Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response To Protective Order by Wind Developer

BEFORE
THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD

In the Matter of the Application of
6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC for an
Amendment to its Certificate to Install
and Operate a Wind-Powered Electric
Generation Facility in Huron County, Ohio.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGN
GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS

MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO
6011 GREENWICH WINDPARK, LLCS
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)

(Counsel of Record)
Scott E. Elisar (Reg. No. 0081877)
MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
21 East State Street, 17TH Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-8000
Telecopier: (614) 469-4653
sam@mwncmh.com
(willing to accept service by e-mail)
selisar@mwncmh.com
(willing to accept service by e-mail)
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
{C49379:2 }
ATTORNEYS FOR GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITED
BEFORE
In the Matter of the Application of
6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC for an
Amendment to its Certificate to Install
and Operate a Wind-Powered Electric
Generation Facility in Huron County, Ohio.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGN
GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO

6011 GREENWICH 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.
{C49379:2 }
In response to GNUs proper discovery and instead of providing full and complete
substantive responses,1 the 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
The Wind Farms responses (mostly objections) to GNUs first set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents are attached hereto as Appendix A.
2
Motion for Protective Order at 1.
Id.
Rule 4906-2-21(A), Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.).
{C49379:2 }
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 Boards
Rules
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.
Rule 4906-2-21(B), O.A.C.
Rule 4906-2-21(B)(2), O.A.C.
Rule 4906-2-21(B)(3), O.A.C.
Rule 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.
9
Id. The Wind Farms Motion for a Protective Order suggests that the Board subvert this process by issuing
an expedited ruling on its own initiative under Rule 4906-2-27(F), O.A.C., instead of requiring the Wind
Farm to follow the process set forth in Rule 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C., applicable to a movant requesting
expedited treatment.
{C49379:2 }
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
10
Rules 4906-2-21 and 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.
11
Rule 4906-2-21(A), O.A.C.
12
{C49379:2 }
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
13
R.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 the
facility, a statement explaining the need for the facility, a statement of the reasons why the proposed location
is best suited for the facility, [a] statement of how the facility fits into the applicant's forecast contained in
the report submitted under section 4935.04 of the Revised Code, and such other information as the Board
may require.
Pursuant to Chapters 4906-1 to 4906-7, the Board further requires the application to contain additional
detail. 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 of
grid interconnection studies and other critical path milestones for project construction (Rule
4906-4-03(C)(1)(c), O.A.C.). The application must also include a description of how the facility will be
connected to the regional electric grid (Rule 4906-4-05(A), O.A.C.), including information relating to their
generation 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 (Rule
4906-4-05(B)(2), O.A.C.).
14
Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1), O.A.C.
{C49379:2 }
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 shall set 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 the

Discovery 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
15
Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1)(a), O.A.C.
16
Rule 4906-2-14(A), O.A.C.
17
Rule 4906-2-14(B), O.A.C.
18
Rules 4906-2-17 and 4906-2-19, O.A.C.
19
{C49379:2 }
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
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 4 (citing In the Matter of the Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC Regarding its Certificate
of 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)).
{C49379:2 }
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
23
For example, the Board is required to determine if the application to amend will result in a substantial
change 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 models
must be reviewed to determine if they could be installed at the locations previously certified by the Board
and 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. The
current minimum setbacks provide [t]hat minimum shall be equal to a horizontal distance, from the turbine's
base to the property line of the wind farm property, equal to one and one-tenth times the total height of the
turbine structure as measured from its base to the tip of its highest blade and be at least one thousand one
hundred twenty-five feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the turbine's nearest blade at ninety degrees
to 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 new
models which are the subject of the Wind Farms Application in this matter, and the application of the current
minimum setback requirements demonstrate that the Board must complete more than the cursory review
that the Wind Farm urges the Board to undertake.
{C49379:2 }
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,24 and 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.
24
Application at 1-2.
25
Id. at 1.
{C49379:2 }
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. Randazzo

