HomeMy WebLinkAbout20192461.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES CONCERNING USR18-0100, FOR 1041
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
COLORADO - KUTAK ROCK, LLP
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 2-4-10 and 21-1-70 of the Weld County Code, the Board
of County Commissioners considered the appeal of the decision by the Department of Planning
Services to deem the revised application complete for Use by Special Review Permit,
USR18-0100, for Public Service Company of Colorado, submitted by the appellant, Kutak Rock,
LLP.
WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony from the County Attorney's Office and the
Department of Planning Services and determined that the appellant is not aggrieved and will have
the opportunity to present their concerns at the hearing scheduled for July 24, 2019, and,
therefore, deems it advisable to dismiss the appeal of Kutak Rock, LLP, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the appeal of Kutak Rock, LLP, be and hereby is, dismissed.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 26th day of June, A.D., 2019.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: datiLe4) G•e1
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ounty • torney
Date of signature: o fi 3 461
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Steve Moreno
GG PLCCG(TP), G.PPL
IO/17/(9'
2019-2461
PL2623
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE: (970) 400-4226
FAX: (970) 336-7233
1150O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, CO 80632
June 20. 2019
Via U.S. Mail and Email: Kenneth.skogggi≥kutakrock.com
Attn: Kenneth Skogg
Kutak Rock, LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202-2652
RE: Notice of Appeal Hearing re: Department of Planning Services Decision concerning
USR18-0100 — Public Service Company of Colorado - Section 1041 Special Review
Permit Application
Dear Mr. Skogg:
The Board of Commissioners of Weld County will conduct a hearing concerning the appeal by
Kutak Rock, LLP, of the decision made by the Department of Planning Services on April 22, 2019,
deeming the revised application complete for Section 1041 Use by Special Review Permit,
USR18-0100. The appeal hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County
Administration Building. 1150 O Street, Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631. The hearing
will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Sections 21-1-70 and 2-4-10 of the Weld County
Code, copies of which are enclosed.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
970-400-4226, or email egesick@weldgov.com.
Sincerely,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
cc: County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Assistant County Attorneys. Karin McDougal and Bob Choate
Planning Services Director, Tom Parko
Case Planner, Chris Gathman
Julie Stencel - Julie.A.Stencel@xcelenergy.com
Larry Claxton - larrv.claxton cl, xcelenergy.com
•
a
a
a
U.S. Postal Service"'
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com®.
Certified Mail Fee
Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate)
❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $
❑ Return Receipt (electronic)
❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
O Adult Signature Required $
• Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $
Postage
Total Postage and Fees
Sent To •
Ktitg
Street a d Apt.
Ifat
City,
tate, Z1P+4
Postmark
Here
(0/2,
f
419 Att _kaiitUrt 14-
oB o.
Of t1 L.Q._ Ste_ Ste OD3
de 3 di. as el. 25i
PS Form 380 , April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Attu KndL Sko3j
K(Arok%cdk. LLP
1801 aaicorni&i ) Sic 3oego
-Dcnvert Co $o?c13'ab52
111111111111 1111111111 111111111111111
9590 9402 4445 8248 1217 59
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
7017 1450 0000 9675 2514
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
See Reverse for Instructions
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
x
B. Received by (Printed Name)
,Agent
O Addressee
C. Da e'of =livery
S!7'4
d
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ■ Ye
If YES, enter delivery address below: O No
3. Service Type
❑ Adult Signature
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
X Certified Mail®
❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
(over $500)
1
D Priority Mail Express®
D Registered MaiITM
D Registered Mail Restricted
Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
❑ Signature ConfirmationTM
❑ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
Sec. 2-4-10. - Appeals process.
The Board of County Commissioners shall act as a board of appeals to hear complaints on actions
taken by County boards, commissions and departments. Except for decisions made by the Board of
Adjustment and Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals, procedure for appeals shall be as set forth in
this Chapter, by resolution of the Board, or as otherwise provided by law.
