAHAM CREEK
Industrial/Commercial
Lend Uses
Xcel Energy s
Exported at E6ry +r1D
SITING STUDY
Constraints
• Recreational land uses
18
U:.!
elir. - "ii: _
jer _
Husky to Graham
Creek Route 1
(Preferred)
Great Western Trail
Alignment
Parks and Open
Spaces
1:34,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Mile
HUSKY TO GRAHAM CREEK
Recreational Land Uses
Xcel Energy s
Exported Om A:Un +r1 D
SITING STUDY
All Constraints
19
Husky to Graham
Creek Route '1
(Preferred)
• Residences
C
Non -Residential
Buildings
Commercial
Buildings
• Oil & Gas Wells
• Oil Gas Tank
Battery
* Trees
77-1 Parks and Open
1 Spaces
■Pivot Irrigated
Agriculture
727?-
Existing Feedlots
Non -Pivot
Agriculture
Drip Irrigation
Agriculture
FEMA 100yrr Flood
Plain
Wetlands - National
Wetiand inventory
Road Rights -of -Way
1:34,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Mile
HUSKY TO GRAHAM CREEK
Combined Constraints
�� Xcel Energy s
Expurtad ti C Vii h t U
SITING STUDY
Public and Landowner Outreach
• Three open houses
October 25, 2017 in Ault
January 24, 2018 in Eaton
May 16, 2018 in Eaton
• Notified landowners within 0.5 mile of alternative corridors;
• Two public hearings
with the Town of Ault
• Outreach for Easement
Agreements
20
XcelEnergys
SITING STUDY
Micrositing Considerations
Residential:
• 1,000 -foot wide siting corridor
• Proximity to established
residential development
• Approved future residential area
• Fewest residences within 200
feet of potential centerline of
preferred route
• Fewest residences within 0.25
mile of preferred route
21
1) 60' County Road R.O.W.
XceiEnergy
CR R.O.W.
T.L. EASEMENT
SITING STUDY
Micrositing Considerations
3) Pivot Irrigation Avoidance
Agriculture
• Minimize the number of
impacted agricultural pivot and
drip irrigation systems
• Span where possible
• When avoidance is not
possible, appropriate
compensation for system
modifications will be provided.
22
XceiEnergy
SITING STUDY �-------
Micrositing Considerations
5) Oil/Gas and Pivot Irrigation Avoidance
Infrastructure
• Minimize impacts to oil and gas
• Use existing ROWs and joint
use of ROWs wherever uses
are compatible
• Minimize taller and/or bulkier
structures
SITING STUDY
Graham Creek Substation Site 1 Results
• Scored best of 8 evaluated sites
• Not adjacent to residential neighborhoods
• Serves existing load
• Sited ahead of and sized for Eaton's future growth
• Innovative design to reduce footprint.
• No impact to oil and gas infrastructure
• No impact to natural or cultural resources
• Executed option agreement with landowner
XcelEnergys
SITING STUDY
Substation Site Comparisons
• Additional analysis for Site
1 and 3 to address Town
of Eaton concerns
• Proximity to future growth
• Proximity to Husky
Substation for backup
• Compatibility with Eaton
Comp Plan and
Transportation Plan goals
to '
Comprehe, 3Iv+e
Plan Area
Th
25
Current UGA Boundary
Eaton Sub
GC 3 Site
Xcel Energy•
Urban Growth
Area
WCR80
M CR7O
Hello