March 28, 2025

Good News - Bad News

County vs PUC Ruling

On March 26th Clackamas County ruled that PGE did not meet the requirements to comply with the Non Conforming rules and as a result denied their permit application. After almost 2 years and a considerable amount of funds and effort by Save Stafford Road (SSR), we have finally achieved our first goal. PGE has until Monday April 7th to appeal this decision to the county’s Hearing Officer but based upon the very thorough response by the county in evaluating PGE’s application it would appear that there is little opportunity for a reversal of this decision. This is a very huge ruling as it sets a precedent for future land use rulings. 

However, we did get bad news today, March 28th that the PUC (Public Utility Commission) has granted PGE a Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) permit even though they have never before even allowed a CPCN permit application before a land use permit was ruled upon. SSR is incredulous on this decision as the PUC bent every rule imaginable during this entire process to pave the way for PGE. There are so many incongruities during this entire process that it is very difficult not to feel there have been a number of very politically questionable decisions made by the 3 commissioners. At this point, SSR is evaluating its appeal opportunities and of course we continue to solicit funds to continue our opposition to PUC’s highly questionable ruling.

The net-net to all of this is PGE can issue Advanced Possession of homeowners’ properties but without a land use permit PGE is not legally allowed to start any construction on easement properties. SSR remains committed to fighting this destruction of Stafford Road.

February 10, 2025

Letter to Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director, Clackamas County Planning and Zoning Division

Good afternoon Ms. Hughes. 

February 10, 2025 

The recent LUBA ruling (2024-069) was very disappointing. I (Kelly) am writing in the event that the County does not appeal that decision and proceeds with processing PGE’s application for alteration of non-conforming use for the proposed Rosemont Wilsonville transmission line. At this time it is not Save Stafford Road’s intention to appeal this ruling although there may be further discussions between our council and the county. As an intervenor in the PUC PCN 6 case in which PGE has applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, I have been very involved in the PUC process as a private citizen and not as part of Save Stafford Road. As I believe you know, the Commission is scheduled to issue a decision on this Certificate on March 14th.  

Having been involved in the County process (starting last year with the proposed ZDO changes) while simultaneously being very immersed in every step of the PUC process, we are very concerned about the disparity of information that is being presented to the County versus the PUC by PGE. Because each of these agency processes are independent, there appears to be little or no coordination of information between each agency. Therefore, we would like to share some information that may have an impact on the County’s approval or denial of PGE’s application for alteration of non-conforming use permit for the Rosemont-Wilsonville line.  

On June 11th, 2024 PGE was granted a waiver of the normal PUC requirement that applicants obtain County land use approval before a CPCN application can be submitted. PGE stated that they needed to run a “parallel process“ because of the urgency of backing up the Willamette Water Treatment Plant that resides across the street from the new Tonquin Power Station in Sherwood. As you may recall, when the VP of PGE and his staff met before the Clackamas County Board at a public meeting, there was never a mention of the Willamette Water Treatment Plant or any urgency thereof. Save Stafford Road found the urgency argument to be dubious as the Willamette Water Treatment Plant, in its own land use permit application to the city of Sherwood stipulated it had its own backup generators in case the Tonquin station failed. And later in PUC testimony, PGE witnesses have claimed that the Rosemont Wilsonville line is a minor part of the whole Tonquin project and the project would continue with or without the Rosemont Wilsonville line.  