A. Any person appealing an action by a County board, commission or department to the Board of
County Commissioners shall file such a complaint, in writing, with the Clerk to the Board within
sixty (60) days of the incident in question. Appeals concerning purchases or procurements
made in accordance with Chapter 5, Article IV, of this Code shall be filed within five (5) days of
the incident in question.
B. Such complaint shall include:
1. The name of the employee, board, commission or department against which the complaint
is made.
2. A description of the basic facts involved in the complaint.
C. The Clerk to the Board shall schedule a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, to be
held within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the complaint, and shall notify all parties involved in
the incident.
D. The Board of County Commissioners shall hear all the available facts pertinent to the incident,
may schedule a second hearing within thirty (30) days following the initial hearing if the Board
determines such a need, and shall render a determination within thirty (30) days of the final
hearing.
E. No person shall be denied the right to appeal, provided that he or she complies with the
administrative procedures established by the Board.
(Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-14)
Sec. 21-1-70. - Duties of Board of County Commissioners.
Unless otherwise specifically provided for, it shall be the duty of the Board of County Commissioners
to perform all of the functions set forth in this Article, and those specified in Articles II and III of this
Chapter 21. The Board of County Commissioners shall also be generally empowered to hear appeals
from any person aggrieved by any decision of the Planning Director made in the course of administering
these Section 1041 Regulations. Any such appeal shall follow the appeals procedure set forth in Section
2-4-10 of this Code.
(Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-6)
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Esther Gesick
Thursday, June 20, 2019 4:33 PM
Skogg, Kenneth K.; Baggs, Dana B.
Bruce Barker; Bob Choate; Karin McDougal; Tom Parko Jr.; Chris Gathman; Esther Gesick;
Stephanie Frederick; Julie.A.Stencel@xcelenergy.com; larry.claxton@xcelenergy.com
FW: Weld County Department of Planning Services - Case No. USR18-0100
Weld County Commissioners letter and encls.pdf; Appeal Notice Letter - USR18-0100
Xcel Energy_Public Service Company 062019.pdf; Sec._2_4_10._Appeals_process.pdf
Mr. Skogg and Ms. Baggs,
In response to the appeal submitted by Kutak Rock, LLP, please see the attached Notice of Hearing.
Regards,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street'P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632
tel: (970) 400-4226
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents
of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Baggs, Dana B. <Dana.Baggs@KutakRock.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 2:18 PM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>
Cc: Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Skogg, Kenneth K.
<Kenneth.Skogg@KutakRock.com>
Subject: Weld County Department of Planning Services - Case No. USR18-0100
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. Gesick,
Please see the attached appeal, which is being filed pursuant to Weld County Code §§ 21-1-70 and 2-4-10.
Thank you,
Dana B. Baggs
Dana B. Baggs I Attorney
1801 California Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-2626
D (303) 292-7877 I O (303) 297-2400
1
KUTAKROCK
Kutak Rock LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-2652
office 303.297.2400
KENNETH K. SKOGG
303.297.2400
Kenneth.skogg@kutakrock.com
June 11, 2019
RECEIVED
Via U.S. Mail and Email: egesick(a,weldgov.com (b4'� f 2oiq
(02:i8 Pm)
Weld County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
JUN 142019
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Re: Appeal of Weld County Planning Department Decision
Case No. USR18-0100 - Public Service Company of Colorado — Section 1041
Special Review Permit Application
Dear Ms. Gesick:
This firm represents Fagerberg Produce, Inc., Lynn Fagerberg, Ryan Fagerberg, Keirnes
Land Company, Brad Keirnes, Spencer Keirnes, Arlen Anderson, Vic Leffler & Sons, Inc., Leffler
Brothers, LLC, Russell Leffler, Ted and Sheri Carlson, and Lynn Otteson (collectively referred to
herein as "Landowners"). Pursuant to Weld County Code §§ 21-1-70 and 2-4-10, this letter serves
as the Landowners' appeal of the Weld County Department of Planning Service's (the "Planning
Department") decision to accept and proceed with Public Service Company of Colorado's
("PSCo") Amended Section 1041 Application ("Amended Application") filed under the Planning
Department's Case No. USR18-0100, concerning PSCo's Northern Colorado Area Plan Project
("Project").
