7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
1/46
{C49379:2 }
BEFORETHE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD
In the Matter of the Application of )6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC for an )
Amendment to its Certificate to Install ) Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGNand Operate a Wind-Powered Electric )Generation Facility in Huron County, Ohio. )
GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDSMEMORANDUM CONTRA TO
6011GREENWICH WINDPARK,LLCSMOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)(Counsel of Record)
Scott E. Elisar (Reg. No. 0081877)MCNEES WALLACE &NURICK LLC21 East State Street, 17THFloor
Columbus, OH 43215Telephone: (614) 469-8000Telecopier: (614) [email protected](willing to accept service by e-mail)[email protected](willing to accept service by e-mail)
FEBRUARY 12,2016 ATTORNEYS FOR GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITED
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
2/46
{C49379:2 }
BEFORETHE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD
In the Matter of the Application of )
6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC for an )Amendment to its Certificate to Install ) Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGNand Operate a Wind-Powered Electric )Generation Facility in Huron County, Ohio. )
GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO6011GREENWICH WINDPARK,LLCS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
On November 16, 2015, 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC (Wind Farm) filed an
Application to Amend its Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (Application). The
Application requests the Ohio Power Siting Board (Board) to authorize an amendment
to its certificate to allow the Wind Farm to add three new models of turbines to the menu
from which it may select the turbines that will become part of its project if the Wind Farm
proceeds with development. Greenwich Neighbors United (GNU) has a direct, real, and
substantial interest in this proceeding and moved to intervene on November 25, 2015.
Subsequent to its intervention, GNU properly invoked the Boards discovery procedures
to gather information needed to assess the potential consequences of granting the
amendment proposed by the Wind Farm. More specifically, GNU served its first set of
interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the Wind Farm on
January 21, 2016. Pursuant to the Boards rules, the Wind Farm was obligated to provide
responses to GNUs discovery on February 10, 2016.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
3/46
{C49379:2 } 2
In response to GNUs proper discovery and instead of providing full and complete
substantive responses,1the Wind Farm filed a Motion for a Protective Order seeking a
ruling that prohibit[s] discovery on subjects not within the scope of this proceeding, i.e.,
subjects not related to the proposed additional [sic] of new turbine technology presented
in the amendment application.2 The Wind Farm waited until the last day on which it was
required to provide such full and complete discovery responses to file its Motion for a
Protective Order. The Wind Farm also seeks, without following the Boards rules, an
expedited ruling on its Motion for a Protective Order.3
As discussed below, the Wind Farm has presented the Board with a defective
Motion for a Protective Order that also fails, in any event, to demonstrate that the Wind
Farm is entitled to the requested relief. GNUs discovery requests seek information that
GNU may rightfully seek and obtain from the Wind Farm to identify the potential effects
of the Wind Farms proposed amendment. Accordingly, GNUs discovery requests are
proper and the Board should deny the last-minute Motion for a Protective Order.
I. THE WIND FARMS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DEFECTIVE
A. Requirements for a Protective Order and Expedited Rulings
Under the Boards rules, a party may seek to prohibit discovery where the party
demonstrates that such prohibition is necessary to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.4 If a party seeks
to prohibit or limit discovery through a motion for a protective order, certain requirements
1The Wind Farms responses (mostly objections) to GNUs first set of interrogatories and requests forproduction of documents are attached hereto as Appendix A.
2Motion for Protective Order at 1.
3Id.
4Rule 4906-2-21(A), Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.).
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
4/46
{C49379:2 } 3
must be met. The movant must have exhausted all other reasonable means of resolving
any differences with the party seeking discovery.5 The movant must attach to its motion
[c]opies of any specific discovery request which are the subject of the request for a
protective order.6 The movant must also attach to its motion [a]n affidavit of
counsel setting forth the efforts which have been made to resolve any differences with
the party seeking discovery.7
Additionally, the Board requires any party seeking expedited treatment of a motion
to first contact all other parties to determine whether any party objects to the issuance of
such a ruling without the filing of memoranda.
8
If the moving party fails to certify that no
party has any objections, any party may file a memorandum contra within seven days
after the service of the motion.9
B. The Motion for a Protective Order Fails to Comply with the BoardsRules
The Wind Farm has filed a defective motion for protective order, which should be
denied. Initially, the Wind Farm requests the issuance of a protective order pursuant to
Rule 4906-7-07(H)(1), O.A.C., and rule on an expedited basis pursuant to Rule
4906-7-12(F), O.A.C. These two rules were rescinded and are no longer in effect and
cannot be relied upon by the Board to provide the Wind Farm the relief it requests.
5Rule 4906-2-21(B), O.A.C.6Rule 4906-2-21(B)(2), O.A.C.
7Rule 4906-2-21(B)(3), O.A.C.
8Rule 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.
9Id. The Wind Farms Motion for a Protective Order suggests that the Board subvert this process by issuingan expedited ruling on its own initiative under Rule 4906-2-27(F), O.A.C., instead of requiring the WindFarm to follow the process set forth in Rule 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C., applicable to a movant requestingexpedited treatment.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
5/46
{C49379:2 } 4
The Wind Farms Motion for a Protective Order, however, also fails to comply with
the Boards current rules applicable to requests for the issuance of a protective order and
requests for expedited rulings.10 The Wind Farm has not attached to its Motion for a
Protective Order the discovery requests that are the subject of its Motion for a Protective
Order or attached the required Affidavit of Counsel. The Wind Farm has also failed to
allege or demonstrate that issuing the protective order is necessary to protect a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.11 Its
only argument in support of its request for the protective order is that GNUs discovery
falls outside the proper scope of this proceeding. As demonstrated below, that is
incorrect. Accordingly, the Wind Farm has failed to comply with the requirements to
obtain a protective order.