Prior to the PUC rule changes in 2022 (mostly adopted by recommendations from utility companies), utilities were required to get land use approval prior to initiating a CPCN application. There has only been one other CPCN case since the rule changes and this case is uniquely different: At the outset of PGE’s CPCN application the PUC stipulated that they would not issue a CPCN until the land use permit was issued. But recent testimony by PUC staff has now indicated that the PUC is preparing to issue a CPNC before the land use permit is ruled on. If a CPCN is granted prior to land use approval, PGE will obtain advanced occupancy through condemnation through authority of the Court. This means that PGE would own easements on private property with the potential of not ultimately obtaining County land use approval. The PUC maintains that they reserve the right to revoke or alter the CPCN, but in this case, the Courts will have already granted PGE advanced occupancy. What is the landowner to do at this point? Could PGE keep these easements for a future project? Could they get a “head start“ on the project by removing trees on private property? If a CPCN is issued before land use approval, this will place the landowner in an untenable situation in which PGE owns the homeowner’s land but may not be able to use it? The recently adapted ZDO-288 legislative rule stipulates that no construction can begin without the land use permit but does this stop PGE from getting a “heads  start” by cutting down hundreds of trees on the newly acquired private property easements before permit ruling? The PUC’s proposed remedy for this untenable situation is that the property owner could “buy back” the easement from PGE. This will turn the previous protocol upside down and with the recent LUBA decision has given PGE everything they could ask for by usurping the county’s priority position on land use decisions.  

The LUCS that was issued by the County clearly stated: “If the proposed transmission project is verified as a nonconforming use and an alteration of that nonconforming use is approved, then the acknowledged comprehensive plans’s general provisions will not be substantially affected by issuance of a certificate because they will not apply” One of the CPCN requirements is for the PUC commission to determine the permit will be compatible with the local Comprehensive Plan. The PUC interpreted the County statement “will not apply” to mean that the project “will be in compliance“ with the comprehensive plan. As you know, the alteration of non-conforming use permits does not require compliance with the comprehensive plan. Hence, the PUC assertion that if the permit is obtained, the project will be in compliance with the plan is significantly flawed. Additionally, In this instance, both the County and the PUC have made predictions about this project’s compliance with the comprehensive plan but neither agency has actually substantively evaluated any of the comprehensive plan requirements – specifically the requirements of the rural scenic road policy – 5.1 of the comprehensive plan. The lack of communication between these two agencies has allowed for a vacuum of misinterpretation.  

While the county has a robust process for public input, the PUC CPCN process is a very technical, legal process, which essentially eliminates the possibility of any citizen having meaningful input throughout the process. OAR 860-001-0000(2) states: “For limited purposes in specific proceedings, the Commission or ALJ may modify or waive any of the rules in this division for good cause shown”  PGE has abused this privilege by stating this project is urgent without adequate justification. Additionally, this “urgency“ appears to be a new justification as it was not mentioned anywhere in the prior county application process. Additionally, the discretion of interpretation of the LUCS has also been abused by PGE. They stated in their appeal to the LUBA judges for the county’s voiding of the permit application that they are in a “Catch-22“. There Is No Catch 22 because the PUC commission has accepted the LUCS. This is a perfect example of PGE playing both sides of the coin.  

Prior PUC intervenors, and myself, have requested multiple times for the public utility commission to hire an outside technical expert to review PGE’s necessity data. They refuse to do this. PGE‘s load forecasting, data and contingency planning is significantly flawed. The data has combined the potential Rosemont Wilsonville line with a new proposed McLaughlin – Tonkin line. This has obscured the relative necessity of the Rosemont Wilsonville line alone. Rather than hiring a technical expert to confirm PGE’s data, the public utility staff has concluded that it seems “reasonable”. Needless to say the bar for condemnation of homeowners’ property should be higher than “seems reasonable”. The PUC essentially has rolled over and has just taken all of PGE’s statements “as reasonable”. And one of PUC’s most galling statements is “they don’t have the resources to do their own investigation”. If this is the case then what is the purpose of the PUC?  

PGE’s requests for “waivers“ from the normal process at the county (Original ZDO-288) and the PUC has done nothing but enhance PGE’s power over the public. Everytime a waiver or new rule from the normal procedure is granted, this becomes a new precedent. If the CPCN is granted by the PUC, every project proposed in Clackamas County will be characterized as a simple “upgrade“ when the projects actually involve significant violations of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan – which includes preservation of the small remaining triangle of scenic farmland along Stafford Road. There are future transmission projects being planned on Pete’s Mountain Road and other specifically designated rural scenic roads in Clackamas County. If this project is allowed to  proceed, a precedent will be set for PGE to violate the comprehensive plan on all of our county scenic roads. This is in direct opposition to the overall Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan goals.  