Samuel C. Randazzo
(Counsel of Record) (Reg. No. 0016386)
Scott E. Elisar (Reg. No. 0081877)
MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
21 East State Street, 17TH Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-8000
Telecopier: (614) 469-4653
sam@mwncmh.com
selisar@mwncmh.com
{C49379:2 }
10
APPENDIX A
BEFORE
In the Matter of the Application of 6011 Greenwich
Windpark, LLC for an Amendment to its Certificate to
Install 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
9886874v3
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
9886874v3
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.
9886874v3
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.
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.
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.
1-5
Does Greenwich agree that PJMs interconnection analysis evaluated adherence with
applicable reliability criteria for summer peak conditions in 2015?
1-6
Has Greenwich submitted an interconnection request to PJM that would cause PJM to
evaluate 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.
9886874v3
1-7
If the answer to interrogatory 1-6 is no, explain why no such request has been submitted to
PJM.
RESPONSE: Project submitted a notice of a scope change to review a change in
turbine technology to PJM.
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/projectqueues/feas_docs/x3023_fea.pdf#search=%22X3-023%22), what is Greenwichs method of
resolving the potential overload on the Boughtonville (Firelands COOP) line?
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
1-9
With regard to pages 1 and 2 of the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs
interconnection 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?
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 the
potential overload of the Brookside - Howard 138 kV FE-AEP tie line?
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.
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 - Howard
138 kV FE-AEP tie line?
9886874v3
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by what method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the Bridgeville-Chandlersville 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Bethel Church West Dover 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Chandlersville Philo 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Hillview - Newcomerstown 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Newcomerstown South Coshocton 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Broken Sword Nevada (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
9886874v3

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?
potential overload of the Sycamore Tap East Tiffin 69 kV line?
interconnection 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?
potential overload of the Carrothers St. Stephen (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
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?
9886874v3
potential overload of the Crestline Howard 69 kV line?
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?
potential overload of the Crestline North Robinson 69 kV line?
potential overload of the North Robinson West Galion Tap 69 kV line?
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?
potential overload of the Academia Apple Valley 138 kV line?
9886874v3

potential overload of the Apple Valley North Lexington 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Fostoria Central Melmore 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Greenlawn Tiffin 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Howard North Lexington 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Brookside Howard 138 kV line?
9886874v3
potential overload of the Millwood North Bellville 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Chatfield South Tiffin 138 kV line?
potential overload of the Howard North Bellville 138 kV line?
potential overload of the General Electric Tiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line?
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the General Electric
Tiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system suggested by
PJM?
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the General Electric
Tiffin Tiffin Tap 69 kV line, does the General Electric Tiffin 69 kV station serve a
specific customer or customers?
9886874v3
10

1-41 If the answer to interrogatory 1-40 is yes, has Greenwich notified the specific customer or
customers of the potential overload?
interconnection request (PJM X3-023), by which method will Greenwich resolve the
potential overload of the General Electric Tiffin Maule Road 69 kV line?
potential overload of the Greely Tiffin Center 69 kV line?
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the potential overload of the Greely Tiffin
Center 69 kV line, will Greenwich install the SCADA system suggested by PJM?
potential overload of the Riverview - Tiffin Tap 69 kV line?
9886874v3
11
potential overload of the Tiffin Center Maule Road 69 kV line?
potential overload of the Bucyrus Center Broken Sword 69 kV line?
potential overload of the Broken Sword Nevada (North Central CO-OP) 69 kV line?
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?
potential overload of the Nevada (North Central CO-OP) Upper Sandusky 69 kV line?
interconnection request (PJM X3-023) and the sag check associated with the AcademiaApple Valley 138 kV line, has the sag check been performed?
9886874v3
12