After waiting until the last day on which it was required to fully and completely
respond to GNUs discovery, the Wind Farm is also asking the Board for an expedited
ruling without providing the requisite seven days for interested parties to file a
memorandum contra.12 The request for an expedited ruling is also defective; the Wind
Farm does not allege or demonstrate that it contacted counsel for GNU to determine if
GNU would object to a request for an expedited ruling as required by Rule 4906-2-27(C),
O.A.C.
For these reasons, the Board should find that the Motion for a Protective Order
and the accompanying request for an expedited ruling is defective and should be denied.
Even if the Board overlooks these defects, GNUs discovery requests are within the
10Rules 4906-2-21 and 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.
11Rule 4906-2-21(A), O.A.C.
12Motion for Protective Order at 1.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
6/46
{C49379:2 } 5
proper scope of discovery in this matter and therefore the issuance of a protective order
is not necessary or warranted.
II. GNUS DISCOVERY IS PROPER
A. Standard of Review for Applications to Amend Certificates
Rule 4906-3-11, O.A.C., governs applications to amend certificates to construct
and operate proposed electric generating plants, such as the Wind Farms, and requires
such an application to satisfy the completeness requirements contained in Rule
4906-3-06, O.A.C. Rule 4906-3-06, O.A.C., further requires the application to comply
with the content requirements of R.C. 4906.06 and Chapters 4906-1 to 4906-7, O.A.C.
These substantive content requirements are quite extensive.13
Upon the filing of an application to amend an existing certificate, the Boards Staff
is required to review the application pursuant to rule 4906-3-06 of the Administrative
Code and make appropriate recommendations to the board and the administrative law
judge.14 The Board is then required to determine if the proposed change in the certified
13R.C. 4906.06 requires the application to contain, at a minimum, a description of the major utility facility,a summary of any studies that have been made by or for the application of the environmental impact of thefacility, a statement explaining the need for the facility, a statement of the reasons why the proposed locationis best suited for the facility, [a] statement of how the facility fits into the applicant's forecast contained inthe report submitted under section 4935.04 of the Revised Code, and such other information as the Boardmay require.
Pursuant to Chapters 4906-1 to 4906-7, the Board further requires the application to contain additionaldetail. Included in the additional detail required by the Board is the [wind] turbine hub height, tip height,rotor diameter, and blade length for each model under consideration (Rule 4906-4-03(B)(1)(b), O.A.C.),
information related to [s]ubstations, switching substations, and transformers
(Rule 4906-4-03(B)(2)(g),O.A.C.), a brief description of the need for new electric transmission line(s) (Rule 4906-4-03(B)(3),O.A.C.), [w]ildlife and environmental surveys/studies (Rule 4906-4-03(C)(1)(b), O.A.C.), and [r]eceipt ofgrid interconnection studies and other critical path milestones for project construction (Rule4906-4-03(C)(1)(c), O.A.C.). The application must also include a description of how the facility will beconnected to the regional electric grid (Rule 4906-4-05(A), O.A.C.), including information relating to theirgeneration interconnection request, including interconnection queue name, number, date, and website(Rule 4905-4-05(B)(1), O.A.C.) and studies on their generation interconnection request (Rule4906-4-05(B)(2), O.A.C.).
14Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1), O.A.C.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
7/46
{C49379:2 } 6
facility would result in any significant adverse environmental impact of the certified facility
or a substantial change in the location of all or a portion of such certified facility other than
as provided in the alternates set forth in the application.15 If the Board finds affirmatively,
it shallset the matter for a hearing. Even without an affirmative finding that the proposed
change would result in significant adverse environmental impact or a substantial change
in the location of all or a portion of the certified facility, the Board retains discretion to
require a hearing.
B. Applicable Discovery Standards
The Board encourages the prompt and expeditious use of prehearing discovery
in order to facilitate thorough and adequate preparation for participation in board
proceedings.16 The Board also permits discovery on any matter that is relevant to the
subject matter of the proceeding and any matter that appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.17 Discovery may be sought in Board
proceedings through interrogatories and requests for production of documents.18
C. GNUs Discovery Requests are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to theDiscovery of Admissible Evidence
In support of its Motion for a Protective Order, the Wind Farm requests that the
Board limit discovery to prohibit discovery on matters not within the subject of this
proceeding.19 The Wind Farm asserts that the proper scope is limited to issues related
to the proposed additional [sic] of new turbine technology presented in the amendment
15Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1)(a), O.A.C.
16Rule 4906-2-14(A), O.A.C.
17Rule 4906-2-14(B), O.A.C.
18Rules 4906-2-17 and 4906-2-19, O.A.C.
19Motion for Protective Order at 1.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
8/46
{C49379:2 } 7
application.20 The Wind Farm also asserts that it does not seek to modify any of the
conditions and requirements established by the Board in the original Certificate case
(Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN).21 Finally, the Wind Farm cites a prior Board decision for
the proposition that an amendment application proceeding must be limited to the issues
raised in the amendment application.22
The Wind Farm has asked the Board to amend a construction and operation
certificate to add three new turbine models to the one turbine model that is presently
certificated subject to numerous conditions. The Wind Farm has not identified which
turbine model or combination of models it will actually construct and operate if the Board
approves the proposed amendment.
GNUs discovery seeks information related to the legal and real world ramifications
of the construction and operation of the turbine models (previously certified and previously
not certified) that the Wind Farm proposes to place on the menu from which it may elect
to feed its project development appetite. Any issues lawfully resolved in Case No.