Additionally, the purpose of the alteration of non-conforming use permit is for “ALTERATIONS”, not new construction. In PUC witness testimony, PGE has consistently stated that the Rosemont Wilsonville line “will have a total length of 7.4 miles, approximately 5.0 miles of which will be new construction (emphasis added).”[1] Before the County embarks on a lengthy analysis of the nonconforming use criteria, it is critical to first examine the reality that this project is not an “alteration” at all but, rather, proposes constructing a new transmission line on Stafford Road.  

If the County does determine that somehow a new construction project falls within the definition of an “alteration of nonconforming use” , it is incumbent upon the County to examine ALL the factors that would affect the “adverse impact” question. When the County initially issued an “incomplete” letter to PGE, the only “adverse impact“ factor that was addressed was the removal of trees. While removing 250+ trees will certainly have a profound “adverse impact” on the neighborhood, a complete application should require a robust examination of many more factors. These include, but are not limited to: 

1.     40-60 foot in ground wood poles replaced by 100-120 foot steel poles 

2. Why 100 - 120 foot steel poles?

3. Why hundreds of trees cut down in existing right-of-way?

4. Impact on view properties

5. Impact on general property values 

6. Impacts of long term construction on local farms and residents. 

7. Increased fire danger with additional high voltage lines .

8. Three mile stretch from Ek Rd to SW 65th with no way out  

This project should also be examined in the larger context of ongoing County projects. This transmission line project will be initiated at the same time as the Childs/Stafford Roundabout, the Johnson/Stafford left turn lane, the opening of the new recreation center (across from Luscher Farms) which some have calculated an additional 500,000 additional vehicles per year. Add to this that Stafford Road has already become a traffic highway bypass due to constant congestion on I-205 and especially I-5. 

What we have seen over the past 18 months as a community of concerned citizens is PGE’s complete lack of any effort to engage with us to discuss alternatives and any concessions that might have been amenable to our over 100 concerned homeowners. I recently listened to the PGE vs Forest Park hearing and the same complaints were made by those in opposition to PGE’s plans to build high voltage transmission lines through the park. In both the Forest Park’s and the Stafford Road situations, PGE had these plans going back years and even though they have tried to convince both sets of concerned citizens, it has been obvious that PGE has one and only one plan and didn’t really have any appetite to negotiate with the public. 

The subject of high voltage transmission lines in order to satisfy the growing need of serving farms, high energy use hi-tech companies and EV’s is a National issue. These energy consuming technologies are strapping the public with rate increases that are bankrupting people everywhere. Locally we have been strapped with over 40% electrical rate increases alone over the past two years. 

While we recognize that the county decision making process is not ruled by “Necessity” of new high voltage power line construction, we feel it is imperative that the county know what is going on at the PUC and how all of this over the past 12 months has been as much about setting new standards and establishing precedent for utility companies to breeze through project approvals without much pushback. Right now the county is the last stop. It is highly probable the PUC will approve the CPCN on March 14th and the only way the public can be served is for the county to carefully interpret the rules of Alteration of Non Conforming Use and the overall impact this project will have on our rural road. There must be an alternative that will still work for PGE and will not destroy our road and impact so many peoples’ lives. 

Respectfully, 

Kelly Bartholomew and Ed Wagner  

Save Stafford Road  

[1] PCN 6/PGE/100/Beil/p. 8 lines 22-23   

January 18, 2025

After a year and a half, our small Stafford community continues the good fight against PGE - a multi-billion dollar utility company determined to destroy Stafford Road for its own profit. Unfortunately, the Public Utility Commission (PUC), who is tasked with protecting the PUBLIC, seems to be working hard to protect PGE. If the PUC continues down its current path, in March 2025 the Commissioners will issue a CPCN to allow PGE to condemn properties to construct over 7 miles of 100-140ft tall high voltage transmission lines on steel poles, and remove over 250 trees along Stafford Road.  