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?
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?
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?
interconnection 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?
the TIFFIN T-RIVERVIE 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the potential
thermal violation?
9886874v3
13
the ST STPH8-BLOOMVL 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
the NEVADA8-U SANDSK 69 kV line, by what method will Greenwich resolve the
the South Tiffin-Airco (North Central Co-Op) 138 kV line, by what method will Greenwich
resolve the potential thermal violation?
1-60 With regard to the Greenlawn relay thermal limit engineering study identified in page 27 of
the report issued by PJM in response to Greenwichs interconnection request (PJM X3023), has the engineering study been completed?
1-61 Is the PJM report available via the Internet at http://www.pjm.com/pub/planning/projectqueues/feas_docs/x3023_fea.pdf#search=%22X3-023%22 a true and accurate copy of the
report that PJM issued in response to Greenwichs request?
RESPONSE: Yes.
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?
9886874v3
14

1-63 Have all owners of property adjacent to the wind farm property waived application of the
minimum setback requirements?
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)?
1-65 Has Greenwich performed any studies to identify ambient nighttime noise levels other than
the 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.
1-66 Has Greenwich obtained the land or land rights that may be needed to expand the AEP
Willard substation?
9886874v3
15
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.
1-68 Provide a copy of any studies that identify ambient nighttime noise levels other than the
study 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.
1-69 Provide a copy of each setback waiver that Greenwich has obtained from each property
owner adjoining the wind farm property.
1-70 Provide a copy of each communication between Greenwich and the Ohio Farm Bureau
Federation (OFBF) that is related to OPSB Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN or Case No. 151921-EL-BGA.
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.
9886874v3
16

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.
1-73 Provide a copy of each communication Greenwich has received from PJM.
RESPONSE: Greenwichs response to this interrogatory is attached.
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. 151921-EL-BGA.
RESPONSE: Greenwich has not received any communications from AEP.
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. 151921-EL-BGA.
RESPONSE:
FirstEnergy.
Greenwich has not received from any communications from
9886874v3
17
Respectfully submitted on behalf of

6011 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; 227-4914
Facsimile: (614) 227-2390
E-Mail:
sbloomfield@bricker.com
dborchers@bricker.com
9886874v3
18
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 Randazzo
Scott Elisar
McNees, Wallace & Nurick LLC
21 East State Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
sam@mwncmh.com
selisar@mwncmh.com
9886874v3
19
Response to Interrogatory 1-67

Monica Jensen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monica Jensen
Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:13 PM
'Conway, Andrew'
FW: follow up
Andrewsecondoriginalemailforwardedpleaseconfirmreceiptanduseofdocument
Best,
Monica
From: Calvin Cooper [mailto:calvincooper2@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:25 AM
To: Monica Jensen
Subject: RE: follow up
Monica,TheywereawareofthesituationsoIsurehopeso!
From:monica.jensen@windlab.com
Date:Wed,13May201508:23:000400
Subject:RE:followup
To:calvincooper2@hotmail.com
IamassumingtheyincludedtheOPSBsetbacksfromoursites
From: Calvin Cooper [mailto:calvincooper2@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Monica Jensen
HiMonica,Wehavesurveyedcenterline.Ihavenotgotresultsyet.Ishouldhaveanideainthenext2or3
weeks.Iwillletyouknowassoonastheytellme.
Date:Tue,12May201513:15:590400
Subject:RE:followup
HiCalvin,
ThoughtIwouldcheckinandseewhatisuponyourroute,timing,OPSBapplicationetc.
Best,
Monica
From: outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com [mailto:outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com] On Behalf Of

Calvin Cooper
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 1:26 PM
To: Monica Jensen
1

HiMonica,IgaveinformationtomySupervisortoday.Theymaycallyouintime.Thanksforyourhelp.
Date:Mon,6Apr201508:19:400400
Subject:followup
Dylan F. Borchers
Bricker & Eckler LLP | 100 South Third Street | Columbus, OH 43215
Direct Dial 614.227.4914 | dborchers@bricker.com | v-card | www.bricker.com
Think green please print only if necessary.
Calvin Thanks for meeting last Thursday Hopefully your GIS/Map guy can send me your shape files of the
current proposed route. Not sure how we should continue to interface on the route? Especially through the
turbine/ substation area?
Above is the contact info for the best OPSB attorney firm. If your permitting department has not contacted
them, I encourage them to do so - asap. As I shared before 2 years to get through the process for me from my
first 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 Ltd
927 Wing Street | Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | United States
Office: +1-734-335-6219 | Mobile: +1-734-787-9396 | monica.jensen@windlab.com | 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 the
information in any medium.
Monica Jensen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Monica Jensen
'Conway, Andrew'
FW: maps of Greenwich
20140305 Greenwich__Lease_Tracker MJ.xlsx
AndrewIhavejustforwardedtheoriginalemailtoyoupleaseletmeknowifthisworks.
Best,
Monica
From: Monica Jensen [mailto:monica.jensen@windlab.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:32 AM
To: Calvin Cooper
Subject: RE: maps of Greenwich
Hereyougosorryforthedelay
From: outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com [mailto:outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com] On Behalf Of