BACKGROUND FACTS
PSCo filed an initial Section 1041 Permit application in August of 2018 ("Initial
Application") based on approval of PSCO's approved Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity ("CPCN") by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") to allow Xcel Energy
to construct the Project.' That Project is defined in all of PSCo's filings with the PUC and the
Initial Application as building approximately 20 miles of new 115/230 -kilovolt transmission line
between the Western Area Power Authority ("WAPA") Ault Substation and a location northeast
of Greeley where the new 115/230-KV transmission lines would connect to Xcel Energy's existing
115-KV line near the Cloverly Substation, with the construction of two new substations and
t Landowners question, but have not as of this writing fully analyzed, the validity of the Amended Application in light
of the CPCN issued by the PUC. At the very least, it should be noted that the Project as so approved by the PUC is
the entire Project and not merely a portion as PSCo seeks approval for in its Amended Application.
4812-1474-6009.1
KUTAKROCK
Weld County Commissioners
June 11, 2019
Page 2
improvement of two existing substation facilities. In the face of objections from referral agencies,
cities and towns, the Planning Department has allowed PSCo to amend its Initial Application to
eliminate more than 50% of the transmission corridor of the Project (the "Amended Application").
The Amended Application, which addresses only the Project's northernmost transmission route to
and including the proposed non -terminal Graham Creek Substation location, seeks to omit from
consideration by the Weld County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners ("Board of Commissioners") any of the extremely
controversial, and yet crucial and necessary to the Project, southern transmission segment from the
Graham Creek Substation to the Cloverly Substation.
Weld County Code § 21-2-200(B) provides that a section 1041 application "shall not be
accepted or processed until it is complete." By the enclosed letter dated April 26, 2019 with an
accompanying Affidavit by Thomas Ghidossi of Exponential Engineering Company addressed to
the Planning Department, the Landowners raised a procedural objection to PSCo's Amended
Application, objecting to the application as being substantially incomplete. The Landowners
argued that the Amended Application should not be accepted or further processed by the Planning
Department, but rather that PSCo should be required to submit a new Section 1041 Permit
Application that meets all of the requirements of the Weld County Code and Comprehensive Plan
and presents the entirety of the Project. By email dated May 24, 2019, Chris Gathman, Planner III
with the Planning Department, responded stating that the Landowners' "comments will be entered
into the record," but after consulting with the County Attorney's Office, the Planning Department
will continue to process PSCo's Amended Application.
PSCo's late "amendment" to the Initial Application is a transparent attempt to conceal from
the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners all of the adverse impacts presented by
the entire Project. By presenting only a portion of the Project for consideration, the Amended
Application is incomplete and wholly deficient under Weld County's requirements. Considering
the interdependent siting relationship between the transmission routes and substation locations as
established within the power transmission industry (see Affidavit), and the fact that the Project is
not functional without the critical southern transmission line, it is inconceivable how the Planning
Department, Planning Commission or Board of Commissioners can reasonably evaluate whether
only a non-functional subcomponent of the Project (as presented in the Amended Application)
meets the County's 1041 criteria. We submit that it is in the best interests of Weld County and its
residents, including in particular, the Town of Eaton and the aforementioned Landowners, for the
Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners to evaluate the entire Project as a whole
in a single application (as presented in the Initial Application) so all of the actual and potential
impacts of the proposed Project can be considered and the Planning Commission and Board of
Commissioners can make a fully informed, rather than only partially informed, decision.