We need your help in two ways:

1. PLEASE contact the Public Utility Commission and let them know you feel about this project and why.  

Email: puc.consumer@puc.oregon.gov     

Subject:  “PCN-6 PGE CPCN for Stafford Road”

2. Please donate to our legal fund to help fight the PUC and the County at our GoFundMe link (click here). 

Thank you for your support!

January 18, 2025

Last month, PGE sued Clackamas County because the County voided their land use application, because PGE could not satisfy the requirement of obtaining signatures from the landowners of the properties from whom PGE needs easements. The Land Use Board of Appeals is set to make a decision on this case sometime in January, 2025. We are fairly certain that whomever loses this case will appeal the decision to the Courts. Our community is raising funds for the legal fees to fight PGE at the County level when they reapply for a permit in the spring of 2025 (after they are expected to receive a CPCN from The Public Utility Commission giving them eminent domain over the property owners). We cannot give up now! We can still stop this project at the County level. If you haven’t, please donate to offset our legal fees, come to any meetings, write letters and call politicians and the Public Utility Commission.

Aug. 7 2024

GREAT NEWS! PGE's response to the PUC was so weak that the judge has suspended the current schedule. That means that there is nothing scheduled with the Public Utility Commission as of now, and as further hearings are a necessary step for approval, we have won a substantial delay. This doesn't necessarily mean we win (yet), but it's a big bump in the road for PGE.

MEETING August 8 at 10:00 a.m. (in person and virtual)

There is a big Clackamas County Board meeting tomorrow where the Chair has asked Ed Wagner to speak. We have had great success when we all show up, so we urge you to attend. Keep that big momentum rolling, folks! Thank you for your support!

Virtual meeting sign-in here

Address:

BCC Hearing Room

2051 Kaen Road

Room 409

Oregon City, OR map

July 30 PUC Meeting Recap

Our recent meeting with the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) had an incredible turnout of concerned neighbors, and the PUC members were engaged and very curious about why PGE was able to accelerate the PUC application when it hasn't even cleared Clackamas County's land use permitting process yet (its application was deemed incomplete in July). Save Stafford was instrumental in preventing PGE from getting a waiver from the County, and now they are required to get a Non-Conforming Use Permit, which also requires all 12 members of our group who have easement requests to sign off before it can be approved. DON'T SIGN ANYTHING, folks - we have them in a tight spot now, but we have to keep fighting! If you haven't, please donate to offset our legal fees, and keep coming to our meetings. Your voices have been crucially important to our cause.  Posted August 5, 2024

Website Notification July 27, 2024 - PUC Meeting July 30th 6:00 PM

To All - this is a notification that there will be a public meeting this Tuesday July 30th at the Century Hotel, 8185 SW Tualatin-Sherwood Rd, Tualatin at 6:00 PM. This meeting is our public opportunity to voice our objections before the Oregon Public Utility Commissioners and presiding judge John Mellgren to the proposed PGE high voltage transmission lines that are currently scheduled for 2025. Our organization, Save Stafford Road has been legally contesting this project now for over a year and so far has had success in delaying this destruction of Stafford Road. The status of the permitting process is currently at the Clackamas County level. The permit is in a holding status until PGE can satisfy 3 issues - clarify the number of trees to be cut down, clarify tax lot issues and most importantly getting the signatures of all property owners from whom PGE has required easements. Save Stafford Road has 12 members who are on the easement list and all 12 have indicated a strong rejection to signing these waivers. So our opinion is PGE may have a problem getting a land use permit. As for the PUC, PGE has been granted a waiver to proceed with what is called a CPCN (Convenience and Necessity Permit) for the purposes of attaining the rights to condemn everyone’s properties. This in person meeting is our opportunity whether you live on Stafford Road or not to attend this meeting and voice your objection to this project. Everyone who lives or drives on Stafford Road should be aware that property values will plummet and also we will be faced with 1 - 2 years of construction traffic jams all up and down Stafford Road, in addition to all our long-term concerns about safety. Please show your community spirit and cohesiveness and attend this critically important meeting on Tuesday.