Calvin Cooper
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:15 PM
To: Monica Jensen
Subject: RE: maps of Greenwich
HiMonica,DidYousendthelistoflandowners?IfyoudidIcannotfindit.Pleaseletmeknow.
Date:Tue,24Mar201511:03:080400
Subject:RE:mapsofGreenwich
Resending,pleaseseebelow.

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:27 PM
To: 'calvincooper2@hotmail.com'
Subject: maps of Greenwich
Calvin
AttachedisagroupofmapsthatweresubmittedtotheOhioPowerSitingBoard.
Alsoshapefilesoftheproject.
NotethesubstationonSeidelsisdepictedontheattachedmapaswell.
IwillbeinNorwalk/Greenwich/Willardtomorrowwouldyouhavetimetomeet?
Best,
Monica
Monica Jensen
Monica Jensen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Monica Jensen
Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:23 AM
grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us; Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us
Erin Wiedower
RE: Manufacturer Contact information
Grant,Andrew&Erin,
IwouldliketointroduceErinWiedower,GoldwindUSA.Shewillbeabletoprovideinformationandanswerany
questionsyoumayhaveinregardstotheGoldwindturbine.Herdirectphoneis9794929547,GoldwindUSAis
locatedinChicago(centraltime).
Pleaseletmeknowifyouneedanyfurtherassistance.
Best,
Monica Jensen
From: grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us [mailto:grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us]

Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:05 AM
To: Monica Jensen
Subject: FW: Manufacturer Contact information
HiMonica,
Couldyoupleaseprovidetheinformationrequestedbelow?HappyHolidays!
ThankYou,
Grant
GrantZeto
OhioPowerSitingBoard
UtilitySpecialist
(614)6447743
OPSB.ohio.gov
_
From: Conway, Andrew

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 4:22 PM
To: Zeto, Grant
Subject: Manufacturer Contact information
1

WouldGreenwichWindpark,pleaseprovidecontactinformationfortheGoldwindturbinemanufacturer?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
AndrewConway,P.E.
PublicUtilitiesCommissionofOhio
RatesandAnalysisDepartment
Siting,Efficiency,andRenewableEnergyDivision
EngineeringSpecialist,Siting
(614)4665732
Email:Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us
PUCO.ohio.gov
_
Thismessageandanyresponsetoitmayconstituteapublicrecordandthusmaybepubliclyavailabletoanyonewho
requestsit.
Monica Jensen
Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us
Monday, January 25, 2016 10:40 AM
Monica Jensen
grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us
RE: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Yes,thatworks.

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Conway, Andrew
Cc: Zeto, Grant
Subject: Re: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
3:00 pm today - will that work for you?

On Monday, January 25, 2016, Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us <Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us> 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, Andrew

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:27 PM
To: 'Monica Jensen'; john.sidor@windlab.com
Cc: Zeto, Grant
Subject: RE: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
Thanks. We can wait to discuss on Monday.