13-990-EL-BGN, dealing with one turbine model, could not and did not reach the issues
raised by the Application in this proceeding that seeks the Boards authorization to
integrate, in ways unidentified by the Wind Farm, three additional turbine models within
the Wind Farms project area. The certificate conditions established in Case No.
13-990-EL-BGN are uniquely related to the facts and circumstances associated with the
one turbine model addressed in that case including, among other things, the
20Id.
21Id.
22Id.at 4 (citing In the Matter of the Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC Regarding its Certificateof Environmental Compatibility and Public Need issued in Case No. 10-2865-EL-BGN , Case No.14-1591-EL-BGA, Opinion and Order at 2 (Aug. 27, 2015)).
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
9/46
{C49379:2 } 8
comprehensive violation of Ohios minimum setback requirements, the operating
characteristics of that one turbine model, the noise of that one turbine model, the ice throw
of that one turbine model, the shadow flicker of that one turbine model, the blade sheer
of that one turbine model, and all other factors that the Board must lawfully address to
issue a certificate. The three new turbine models, with different physical and operational
characteristics than the one turbine model previously reviewed and approved, and the
unknown combination of turbine models that the Wind Farm might ultimately select to
construct and operate if it decides to move forward with its project, raise issues that the
Board must lawfully address in this proceeding.
23
Accordingly, nothing resolved in Case
No. 13-990-EL-BGN can be, as a matter of law, dispositive of issues raised by the
Application that is pending in this proceeding.
While the Wind Farm may prefer otherwise, GNU is entitled to seek and obtain
information on the potential implications of the construction and operation of an
unspecified deployment and potential combination of four turbine models, each having
different dimensions and operating characteristics in a context where 62% of the wind
23For example, the Board is required to determine if the application to amend will result in a substantialchange in the location of all or a portion of such certified facility. As the Wind Farm details in its Application,the three new models differ in height from the one model that has been certified, and thus the new modelsmust be reviewed to determine if they could be installed at the locations previously certified by the Boardand comply with the minimum setback requirements. Furthermore, R.C. 4906.201 requires any certificate
that is amended after September 15, 2014 to comply with the current minimum setback requirements. Thecurrent minimum setbacks provide [t]hat minimum shall be equal to a horizontal distance, from the turbine'sbase to the property line of the wind farm property, equal to one and one-tenth times the total height of theturbine structure as measured from its base to the tip of its highest blade and be at least one thousand onehundred twenty-five feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the turbine's nearest blade at ninety degreesto property line of the nearest adjacent property at the time of the certification application. R.C.4906.20(B)(2)(a). In conjunction, the differences in heights between the certified model and the three newmodels which are the subject of the Wind Farms Application in this matter, and the application of the currentminimum setback requirements demonstrate that the Board must complete more than the cursory reviewthat the Wind Farm urges the Board to undertake.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
10/46
{C49379:2 } 9
turbines certified in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN violate Ohios minimum setback
requirements.
Additionally, the Wind Farm has failed to present, for the Boards consideration,
any showing that GNUs discovery is impermissible relative to the potential construction,
operation, and integration of some combination of the three new turbine models with the
one turbine model that was before the Board in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN. The Wind
Farm did not attach GNUs discovery requests as required by the Boards rules. It did not
specifically address any of GNUs discovery requests and explain how they warrant the
issuance of a protective order. Under such circumstances, the issuance of a protective
order is not warranted.
The appropriateness of GNUs discovery requests is further confirmed by the Wind
Farms Application. The Wind Farms Application shows that some of the new turbine
models that the Wind Farm wants to add, in some unspecified way, to its development
menu are bigger, noisier, generate more shadow flicker,24and will operate more often
than the one turbine model addressed in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN.25 Thus, discovery
related to the impact of the deployment of some unspecified combination of the four
turbine models is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, GNUs discovery is proper and the Motion for a Protective Order
should be denied.
24Application at 1-2.
25Id.at 1.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
11/46
{C49379:2 } 10
III. CONCLUSION
The Wind Farm has presented the Board with a Motion for a Protective Order that
is procedurally and substantively unwarranted. The Wind Farm has failed to demonstrate
that GNUs discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The Wind Farm has failed to allege or demonstrate that GNUs discovery is
designed to annoy, embarrass, oppress, or cause the Wind Farm any undue burden or
expense. The Wind Farm failed to attach to its Motion for a Protective Order copies of
the discovery requests that are the subject for its Motion for a Protective Order. The Wind
Farm failed to attach to its Motion for a Protective Order the required Affidavit of Counsel.
The Wind Farm failed to follow the process required by the Board to request the Board
issue an expedited ruling. The failure to satisfy any one of these items is cause enough
for the Board to deny the Motion for a Protective Order. The cumulative failure to meet
any of these requirements demonstrates the complete lack of merit upon which the Motion
for a Protective Order is founded.
For these reasons, the Board should deny the Wind Farms request for an issuance
of a protective order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Samuel C. RandazzoSamuel C. Randazzo(Counsel of Record) (Reg. No. 0016386)Scott E. Elisar (Reg. No. 0081877)
MCNEES WALLACE &NURICK LLC21 East State Street, 17THFloorColumbus, OH 43215Telephone: (614) 469-8000Telecopier: (614) [email protected]@mwncmh.com
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
12/46
9886874v3 1
BEFORE
THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD
In the Matter of the Application of 6011 Greenwich
Windpark, LLC for an Amendment to its Certificate toInstall and Operate a Wind-Powered Electric
Generation Facility in Huron County, Ohio
)
))
)
Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGA
6011 GREENWICH WINDPARK, LLC REPLY TO
GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rules 4906-2-17 and 4906-2-19, 6011
Greenwich Windpark, LLC (Greenwich) by and through its counsel, hereby responds to the
First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents of (the Discovery
Requests) of Greenwich Neighbors United (GNU) in the above-captioned proceeding.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Greenwichs responses to the Discovery Requests are being provided subject to, and
without waiver of, the general objections stated below, any specific objections posed in response
to an individual interrogatory, document request, or request for admission, and any general
objections not expressly set forth herein. The general objections listed below are hereby
incorporated by reference into the individual response to the Discovery Requests. Greenwich
hereby fully preserves all of its objections as well as the use of its responses to the Discovery
Requests for any purpose whatsoever.