PSCo claims that it requested continuances of public hearings relating to the Project and
reduced the scope of its Initial Application under the auspices of (i) needing time to expand its
siting study area to examine additional possible transmission routes from the new Graham Creek
Substation to the Cloverly Substation, and (ii) being committed to working with landowners and
4812-1474-6009.1
KUTAKROCK
Weld County Commissioners
June 11, 2019
Page 3
community members to find a viable solution. Instead, having apparently recognized the flaws in
its initial siting study, PSCo filed its Amended Application that effectively relies on the same
flawed siting study, amended solely to eliminate the southern transmission routing. The Amended
Application portends a new siting study for the southern transmission corridor. Such a position
raises far more questions than it answers. Does PSCo and its consultant intend to change the
criteria upon which it selected its "preferred alignment"? If not, why would the analysis result in
a different result? Is it because they misapplied their criteria? If so, does that not call into question
the application of such criteria in siting the portion of the Project that is included in the Amended
Application? If such criteria is in fact going to be modified, why shouldn't such modifications
also be applied to the portion of the Project included in the Amended Application? The mere
assertion that re -assessment of the siting of the southern transmission line route calls into question
the legitimacy and thoroughness of its original Siting Study and Revised Siting Study and what
PSCo would do differently, resulting in new or different conclusions than those already reached in
its previous studies. Stated as assertions rather than questions, if PSCo does not apply new criteria
to its proposed new and expanded siting study analysis, one can reasonably expect that PSCo will
reach the same conclusions concerning its preferred transmission route between the new Graham
Creek Substation and the Cloverly Substation. On the other hand, if PSCo considers new criteria
in its expanded siting study, it calls into doubt the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn for the
Amended Application that were based on the prior studies that relied on the no longer adequate
criteria.
Whether by design or otherwise (and Landowners submit it is by design), the unmistakable
effect of piecemeal applications for the Project is that review and approval of one subcomponent
of the Project, namely, its proposed location for the non -terminal Graham Creek Substation, allows
PSCo to postpone (and thus eliminate) consideration of controversial aspects of its Project while
avoiding scrutiny and fair and full objective evaluation of the interdependent locational
considerations of and between substations and transmission routes. Moreover, if the Amended
Application is approved, PSCo will be poised to rely on the approval of the location of the Graham
Creek Substation to support the location of transmission lines west and south of Eaton through
some of the most prime agricultural land in Weld County and in the path of current and future
growth and development to the west between Eaton and the City of Fort Collins and south between
Eaton and the City of Greeley. Once that substation siting is approved, all other alternative
substation locations and transmission corridors will be eliminated for further consideration going
south to the Cloverly Substation. Effectively, PSCo will have eliminated from the Planning
Commission's and the Board of Commissioners' consideration any of these other alternatives
because the location of the Graham Creek Substation renders them less appropriate or desirable, if
not location -wise and economically infeasible.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Landowners respectfully submit that the Planning Department staffs
decision to accept and proceed with processing PSCo's Amended Application constitutes an error
in discretion by the Planning Department and is not in the best interest of Weld County or its
4812-1474-6009.1
KUTAKROCK
Weld County Commissioners
June 11, 2019
Page 4
residents. As such, the Landowners respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners overturn
the Planning Department's decision to accept and proceed with PSCo's Amended Application and
direct the Planning Department to require PSCo to present the entirety of its Project — at full
build -out — in a single, complete Section 1041 application so all can see the true impacts of the
entire Project for the sake of making fully informed decisions and to avoid making decisions based
on partial information and a land use application rendered incomplete through substantial
amendment.