-Andrew Conway

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 12:26 PM
To: Conway, Andrew; john.sidor@windlab.com
Cc: Zeto, Grant
Subject: 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 no
longer with Windlab.
Back in March of this year I met with the land acquisition person (his name escapes me right now), at the time
of 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 guidelines
required for our project as well as contact information for the OPSB, as I surmised they would need to go
through the OPSB process as well for permitting. I as much said to him, this project is permitted and he is
required 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
From: Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us [mailto:Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us]

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 9:58 AM
To: john.sidor@windlab.com
Cc: monica.jensen@windlab.com; grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us
Subject: Greenwich Windpark / Kinder Morgan Utopia pipeline
Importance: High
John (or Monica)
Left you a voicemail message. My name is Andrew Conway, and I am an engineer with the Ohio Power Siting
Board. Our duties include reviewing the location of proposed energy infrastructure (including wind farms) in
our 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 with
Kinder Morgan, that no conflicts with the pipeline are anticipated, and that the pipeline is at least 543 feet from
the 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
3
Email: Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us
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.
-*Monica Jensen* | North America

Vice President, Development
3692 W. Liberty Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Mobile: 734-787-9396
Office: 734-222-9463 X2
Fax:
734-761-8133
www.windlab.com
Monica Jensen
Monica Jensen
Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:10 PM
'Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us'
RE: follow up
Greenwich 2.pdf; greenwich1.pdf
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Andrew,
Sorryforthedelayingettingbacktoyou.UnfortunatelyIfoundmyselfwithstrepanda102feveryesterday.
AttachedaretwomapsIacquiredfromKinderMorgan.Theyhavechangedtheroutetoextendthesetbacksfrom
turbines#18,#17and#16.Whiletheydidnotsupplymewithgisdatapointsaccordingtotheirkeyitlookslikeboth
infrastructurescancoexsistwiththesetbackrequirements.Therouteinred,withdottedlinesistheoriginalroute
therouteinpinkisthenewroute.
Ihaveaskedfortheshapefilesforourconstructionplanningaswell.OnceIreceiveIwillshare.
Best,
Monica
From: Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us [mailto:Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us]

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Monica Jensen
Cc: grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us
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:Andrew.Conway@puc.state.oh.us
PUCO.ohio.gov
_
Thismessageandanyresponsetoitmayconstituteapublicrecordandthusmaybepubliclyavailabletoanyonewho
requestsit.

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Conway, Andrew
Cc: Zeto, Grant
Subject: FW: follow up
Andrew/Grant,
AttachedaretwoemailchainsthatchroniclesmycorrespondencewithCalvinCooper,representativeoftheUtopia
Pipeline.IneverheardbackfromMr.Cooper,howeverasfollowup,tomorrowIammeetingwithAlPowersattheir
officetoactuallylookattheirmapsinperson.Willkeepyouposted.
Best,
Monica
Monica Jensen
, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.
Response to Interrogatory 1-73
GNU interrogatory1-73.txt
From:
Hay, Joseph S.
Sent:
To:
Monica Jensen
Subject:
RE: 2015GVTFV8PC22BG - Impact Study Submission - X3-023 - Model
Check - deficiencies
Attachments:
X3-023 (DRAFT) South Greenwich-Willard 69 kV Facilities Study Report
011416 .pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Monica,
Attached is a Draft of the final X3-023 Facilities Study Report. I have drafted the
Interconnection Service
Agreement (ISA) and Interconnection Construction Service Agreement (ICSA), and
forwarded to our legal
department for their review. I calculated a security of $2,768,684 which will be
required with the
executed ISA. You will have 60 days to execute the ISA and 90 days to execute the
ICSA. The
instructions for executing the agreements will be in the cover letter. I expect to
issue these before the
end of the month.
The turbine swap will need to be handled as a scope change during the construction
phase. I need you
to confirm that the Windlab is definitely switching to the Goldwind Turbines before
the analysis teams
will determine the mitigations, if any, that will be required to accommodate the
turbine change.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding this report.
Regards,
Joe
Joseph Hay
Senior Engineer, Interconnection Projects
(610) 666-4265 | C: (610)635-6571 | Joseph.Hay@pjm.com
PJM Interconnection | 2750 Monroe Blvd. | Audubon, PA 19403
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 2:25 PM
To: 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 we
could see a draft ISA my thought is the selection of turbine is not critical to
that? Obviously we would
like get the CSA executed as well. I believe the draft Facility Study had 11 months
to completion for
construction.
Page 1
GNU interrogatory1-73.txt
It would be great to see any draft type for pre-cursory review.
Hope you can help?
Monica
Page 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 12th day of
February 2016.
/s/ Samuel C. Randazzo