1. Greenwich objects to and declines to respond to each and every interrogatory or request
for the production of documents by GNU to the extent that the requests seek information that
violates the rules of evidentiary simplicity and reasonable intelligence. See Penn Cent. Transp.
Co. v. Armco Steel Corp., 27 Ohio Misc. 76, 77 (Montgomery County Ct. C.P. 1971). The
APPENDIX A
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
13/46
9886874v3 2
function of interrogatories is to pose simple questions relating to a particular subject that may be
answered by a brief categorical statement. See Stai v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 82AP-816, 1983
Ohio App. LEXIS 15659 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 1985).
2. Greenwich objects to each and every interrogatory or request for the production of
documents to the extent the requests are outside the scope of this proceeding and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. OAC Rule 4906-2-14(B).
3. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests that are vague, ambiguous, overly
broad, and otherwise not susceptible to meaningful response. OAC Rule 4906-2-14(B).
4. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests to the extent that such requests
purport to or impose upon Greenwich any obligations broader than those set forth in the rules of
the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB or Board) or otherwise permitted by law.
5. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests to the extent that such requests seek
or purport to require the disclosure of information or documents protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege
or doctrine. Such responses as may hereafter be given shall not include any information protected
by such privileges or doctrines, and the inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such privilege or doctrine. OAC Rule 4906-2-14(B).
6. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests to the extent that they improperly
seek or purport to require access to confidential, competitively sensitive, and/or proprietary
business information and trade secrets belonging to Greenwich. The furnishing of responses to
these Discovery Requests is not intended, nor should it be construed, to waive Greenwichs right
to protect from disclosure certain documents and information containing confidential or
proprietary trade secrets or business information. Greenwich reserves the right to redact from the
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
14/46
9886874v3 3
documents it produces or information it provides any confidential or proprietary business
information or trade secrets not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding.
7. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests to the extent that they improperly
seek or purport to require Greenwich to provide documents and information not in Greenwich's
possession, custody, or control.
8. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests that either individually or
collectively are oppressive, or would require an undue burden or expense to respond.
9. Greenwich objects to any and all Discovery Requests to the extent that such requests are
not limited to any stated time period, or such requests identify a stated period of time that is longer
than is relevant for purposes of this docket, as such discovery is unduly broad and overly
burdensome.
10. Greenwich objects to any interrogatories, which are duplicative of others, or overlapping,
the result of which is that information covered by one interrogatory is also covered by another
interrogatory, thereby causing an oppressive and undue burden on Greenwich to respond.
11. Greenwich reserves its right to challenge the relevancy, materiality, and admissibility at
trial, or in any subsequent proceeding, of any information it produces in response to the Discovery
Requests.
12. Greenwich's responses will be based on information known to it at the time it responds.
Greenwich reserves its right to amend and/or supplement its responses if it learns of new
documents or information relevant hereto, through discovery or otherwise.
13. All responses of Greenwich to the Discovery Requests are made subject to and without
waiving these objections.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
15/46
9886874v3 4
INTERROGATORIES
1-1 Has Greenwich signed an Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) with PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PJM)?
RESPONSE: No, Greenwich has not signed an Interconnection Service Agreement
(ISA) with PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM).
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-2 If the answer to interrogatory 1-1 is no, when does Greenwich expect to sign the ISA?
RESPONSE: The Project expects to sign the ISA within the next 90 days.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-3 Has Greenwich signed a Wholesale Market Participation Agreement (WMPA) with PJM?
RESPONSE: Greenwich objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is
irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; turbine technology changes will make no
difference whatsoever on this subject-matter.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-4 If the answer to interrogatory 1-3 is no, when does Greenwich expect to sign a WMPA?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-5 Does Greenwich agree that PJMs interconnection analysis evaluated adherence with
applicable reliability criteria for summer peak conditions in 2015?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-6 Has Greenwich submitted an interconnection request to PJM that would cause PJM toevaluate interconnection and reliability implications based on the additional turbine types
identified in the application submitted in this proceeding?
RESPONSE: No, the Project has not submitted such an interconnection request.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
16/46
9886874v3 5
1-7 If the answer to interrogatory 1-6 is no, explain why no such request has been submitted toPJM.
RESPONSE: Project submitted a notice of a scope change to review a change in
turbine technology to PJM.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-8 With regard to pages 1 and 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023, http://www.pjm.com/pub/planning/project-
queues/feas_docs/x3023_fea.pdf#search=%22X3-023%22), what is Greenwichs method ofresolving the potential overload on the Boughtonville (Firelands COOP) line?
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-9 With regard to pages 1 and 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), will Greenwich install the SCADA system
recommended by American Electric Power (AEP) and regarding the potential overload
on the Boughtonville (Firelands CO-OP) line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-10 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich eliminate thepotential overload of the Brookside - Howard 138 kV FE-AEP tie line?