Contributions to our Legal fund can be made at: www.savestaffordroad.org

Thanks

Ed Wagner

Update from Ed Wagner, June 4, 2024

To All - Next week is a very critical week for our efforts to stop the Tonquin project on Stafford Road. On June 11th, there is a meeting with the PUC to address PGE's request for a waiver to commence the Convenience and Necessity Permit process. This is because the typical requirement for this application is only after the land use permit has been issued by the county. Our lawyer Greg Hathaway, John Lekas and myself will be in attendance as legal and official representatives of Save Stafford Road. We have informed the PUC and requested a delay in this decision as the very next day, June 12th is the Board Meeting where the final decision will be voted on to accept or reject the Planning Commissions recommendation regarding the ZDO-288 policy change. This will be a huge decision point as if the recommendation is approved, then PGE will need to continue with the Non Conforming or Conditional Use Permit process which will take until the end of the year. If however, the board rejects the recommendation and votes to approve the policy change, then PGE will be able to move forward immediately with the PUC permit approval process. We will file an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) but it is unclear at this moment what the timing and costs will be to contest this decision. We all have worked hard to communicate with both the Planning Commission and Board and have been given some assurances that the vote will go our way. But with all the politics with PGE it is not assured until the vote is cast. Complicating all of this is Tootie Smith, who we feel supports our position, had a heart attack and surgery on May 28th and we are hoping she will be able to vote by zoom.

>And if we lose the PUC waiver decision on June 11th, then there will be a kick off pre application on June 13th where Greg, John myself and our utility expert will all be in attendance. The waiver decision is critical because if it is denied, then PGE will not be able to proceed until the land use permit is granted and if we win the policy change with the county then we are looking potentially at the earliest end of 2025 or sometime in 2026 before PGE would be able to proceed.

There are a couple of other areas we are exploring to add fuel to the fire as one of our homeowners has unearthed an official document that says Stafford Road from Lake Oswego to Mountain Road is a Scenic Road and there are a number of criteria which scenic roads must be adhered to and we think we might have some legal basis similar to the Non Conforming Ordinance to stop all of this.

The June 12th Board Meeting is open to the public and also via zoom. I will send a separate email advising time, place and zoom link.

Lastly, by now I hope all of you have observed the 4 new large signs I have posted at AJ's, Mountain Rd and at the south end of Stafford asking for donations. So far there has not been any response to these signs and also after my last two email requests for additional funding we have only collected $5500 from 3 homeowners. Since October when we formed our Go Fund Me, we have raised just short of $60,000 and many of our contributors have donated 2,3,4 times. We are down to just less than one months legal bill and then things will get difficult. I'm in contact with someone who might be able to help us establish a social media effort so hopefully we can get something going on this.

Ed

Update from Ed Wagner after community hearing

Emailed to the community March 15, 2024, 10:35 a.m. Published: Mar. 23, 2024, 5:19 p.m. 

To All,

    Last night (3/15) before we got started one of our home owners indicated that some of my recent updates weren't as upbeat as usual and I suspect this may have been true. Over the past 10 months John Lekas and I have been spending an incredible amount of our personal time dealing with the legal and community side of things and John more on the political side. John is personally responsible for getting Tootie Smith to allow us our opportunity to speak our concerns. What you all have to understand is it isn't easy constantly asking everyone for money, many of you who I haven't even personally met. And to date it is hard to say we have made great progress as there are so many complicated issues to this effort. 