Sincerely,
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Keylneth K. Skogg
Enclosure
cc: Weld County Department of Planning Services
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
Bob Choate, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Landowners
4812-1474-6009.1
KUTAKROCK
Kutak Rock LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-2652
office 303.297.2400
KENNETH K. SKOGG
303.297.2400
Kenneth.skogg@kutakrock.com
April 26, 2019
Via Email: cgathman(a,weldgov.com
Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Chris Gathman
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80613
Re: Public Service Company of Colorado Special Review Permit Application
Case No. USR18-0100
Dear Mr. Gathman:
This letter is written on behalf Fagerberg Produce, Inc., Lynn Fagerberg, Ryan Fagerberg,
Keirnes Land Company, Brad Keirnes, Spencer Keirnes, Arlen Anderson, Vic Leffler & Sons,
Inc., Leffler Brothers, LLC, Russell Leffler, Ted and Sheri Carlson, and Lynn Otteson (collectively
referred to herein as "Landowners") in opposition to Public Service Company of Colorado's
("PSCo") Amended Section 1041 Application ("Amended Application"), concerning PSCo's
Northern Colorado Area Plan Project ("Project") filed under Case No. USR18-0100. The
Landowners own, or otherwise have interests in, prime agricultural farmland, residential and
commercial development properties, and/or 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
("Original 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 Exponential Engineering Company ("EEC"). An affidavit from Thomas A. Ghidossi,
P.E. ("Ghidossi 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 ("CPUC") contemplates a complete transmission project that 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 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
4823-1411-1893.1
KUTAKROCK
April 26, 2019
Page 2
Project includes, among other things, "1) 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 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 - namely the transmission line section between the
proposed Graham Creek Substation and the existing Cloverly Substation. The removal of the
transmission line 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 Ghidossi Affidavit, ¶¶
5, 7-9, 14 and 15.)
PSCo'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 routes and to provide extra time to address concerns that have been expressed
about PSCo's preferred Graham Creek to Cloverly 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, ¶¶ 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 long-term, lasting
for decades to come. The overall Project has far reaching consequences that are not properly
addressed in the Amended Application, and which cannot be fully and properly evaluated through
a piece -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 Commission 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 how
the Project can be receive proper evaluation to ensure that it is in the best interests of the citizens
of Weld County.
4823-1411-1893.1
KUTAKROCK
April 26, 2019
Page 3
Should the Amended Application be accepted and allowed to proceed, the Landowners
have further substantial objections to the Amended Application and proposed siting of the Graham
Creek Substation that will be submitted under cover of a separate letter.
Sincerely,
eth . Skogg
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Barker, Esq.
Landowners
4823-1411-1893.1
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. USR18-0100
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS A. GHIDOSSI, P.E.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Thomas A. Ghidossi, P.E., 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 associations, 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, (i) 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 (i)
materials related to PSCo's regulatory filings with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") 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.
4814-0585-7173.1
4. In its Amended 1041 Application, PSCo notes that "the Project is part of the long-
term transmission plan for northern Colorado"1 and that the CPCN for the Project was granted by
the CPUC on March 1, 2018. The purpose of the Project, which 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 PSCo's CPNC Application and as approved by the CPUC, the
Project includes, among other things, "1) 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 Valley)."3
6. 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."4
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.
8. 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 Cloverly Substations is a critical link required to make the connection between
the Ault Substation and the Greeley area. PSCo states that "[t]he 230kV-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."5 The final transmission 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,
1 Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire_190402, Notice of Application Amendment, page 1
2 Revised Appendix B_Siting Study_190329, page 2-14, paragraph 2
3 PSCo's Verified Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, page 1
4 Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire_190402, page vii, paragraph 4
5 New Appendix I_Xcel Comment Response Letter Sumary_190329, page 1
2
4814-0585-7173.1
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 Cloverly Substation transmission route
on the entire Project, 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 Cloverly 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 Application 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 routes 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 "...only one circuit would initially operate at
115kV."7 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 "Wile existing PSCo Ault and
Eaton Substations will be decommissioned after the new transmission line and substations are
constructed and operational."8 The transmission line segment between the Graham Creek and
Cloverly 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 CPUC, 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 that influence 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 granted
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
6 Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire_190402, page vii, paragraph 5
' Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire_190402, page 2
8 Revised 1041 Permit and USR Questionnaire_190402, page vii, paragraph 2
3
4814-0585-7173.1
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 Cloverly Substations that are wholly on the east side
of Ault and Eaton.
Dated: April 2fo , 2019
Thomas A. Ghidossi, P.E.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisZ&p day of April, 2019, by
Thomas A. Ghidossi.