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-11 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), has AEP and FirstEnergy (FE) provided
Greenwich with a solution for resolving the potential overload of the Brookside - Howard138 kV FE-AEP tie line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
17/46
9886874v3 6
1-12 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Bridgeville-Chandlersville 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-13 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Bethel Church West Dover 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-14 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Chandlersville Philo 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-15 With regard to page 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Hillview - Newcomerstown 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-16 With regard to page 3 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Newcomerstown South Coshocton 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-17 With regard to page 3 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Broken Sword Nevada (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
18/46
9886874v3 7
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-18 With regard to page 3 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), will Greenwich install the SCADA system
recommended by AEP and regarding the potential overload on the Broken Sword Nevada(North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-19 With regard to page 3 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Sycamore Tap East Tiffin 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-20 With regard to page 3 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the Sycamore Tap
East Tiffin 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system recommended by AEP?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-21 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Carrothers St. Stephen (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-23 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), and the potential overload of the Carrothers St.Stephen (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system
recommended by PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
19/46
9886874v3 8
1-24 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Crestline Howard 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-25 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), and the potential overload of the Crestline
Howard 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system recommended by PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-26 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Crestline North Robinson 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-27 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the North Robinson West Galion Tap 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-28 With regard to page 4 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the North Robinson West Galion Tap 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system recommended by
PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-29 With regard to page 5 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Academia Apple Valley 138 kV line?
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
20/46
9886874v3 9
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-30 With regard to page 5 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Apple Valley North Lexington 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-31 With regard to page 5 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Fostoria Central Melmore 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-32 With regard to page 5 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Greenlawn Tiffin 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-33 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Howard North Lexington 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-34 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Brookside Howard 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
21/46
9886874v3 10
1-35 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Millwood North Bellville 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-36 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Chatfield South Tiffin 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-37 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Howard North Bellville 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-38 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the General Electric Tiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-39 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the General ElectricTiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system suggested by
PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-40 With regard to page 6 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the General ElectricTiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line, does the General Electric Tiffin 69 kV station serve a
specific customer or customers?
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
22/46
9886874v3 11
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-41 If the answer to interrogatory 1-40 is yes, has Greenwich notified the specific customer orcustomers of the potential overload?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-42 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the General Electric Tiffin Maule Road 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-43 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Greely Tiffin Center 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-44 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the Greely TiffinCenter 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system suggested by PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-45 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Riverview - Tiffin Tap 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
23/46
9886874v3 12
1-46 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Tiffin Center Maule Road 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-47 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Bucyrus Center Broken Sword 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-48 With regard to page 7 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve thepotential overload of the Broken Sword Nevada (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-49 With regard to pages 7 and 8 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the Broken Sword
Nevada (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system
suggested by PJM?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-50 With regard to page 8 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Nevada (North Central CO-OP) Upper Sandusky 69 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-51 With regard to page 8 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the sag check associated with the Academia-Apple Valley 138 kV line, has the sag check been performed?
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
24/46
9886874v3 13
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-52 If the answer to interrogatory 1-51 is yes, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
problem regarding the Academia Apple Valley 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-53 With regard to page 8 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the sag check associated with the Apple Valley
North Lexington 138 kV line, has the sag check been performed?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-54 If the answer to interrogatory 1-53 is yes, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
problem regarding the Apple Valley North Lexington 138 kV line?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-55 With regard to page 19 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential thermal violation associated with
the CARROTHR-ST STPH8 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential thermal violation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-56 With regard to page 20 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential thermal violation associated with
the TIFFIN T-RIVERVIE 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the potentialthermal violation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
25/46
9886874v3 14
1-57 With regard to page 20 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichsinterconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential thermal violation associated with
the ST STPH8-BLOOMVL 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential thermal violation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-58 With regard to page 20 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential thermal violation associated withthe NEVADA8-U SANDSK 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential thermal violation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-59 With regard to page 20 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential thermal violation associated with
the South Tiffin-Airco (North Central Co-Op) 138 kV line, by what method will Greenwichresolve the potential thermal violation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-60 With regard to the Greenlawn relay thermal limit engineering study identified in page 27 ofthe report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs interconnection request (PJM X3-
023), has the engineering study been completed?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-61 Is the PJM report available via the Internet at http://www.pjm.com/pub/planning/project-
queues/feas_docs/x3023_fea.pdf#search=%22X3-023%22 a true and accurate copy of thereport that PJM issued in response to Greenwichs request?
RESPONSE: Yes.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-62 Has Greenwich obtained any waivers from the minimum setback requirements pursuant to a
procedure which the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has specified by rule?
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
26/46
9886874v3 15
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-63 Have all owners of property adjacent to the wind farm property waived application of theminimum setback requirements?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-64 Has Greenwich finalized a Phase 1 cultural resources survey program for archeological
work at the turbine locations, access roads, substations, collection lines and laydown areas(see certificate condition 12)?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-65 Has Greenwich performed any studies to identify ambient nighttime noise levels other thanthe study submitted in OPSB Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN?
RESPONSE: Greenwich did not perform an additional study to identify ambient
nighttime noise levels. The noise level requirements were established by the Ohio
Power Siting Board in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN, and the Project will continue to
adhere to those requirements.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-66 Has Greenwich obtained the land or land rights that may be needed to expand the AEP
Willard substation?
RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
27/46
9886874v3 16
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1-67 Provide a copy of all discovery requests and OPSB Staff data requests received by
Greenwich in the above-captioned proceeding and Greenwichs responses to the discovery
requests and OPSB Staff data requests.
RESPONSE: Greenwichs response to this interrogatory is attached.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-68 Provide a copy of any studies that identify ambient nighttime noise levels other than thestudy submitted to the OPSB in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN.