    But last night all of you reinvigorated me with your attendance and the wonderful testimonies a number of you presented to the county commissioners. It gave me the confidence that when you all have the opportunity to show our force of numbers you were there. We were able to execute our presentation plan with precision. We asked Tootie Smith for Greg Hathaway (our lawyer) to go first, me second, our homeowners next and close with John who really figuratively punched PGE in the nose. The PGE VP they sent was just as weak as all the other PGE personnel we have encountered. NO answers for our most direct question of what are the other routes that have been considered. John also submitted his 157 page Condemnation - Property devaluation report that says his property would lose $458,000 compared to the $8,000 PGE offered him.  

     The most encouraging point of last night and something all of you need to hear is our lawyer, Greg Hathaway, felt we hit a home run and he feels strongly that this project, at least from our concerns, will never happen.  It is a strong statement and I suspect our work is far from done as we may have to go to future public hearings to make our case again. 

     Also, Randy Yamada, CPO President of the Stafford Hamlet, whose group has been challenging the county tooth and nail for over 20 years sent me a note this morning to tell us that it was the best organized and comprehensive meeting he has ever seen. I will forward this to you all.

      And, almost lastly, I have both a fire risk and power energy consultant here next Tuesday and we will spend the day evaluating the fire risk of our stretch of Stafford Road and also be able to tie in the potential issues with adding high voltage power lines. 

      And lastly (really), I want to thank many of you who recently contributed to the legal and now other consultants fund. I feel really positive this morning and again, thank you sincerely for everyone showing up last night and the professional way you all handled yourselves. 

Ed

Meeting 3/14 with Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

Published: Mar. 12, 2024, 9:59 p.m.

Meeting Thursday, March 14 at 6:30: The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners will be holding a meeting to listen to our concerns. PGE will be presenting, our organization will be presenting, and anyone concerned about the proposed power lines will have the opportunity to speak for 3 minutes. This is a critical meeting in our fight to save Stafford.

When: Thursday, March 14, 6:30 pm

Where: 2051 Kaen Road, Oregon City, Room 409

Please come.  There is power in numbers.

Will you be able to get insured??  We advise everyone to contact their homeowners insurance agent and ask, as we did, whether their insurance company is concerned about high voltage lines and fire danger.  Our agent told us that she is concerned that new property owners might not be able to get fire coverage, depending on what information the Public Utility Commission can share with the insurance company.  What will that do to the resale value of your home?  Will anyone buy or be able to get bank approval for a mortgage on a property that doesn't qualify for fire protection?

Please, contact your homeowners insurance agent ASAP!  8-14-2023

Compensation lawyers  Recently, a legal firm specializing in compensation law has been reaching out to neighbors to reach a quick settlement with PGE.  They are promising 3-4x PGE's current compensation offers.  Most of the original offers were in the $3,000 to $15,000 range, meaning we're looking at $9,000 to about $60,000 in compensation.  That is still insanely low.  Everyone is going to have to make this decision at some point, but as we the neighborhood launch our large-scale media, public, and legal campaign to get answers and try to find an alternate route for this line, know this:

PGE wants to bully you into a quick settlement.

The longer everyone can hold out, the better our chances of moving the entire project are, and even if we fail, the settlement offers are likely to go up as we increase the pressure on PGE.

Think carefully before signing anything with PGE at this point.  8-13-2023

GoFundMe is live   We are raising funds to hire land use lawyers, environmental/ecological lawyers, electrical utilities experts, fire safety and hazard experts, and condemnation lawyers. Funds from this effort will go towards hiring a legal team, making signs and other neighborhood outreach, and fees associated with gathering information.   8-14-2023

PGE has NOT sought Public Utility Commission approval    It is legally required for PGE to get approval of a project like this from the Public Utility Commission BEFORE sending letters of condemnation, like the ones some of us received in May and June.  PGE is cutting corners left and right in their effort to keep us in the dark as long as possible.  

Write to the Public Utilities Commision at Public Comments:

puc.publiccomments@puc.oregon.gov

8-13-2023