TINA S KNOX
Notary Public
State of Colorado
Notary ID # 20194002442
My Commission Expires 01-17-2023
My Commission Expires: / ' / 7 • 12023
4
4814-0585-7173.1
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
CONCERNING USR18-0100 FOR 1041 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO - KUTAK ROCK, LLP
Exhibit Submitted By
Fischer, Brown, Bartlett,
and Gunn, PC
A. sarairby@fbgpc.com
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
Description
Letter dated June 25, 2019, re: Support of Appeal of
Department Planning Services Decision
V.
2019-2461
FISCHER, BROWN, BARTLETT & GUNN, PC
MARGARET A. (Meg) BROWN
DANIEL K. BROWN
BRENT A. BARTLET
LISA A. LARSEN
SARA J.L. IRBY
DONALD E. FRICK
TODD W. ROGERS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1319 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Weld County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick, Clerk of the Board
1150 O Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
June 25, 2019
WARD H. FISCHER (1929-1996)
WILLIAM H. BROWN (Of Counsel)
WILLIAM C. GUNN (Of Counsel)
WILLIAM R. FISCHER (Of Counsel)
Phone: 970.407.9000
Fax: 970.407.1055
Website: www.fbbglaw.com
SENT VIA EMAIL
RE: Support of Appeal of Weld County Planning Department Decision in
Case No. URS 18-0100 - PSCo Section 1041 Special Review Permit Application
Dear Ms. Gesick:
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 'A of
Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. ("Amen Property"), and Ms. Dixie
Meisner, who owns land 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 to notify the Weld County Board
of Commissioners that both Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner support the Appeal of the Planning
Department's Decision to accept and proceed with the Public Service Company's Amended
Application in USR 18-0100, which said Appeal was submitted on June 11, 2019 by Mr.
Kenneth Skogg on behalf of his clients, Fagerberg Produce, Inc., Lynn Fagerberg, Ryan
Fagerberg, Keirnes Land Company, Brad Keirnes, Spencer Keirnes, Arlen Anderson, Vic Leffler
& Sons, Inc., Leffler Brothers, LLC, Russell Leffler, Ted and Sheri Carlson, and Lynn Otteson
(the "Landowners").
Mr. Amen's and Ms. Meisner's complete comments letter dated May 21, 2019 is part of
the record and is attached hereto for the Board's reference.
Both Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner agree with the Landowners that the Amended
Application fails to address all of the impacts of PSCo's entire Northern Colorado Area Plan
Project (the "Project"), and. therefore, the Amended Application is incomplete and should not
have been accepted or processed. See Weld County Code § 21-2-200(B)("An application shall
not be accepted or processed unless it is complete."). In fact, Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner see the
omission of the section of the transmission line from the Graham Creek Substation to the
Cloverly Substation in 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 on Weld County's
citizens of PSCo's ultimate preferred route for the entire 21 -mile transmission line.
Accordingly, Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner join in the Landowners' request that PSCo be
required to submit a new 1041 application that considers and fully analyzes all of the impacts of
the entire Project on the County and its citizens, including the section from the Graham Creek
Substation and Cloverly Substation. Without such evaluation and analysis, the Amended
Application is incomplete, and, pursuant to the Weld County Code, should not have been
accepted or processed.
Thank you for the opportunity to inform the Board of Mr. Amen's and Ms. Meisner's
support of the Landowners' Appeal.
Sincerely,
Sara J.L. Irby
cc: Keith Amen
Dixie Meisner
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
Bob Choate, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Weld County Planning Department
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sara Irby <sarairby@fbgpc.com>
Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:59 PM
Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick
Bob Choate; 'dixieinco@gmail.com'; keith@amenfarmingfeeding.com; Chris Gathman;
Whitney Phillips
RE: USR 18-0100- Letter in Support of Appeal of Planning Department Decision
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Barker:
I'm fine with not including the May 21, 2019 letter, as I agree it addresses issues for the July 24th hearing. The primary
purpose of the letter dated today was to indicate that Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner support the relief requested in the
Appeal submitted by Mr. Skogg on behalf of his clients, and, that, Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner are aggrieved to the point
that this Project will impact their properties, but the full impact is unknown because the Amended Application was
incomplete in that, among other things, it did not evaluate and analyze the entire Project.