RESPONSE: Greenwich objects that this Request for Production because it seeks
information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; turbine
technology changes will make no difference whatsoever on this subject-matter.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-69 Provide a copy of each setback waiver that Greenwich has obtained from each propertyowner adjoining the wind farm property.
RESPONSE: Greenwich objects that this Request for Production because it seeks
information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; turbine
technology changes will make no difference whatsoever on this subject-matter.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-70 Provide a copy of each communication between Greenwich and the Ohio Farm BureauFederation (OFBF) that is related to OPSB Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN or Case No. 15-
1921-EL-BGA.
RESPONSE: Greenwich objects that this Request for Production because it seeks
information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; turbine
technology changes will make no difference whatsoever on this subject-matter.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-71 For each turbine type identified in the application filed in this proceeding, provide the
manufacturers most current safety manual.
RESPONSE: This document is publicly available in the amendment application
submitted in this proceeding.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
28/46
9886874v3 17
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-72 Provide a copy of each communication between Greenwich and the OPSB Staff (other than
data requests provided in response to request 1-67).
RESPONSE: In the above-captioned proceeding, there are no additional
communications between Greenwich and OPSB Staff.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-73 Provide a copy of each communication Greenwich has received from PJM.
RESPONSE: Greenwichs response to this interrogatory is attached.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-74 Provide a copy of each communication Greenwich has received from AEP regarding the
proposed wind farm identified in OPSB Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN or OPSB Case No. 15-
1921-EL-BGA.
RESPONSE: Greenwich has not received any communications from AEP.
Response prepared by Counsel.
1-75 Provide a copy of each communication Greenwich has received from FE regarding the
proposed wind farm identified in OPSB Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN or OPSB Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGA.
RESPONSE: Greenwich has not received from any communications from
FirstEnergy.
Response prepared by Counsel.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
29/46
9886874v3 18
Respectfully submitted on behalf of6011 GREENWICH WINDPARK, LLC
Sally W. Bloomfield (Reg. No. 0022038)
Dylan F. Borchers (Reg. No. 0090690)BRICKER & ECKLER LLP
100 South Third Street
Columbus, OH 43215-4291
Telephone: (614) 227-2368; 227-4914Facsimile: (614) 227-2390
E-Mail: [email protected]
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
30/46
9886874v3 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Response been served upon
the following parties listed below by electronic mail, this 10th
day of February 2016.
Sally W. Bloomfield
Samuel RandazzoScott Elisar
McNees, Wallace & Nurick LLC
21 East State Street, 17th
FloorColumbus, OH 43215
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
31/46
1
Monica Jensen
From: Monica JensenSent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:13 PMTo: 'Conway, Andrew'Subject: FW: follow up
Andrew
second
original
e
forwarded
please
confirm
receipt
and
use
of
document
Best,
Monica
From:Calvin Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:25 AM
To:Monica JensenSubject:RE: follow up
Monica, TheywereawareofthesituationsoIsurehopeso!
From:[email protected]
Date:Wed,13May201508:23:000400
Subject:RE:followup
IamassumingtheyincludedtheOPSBsetbacksfromoursites
From:Calvin Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:19 PMTo:Monica Jensen
Subject:RE: follow up
HiMonica, Wehavesurveyedcenterline. Ihavenotgotresultsyet. Ishouldhaveanideainthenext2or3
weeks.Iwillletyouknowassoonastheytellme.
From:[email protected]
Date:Tue,12May201513:15:590400
Subject:RE:followup
HiCalvin,
ThoughtIwould
check
in
and
see
what
is
up
on
your
route,
timing,
OPSB
application
etc.
Best,
Monica
From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf OfCalvin CooperSent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:26 PMTo:Monica JensenSubject:RE: follow up
Response to Interrogatory 1-67
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
32/46
2
HiMonica,IgaveinformationtomySupervisortoday. Theymaycallyouintime. Thanksforyourhelp.
From:[email protected]
Date:Mon,6Apr201508:19:400400
Subject:followup
Dylan F. BorchersBricker & Eckler LLP | 100 South Third Street | Columbus, OH 43215Direct Dial 614.227.4914 | [email protected] | v-card | www.bricker.comThink green please print only if necessary.
Calvin Thanks for meeting last Thursday Hopefully your GIS/Map guy can send me your shape files of thecurrent proposed route. Not sure how we should continue to interface on the route? Especially through theturbine/ substation area?
Above is the contact info for the best OPSB attorney firm. If your permitting department has not contactedthem, I encourage them to do so - asap. As I shared before 2 years to get through the process for me from myfirst meeting with the OPSB. Bricker & Eckler will make it as painless as possible. $$ well spent.
Hope you had a fine Easter !
Best,Monica
Monica Jensen
Vice President, Development | Windlab Developments USA Ltd927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United StatesOffice: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | [email protected] | www.windlab.com
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
33/46
1
Monica Jensen
From: Monica JensenSent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:11 PMTo: 'Conway, Andrew'Subject: FW: maps of Greenwich
Attachments: 20140305 Greenwich__Lease_Tracker MJ.xlsx
Andrew
Ihave
just
forwarded
the
original
to
you
please
let
me
know
ifthis
works.
Best,
Monica
From:Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:32 AMTo:Calvin CooperSubject:RE: maps of Greenwich
Hereyougosorryforthedelay
From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf OfCalvin CooperSent:Monday, March 30, 2015 6:15 PMTo:Monica JensenSubject:RE: maps of Greenwich
HiMonica, DidYousendthelistoflandowners?IfyoudidIcannotfindit. Pleaseletmeknow.
From:[email protected]
Date:
Tue,
24
Mar
2015
11:03:08
0400
Subject:RE:mapsofGreenwich
Resending,pleaseseebelow.
From:Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Monday, March 23, 2015 1:27 PMTo:'[email protected]'Subject:maps of Greenwich
Calvin
AttachedisagroupofmapsthatweresubmittedtotheOhioPowerSitingBoard.
Alsoshapefilesoftheproject.
NotethesubstationonSeidelsisdepictedontheattachedmapaswell.
IwillbeinNorwalk/Greenwich/Willardtomorrowwouldyouhavetimetomeet?
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
34/46
2
Best,
Monica
Monica Jensen
Vice President, Development | Windlab Developments USA Ltd927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United States
Office: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | [email protected]|www.windlab.com
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
35/46
1
Monica Jensen
From: Monica JensenSent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:23 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: Erin WiedowerSubject: RE: Manufacturer Contact information
Grant,Andrew
&
Erin,
IwouldliketointroduceErinWiedower,GoldwindUSA. Shewillbeabletoprovideinformationandanswerany
questionsyoumayhaveinregardstotheGoldwindturbine. Herdirectphoneis9794929547,GoldwindUSAis
locatedinChicago(centraltime).
Pleaseletmeknowifyouneedanyfurtherassistance.
Best,
Monica Jensen
Vice President, Development | Windlab Developments USA Ltd927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United States
Office: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | [email protected] | www.windlab.com
From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:05 AM
To:Monica JensenSubject:FW: Manufacturer Contact information
HiMonica,
Couldyoupleaseprovidetheinformationrequestedbelow?HappyHolidays!
ThankYou,
Grant
GrantZeto
OhioPower
Siting
Board
UtilitySpecialist
(614)6447743
OPSB.ohio.gov
_
From:Conway, AndrewSent:Tuesday, December 22, 2015 4:22 PMTo:Zeto, GrantSubject:Manufacturer Contact information
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
36/46
2
WouldGreenwichWindpark,pleaseprovidecontactinformationfortheGoldwindturbinemanufacturer?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
AndrewConway,P.E.
PublicUtilities
Commission
of
Ohio
RatesandAnalysisDepartment
Siting,Efficiency,andRenewableEnergyDivision
EngineeringSpecialist,Siting
(614)4665732
Email:[email protected]
PUCO.ohio.gov
_
Thismessageandanyresponsetoitmayconstituteapublicrecordandthusmaybepubliclyavailabletoanyonewho
requestsit.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
37/46
1
Monica Jensen
From: [email protected]: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:40 AMTo: Monica JensenCc: [email protected]: RE: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
Yes,
that
works.
From:Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Monday, January 25, 2016 10:23 AMTo:Conway, AndrewCc:Zeto, GrantSubject:Re: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
3:00 pm today - will that work for you?
On Monday, January 25, 2016, [email protected] wrote:
Monica -
What time today can you call us to briefly discuss this issue?
My phone number is (614) 466-5732
-Andrew Conway
From:Conway, AndrewSent:Friday, January 22, 2016 1:27 PMTo:'Monica Jensen';[email protected]:Zeto, GrantSubject:RE: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
Thanks. We can wait to discuss on Monday.
-Andrew Conway
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
38/46
2
From:Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Friday, January 22, 2016 12:26 PMTo:Conway, Andrew;[email protected]:Zeto, GrantSubject:RE: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
Andrew,
My apologies for the delayed reply I am currently on vacation through the end of the week, also John is nolonger with Windlab.
Back in March of this year I met with the land acquisition person (his name escapes me right now), at the timeof our meeting, we discussed where all the Greenwich towers and infrastructure would be located, as well as the
OPSB guidelines and requirements. Where the pipeline was located it did not conflict with any tower locations. After the meeting I provided shape files as well for their use in planning. Also, I gave the setback guidelinesrequired for our project as well as contact information for the OPSB, as I surmised they would need to gothrough the OPSB process as well for permitting. I as much said to him, this project is permitted and he isrequired to work around our permitted project and abide by the OPSB requirements.
I left a VM for you this morning as well and we can speak on Monday.
Best,
Monica
Monica Jensen
Vice President, Development | Windlab Developments USA Ltd
927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United States
Office: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | [email protected] | www.windlab.com
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
39/46
3
From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Friday, January 22, 2016 9:58 AMTo:[email protected]:[email protected]; [email protected]:Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipelineImportance:High
John (or Monica)
Left you a voicemail message. My name is Andrew Conway, and I am an engineer with the Ohio Power SitingBoard. Our duties include reviewing the location of proposed energy infrastructure (including wind farms) inour State. Our website is: http://www.opsb.ohio.gov/
As you know we are investigating the proposed Greenwich Windpark amendment (Windlab Developments)which is in the vicinity of the proposed Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline project.
From earlier conversations with Monica Jensen, it is my understanding that Greenwich Windpark has met withKinder Morgan, that no conflicts with the pipeline are anticipated, and that the pipeline is at least 543 feet fromthe nearest turbine which is 1.1 times the tip height of the tallest model.
Would you please confirm?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Andrew Conway, P.E.
Ohio Power Siting Board
Engineering Specialist, Siting
(614) 466-5732
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
40/46
4
Email: [email protected]
OPSB.ohio.gov
_
This message and any response to it may constitute a public record and thus may be publicly available to anyone who
requests it.
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
--*Monica Jensen* | North AmericaVice President, Development3692 W. Liberty RoadAnn Arbor, MI 48103
Mobile: 734-787-9396Office: 734-222-9463 X2Fax: 734-761-8133www.windlab.com
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
41/46
1
Monica Jensen
From: Monica JensenSent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:10 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: follow up
Attachments: Greenwich 2.pdf; greenwich1.pdf
Andrew,
Sorryforthedelayingettingbacktoyou. UnfortunatelyIfoundmyselfwithstrepanda102feveryesterday.