Samuel C. Randazzo
Sally W. Bloomfield
Dylan Borchers
Bricker & Eckler LLP
100 South Third Street
Columbus OH 43215-4291
sbloomfield@bricker.com
dborchers@bricker.com
William L. Wright
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Public Utilities Section
Office of the Attorney General
180 East Broad Street, 6th Floor
william.wright@puc.state.oh.us
ATTORNEYS FOR 6011 GREENWICH

WINDPARK, LLC
ATTORNEY FOR THE STAFF OF THE OHIO

POWER SITING BOARD
Chad A. Endsley (0080648)

Chief Legal Counsel
Leah F. Curtis (0086257)
Amy M. Milam (0082375)
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
280 North High Street, P.O. Box 182383
cendsley@ofbf.org
lcurtis@ofbf.org
amilam@ofbf.org
Bryce McKenney
Attorney Examiner
Ohio Power Siting Board
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Bryce.mckenney@puc.state.oh.us
ATTORNEYS FOR THE OHIO FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION
{C49379:2 }
ATTORNEY EXAMINER
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 Protective
Order electronically filed by Mr. Samuel C. Randazzo on behalf of Greenwich Neighbors
United

Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response To Protective Order by Wind Developer

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Attorney Sam Randazzo's Response To Protective Order by Wind Developer

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

BEFORE

THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD

Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGN

GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS

Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)

ATTORNEYS FOR GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITED

Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGN

GREENWICH NEIGHBORS UNITEDS MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO

THE WIND FARMS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DEFECTIVE

Requirements for a Protective Order and Expedited Rulings

Motion for Protective Order at 1.

Rule 4906-2-21(A), Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.).

The movant must also attach to its motion [a]n affidavit of

Rule 4906-2-21(B), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-21(B)(2), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-21(B)(3), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.

As demonstrated below, that is

Rules 4906-2-21 and 4906-2-27(C), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-21(A), O.A.C.

Motion for Protective Order at 1.

GNUS DISCOVERY IS PROPER

Standard of Review for Applications to Amend Certificates

Rule 4906-3-11, O.A.C., governs applications to amend certificates to construct

Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1), O.A.C.

Applicable Discovery Standards

GNUs Discovery Requests are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the

Rule 4906-3-11(B)(1)(a), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-14(A), O.A.C.

Rule 4906-2-14(B), O.A.C.

Rules 4906-2-17 and 4906-2-19, O.A.C.

Motion for Protective Order at 1.

The certificate conditions established in Case No.

comprehensive violation of Ohios minimum setback requirements, the operating

turbines certified in Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN violate Ohios minimum setback

/s/ Samuel C. Randazzo

Case No. 15-1921-EL-BGA

6011 GREENWICH WINDPARK, LLC REPLY TO

The general objections listed below are hereby

or purport to require the disclosure of information or documents protected by the attorney-client

seek or purport to require access to confidential, competitively sensitive, and/or proprietary

documents it produces or information it provides any confidential or proprietary business

collectively are oppressive, or would require an undue burden or expense to respond.

Has Greenwich signed an Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) with PJM

Response prepared by Counsel.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1-3.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Response prepared by Counsel.

Greenwich has not received from any communications from

Response prepared by Counsel.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of

Sally W. Bloomfield (Reg. No. 0022038)

Response to Interrogatory 1-67

From: Calvin Cooper [mailto:calvincooper2@hotmail.com]

From: Calvin Cooper [mailto:calvincooper2@hotmail.com]

From: outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com [mailto:outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com] On Behalf Of

From: Monica Jensen [mailto:monica.jensen@windlab.com]

From: outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com [mailto:outlook_980a2812d191a94a@outlook.com] On Behalf Of

From: Monica Jensen [mailto:monica.jensen@windlab.com]

From: grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us [mailto:grant.zeto@puc.state.oh.us]

-Monica Jensen | North America