Thank you.
Sara
Sara J.L. Irby
Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn, P.C.
1319 E. Prospect Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)407-9000 ext. 216
(970)449-4716 (direct)
sarairby@fbgpc.com
The information contained in or attached to this E-MAIL message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the individuals) named above. If you are not the named
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail message and any attachments In error and
that review, dissemination, distribution or copying ci this e-mail message and any attachments is prohibited. Erroneous of this communication does not constitute waiver of any
applicable privilege. If you have received this e-mail message and any attachments In error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and then delete the e-
mail message and any attachments from your computer and/or network. Thank you.
1
From: Bruce Barker [mailto:bbarker@weldgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:46 PM
To: Esther Gesick; Sara Irby
Cc: Bob Choate; 'dixieinco@gmail.com'; keith@amenfarmingfeeding.com; Chris Gathman; Whitney Phillips
Subject: RE: USR 18-0100- Letter in Support of Appeal of Planning Department Decision
Because these letters deal with the facts and criteria which will be considered by the Board at the hearing on USR 18-
0100, which will take place on July 24th, my advice to the Board will be to consider them in that hearing rather than in
the appeal hearing tomorrow.
The question for tomorrow is whether or not Mr. Amen is "aggrieved" by the decision of the Planning Director in
allowing the case to progress forward to hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners. The letters go well beyond an explanation why Mr. Amen is "aggrieved" by such decision. Rather, they
go to the heart of USR 18-0100 which is outside the scope of the appeal hearing.
Sec. 21-1-70. - Duties of Board of County Commissioners.
Unless otherwise specifically provided for, it shall be the duty of the Board of County Commissioners to perform all of
the functions set forth in this Article, and those specified in Articles II and III of this Chapter 21. The Board of County
Commissioners shall also be generally empowered to hear appeals from any person aggrieved, by any decision of the
Planning Director made in the course of administering these Section 1041 Regulations. Any such appeal shall follow the
appeals procedure set forth in Section 2-4-10 of this Code.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "O" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 356-4000, Ext. 4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
From: Esther Gesick
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:09 PM
To: Sara Irby <sarairby@fbgpc.com>
Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate<bchoate@weldgov.com>;'dixieinco@gmail.com'
<dixieinco@gmail.com>; keith@amenfarmingfeeding.com; Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com>; Whitney Phillips
<WhitneyPhillips@fbgpc.com>
Subject: RE: USR 18-0100- Letter in Support of Appeal of Planning Department Decision
Hello Sara,
2
The attachments have been received and will be included in the file as Exhibits for the Commissioners to review.
Thank you,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 /Greeley, CO 80632
tel: (970) 400-4226
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents
of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Sara Irby <sarairbv@fbgpc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:02 PM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>
Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; 'dixieinco@gmail.com'
<dixieinco@gmail.com>; keith@amenfarmingfeeding.com; Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com>; Whitney Phillips
<WhitnevPhillips@fbgpc.com>
Subject: USR 18-0100- Letter in Support of Appeal of Planning Department Decision
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. Gesick:
Attached please find a letter on behalf of my clients, Mr. Keith Amen and Ms. Dixie Meisner, in support of the Appeal
filed by attorney Kenneth Skogg on behalf of his clients regarding the Planning Department's decision to accept and
process Public Service Company's Amended 1041 Application in Case No. USR18-0100. This appeal is set for a hearing
tomorrow, but Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner will not be in attendance.
For ease of access, I am also attaching a copy of Mr. Amen's comments letter dated May 21, 2019, which is already a part
of the record in this matter.
Thank you. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Sara
Sara J.L. Irby
Fischer, Brown, Bartlett & Gunn, P.C.
1319 E. Prospect Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)407-9000 ext. 216
(970)449-4716 (direct)
sarairby(a,fbgpc.com
3
Hello