AttachedaretwomapsIacquiredfromKinderMorgan. Theyhavechangedtheroutetoextendthesetbacksfrom
turbines#18,#17and#16. Whiletheydidnotsupplymewithgisdatapointsaccordingtotheirkeyitlookslikeboth
infrastructurescancoexsistwiththesetbackrequirements. Therouteinred,withdottedlinesistheoriginalroute
therouteinpinkisthenewroute.
Ihaveaskedfortheshapefilesforourconstructionplanningaswell. OnceIreceiveIwillshare.
Best,
Monica
From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:21 PMTo:Monica Jensen
Cc:[email protected]:RE: follow up
Monica
Unfortunately,Iamunabletoviewtheseemailchains. Wouldyoupleasesendthroughanotherformat(e.g.copyinto
MSWord,scan,orfax)?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
AndrewConway,P.E.PublicUtilitiesCommissionofOhio
RatesandAnalysisDepartment
Siting,Efficiency,andRenewableEnergyDivision
EngineeringSpecialist,
Siting
(614)4665732
Fax:(614)7528353
Email:[email protected]
PUCO.ohio.gov
_
Thismessageandanyresponsetoitmayconstituteapublicrecordandthusmaybepubliclyavailabletoanyonewho
requestsit.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
42/46
2
From:Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 4:09 PM
To:Conway, AndrewCc:Zeto, GrantSubject:FW: follow up
Andrew/
Grant,
AttachedaretwoemailchainsthatchroniclesmycorrespondencewithCalvinCooper,representativeoftheUtopia
Pipeline. IneverheardbackfromMr.Cooper,howeverasfollowup,tomorrowIammeetingwithAlPowersattheir
officetoactuallylookattheirmapsinperson. Willkeepyouposted.
Best,
Monica
Monica Jensen
Vice President, Development | Windlab Developments USA Ltd927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United StatesOffice: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | [email protected]|www.windlab.com
, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy theinformation in any medium.
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
43/46
GNU interrogatory1-73.txtFrom: Hay, Joseph S.Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:07 PMTo: Monica JensenSubject: RE: 2015GVTFV8PC22BG - Impact Study Submission - X3-023 - ModelCheck - deficienciesAttachments: X3-023 (DRAFT) South Greenwich-Willard 69 kV Facilities Study Report
011416 .pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged
Hi Monica,
Attached is a Draft of the final X3-023 Facilities Study Report. I have drafted theInterconnection ServiceAgreement (ISA) and Interconnection Construction Service Agreement (ICSA), andforwarded to our legaldepartment for their review. I calculated a security of $2,768,684 which will berequired with theexecuted ISA. You will have 60 days to execute the ISA and 90 days to execute theICSA. The
instructions for executing the agreements will be in the cover letter. I expect toissue these before theend of the month.
The turbine swap will need to be handled as a scope change during the constructionphase. I need youto confirm that the Windlab is definitely switching to the Goldwind Turbines beforethe analysis teamswill determine the mitigations, if any, that will be required to accommodate theturbine change.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding this report.
Regards,
JoeJoseph HaySenior Engineer, Interconnection Projects
(610) 666-4265 | C: (610)635-6571 | [email protected] Interconnection | 2750 Monroe Blvd. | Audubon, PA 19403
From: Monica Jensen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 2:25 PMTo: Hay, Joseph S.Subject: RE: 2015GVTFV8PC22BG - Impact Study Submission - X3-023 - Model Check -deficiencies
External Email! Think before clicking links or attachments.
Joe,
Thanks for the update, greatly appreciate. We are trying to COD this by Dec 2016.Is there any way wecould see a draft ISA my thought is the selection of turbine is not critical tothat? Obviously we wouldlike get the CSA executed as well. I believe the draft Facility Study had 11 monthsto completion forconstruction.
Page 1
Response to Interrogatory 1-73
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
44/46
GNU interrogatory1-73.txtIt would be great to see any draft type for pre-cursory review.
Hope you can help?
Monica
Page 2
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
45/46
{C49379:2 }
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Greenwich Neighbors Uniteds
Memorandum Contra to 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLCs Motion for a Protective Order
has been served via electronic mail upon the following parties of record this 12 thday of
February 2016.
/s/ Samuel C. RandazzoSamuel C. Randazzo
Sally W. BloomfieldDylan BorchersBricker & Eckler LLP100 South Third StreetColumbus OH [email protected]@bricker.com
ATTORNEYS FOR 6011GREENWICHWINDPARK,LLC
Chad A. Endsley (0080648)Chief Legal CounselLeah F. Curtis (0086257)
Amy M. Milam (0082375)Ohio Farm Bureau Federation280 North High Street, P.O. Box 182383Columbus, OH [email protected]@[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR THE OHIO FARM BUREAUFEDERATION
William L. WrightAssistant Attorney GeneralChief, Public Utilities SectionOffice of the Attorney General180 East Broad Street, 6thFloorColumbus, OH [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR THE STAFF OF THE OHIOPOWER SITING BOARD
Bryce McKenneyAttorney ExaminerOhio Power Siting Board180 East Broad StreetColumbus, OH [email protected]
ATTORNEY EXAMINER
7/25/2019 Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response to Protective Order by Wind Developer
46/46
This foregoing document was electronically filed with the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio Docketing Information System on
2/12/2016 3:13:36 PM
in
Case No(s). 15-1921-EL-BGA
Summary: Memorandum Contra to 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLCs Motion for a ProtectiveOrder electronically filed by Mr. Samuel C. Randazzo on behalf of Greenwich NeighborsUnited
Top Related