Dunkiel • Saunders

91 College Street, PO Box 545 Elizabeth H. Catlin Drew Kervick * Andrew N. Raubvogel Burlington, VT 05402-0545 Brian S. Dunkiel • Alexander G. Lewis 0 Mark A. Saunders tel 802.860.1003 I fax 802.860.1208 Eileen I. Elliott Kelly D. H. Lowry• Karen L. Tyler

ELLIOTT I RAUBVOGEL I HAND www.dunkielsaunders.com Geoffrey H. Hand Justin W. McCabe' Victoria M. Westgate

By Hand Delivery and E-Mail

Mrs. Susan Hudson, Clerk Vermont Public Service Board 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2701

October 21, 2015

Re: Docket No. 7250 - Deerfield Wind Project Forth Set of Post-CPG Compliance Filings and Response to IWAG letter of 9/22/15

Dear Mrs. Hudson,

On behalf of Petitioner Deerfield Wind, LLC ("Deerfield Wind"), please accept the enclosed fourth set of compliance filings pursuant to the Certificate of Public Good ("CPG") issued for the Deerfield Wind Project ("Project") in the above-referenced proceeding. The enclosed disk provides electronic (pdf) copies of all the non-confidential documents included herein. Confidential documents are being provided in hard copy in the manner indicated in Section I.2. below. ·

Deerfield Wind is also compelled to respond herein to Industrial Wind Action Group's ("IWAG") letter of September 22, 2015, given IWAG's untimely comments concerning the 1'\ 2nd, and 3rd sets of compliance filings previously submitted by Deerfield Wind.

I. Fourth Set of Compliance Filings

The attached compliance filings and their status under the CPG are as follows:

Compliance CPG CPG Language

CPG Review Filine; Condition Process

USFS Special Use 23 Deeifie!d shall submit to the Board the United States Forest Service None specified; Permit (SUP)1 special use permit and lease covering the federal lands on the site. Parties Deerfield Wind

(Construction mqy file comments on whether the federal permit and lease contain terms recommends

Phase) that effectivefy meet the same of:jectives as detailed in . .. paragraph [22). two weeks.

System Impact 31 Deeifield shall submit the final System Impact Stuqy ("SIS") and Two weeks. Study Report interconnection and substation plans to the Board, parties, and owners ef and Final the facilities to which the Prqject will interconnect prior to construction. Substation Plan Parties shall have two weeks to file comments on the SIS · stuqy. Deeifield

shall implement af!y changes determined necessary by the Board or ISO-New England to ensure system stabiliry and reliabiliry, and shall pqy for any costs associated with such measures.

1 Due the voluminous nature of the SUP, it is only being provided on CD.

1. USFS Special Use Permit and Leases

Deerfield Wind submits the attached U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") Special Use Permit ("SUP") in satisfaction of CPG Condition 23. This SUP is for the Project's construction phase; the USFS will issue a second, operations phase permit sometime prior to commencement of operations. Deerfield Wind wishes to note that during the 248 proceedings and when the CPG was issued, only a single SUP was contemplated. However, the USFS later indicated that it distinguishes between pre- and post-construction requirements (similar to the Board's CPG conditions), and will therefore provide the requirements for construction and operation in two separate SUPs.

The attached SUP authorizes Deerfield Wind to "to use or occupy National Forest System lands in the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests." SUP at 1. The SUP is the sole mechanism used by the USFS to provide such authorization, and there is no separate lease covering the federal lands on the Project site.

Deerfield Wind respectfully requests that the Board accept the construction phase SUP in satisfaction of Condition 23, and require that the operations phase SUP be submitted to the Board prior to commencement of commercial operations.

2. System Impact Study

Deerfield Wind submits the attached final System Impact Study ("SIS") Report prepared by Siemens Industry, Inc. for ISO-New England in satisfaction of CPG Condition 31. ISO-New England has designated the SIS Report as constituting Critical Energy Infrastructure Information ("CEII"). Therefore, pursuant to the Board's Protective Order of October 2, 2015, it is being provided only to the Board and the Department of Public Service ("DPS"), and only in hard copy. Pursuant to the Protective Order, Deerfield Wind submits the attached averment regarding the SIS Report's CEII designation and a Schedule Ia signed by the DPS.2

3. Revised Substation Plan

Also in satisfaction of CPG Condition 31, Deerfield Wind submits the Final Substation Plan. As the Department of Public Service indicated in its letter of June 30, 2015, the Substation Plan filed by Deerfield Wind in its Second Set of Compliance Filings of June 1, 2015 was not yet final. The attached plan is the final version. Deerfield Wind has consulted with DPS concerning the substation plan, and understands that DPS intends to file comments on that subject shortly.

II. IWAG Comments on Prior Sets of Compliance Filings

On September 22, 2015, Industrial Wind Action Group ("IWAG") filed yet another letter with additional critiques of Deerfield Wind's prior compliance filings. IWAG's letter is untimely, and should be disregarded. The Board has set clear deadlines in this docket for other parties to file comments on Deerfield Wind's filings, the most recent of which expired two months before

2 In addition to the requirements of the Protective Agreement and the Board's Protective Order, it is Deerfield \V'ind's understanding that w1der ISO-New England's Information Policy, any individual seeking access to CEII information must obtain CEII security clearance from ISO-NE.

2

IWAG's latest letter.3 IWAG's comments on the turbine model change and visual aesthetics relate to the Second Compliance Filing, and were filed nearly three months past the June 30 deadline-a deadline that the Board already enlarged at IWAG's request. And IWAG's new comments on the blasting plan, which Deerfield Wind filed in its First Set of Compliance Filings, were almost four months late. The Board should disregard all of these new IWAG comments.

In keeping with longstanding and routine practice, the Board should decline to consider IWAG's untimely letter. For example, in Docket No. NMP-6459, the Board declined to consider a late-filed letter from the Agency of Natural Resources. Petition rj'Cement Plant Solar, UC, Docket No. CPG-6459 (Order of Sept. 4, 2015). The Board noted there that ANR, like IWAG, failed to provide "an explanation as to why the comments [were] late or a request for a waiver of the comment deadline." Id. See also Amended Petition efVermont Gas 5_ystems, Inc., Docket No. 7970 (Order of Nov. 7, 2014) (declining to consider motion filed after deadline, where filer failed to provide "any persuasive justification for allowing it to have a second opportunity" to comment).

While IWAG may argue that it is simply responding to Deerfield Wind's filings, it is Deerfield Wind, as the CPG holder, that bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating compliance with the CPG conditions; it was thus appropriate for Deerfield Wind to address the concerns raised in IWAG's prior filings. "The Board routinely allows parties to respond to filings by other parties, particularly where there has not yet been an opportunity to respond to the issues or claims raised in the latter parties' filings." Petition ef Vt. Transco, LLC, Docket No. 7807 (Order of Feb. 3, 2012). IWAG has already had its opportunity to comment on Deerfield Wind's compliance filings, and should not be placed in the positon of having the "final word." Allowing endless volleys of comments serves neither administrative economy nor procedural fairness.

As a substantive matter, IWAG's letter retreads ground that has already been exhaustively covered in this proceeding. The sections of its letter on the decommissioning cost estimate and blasting plan simply reiterate positions stated in its previous comments.

Similarly, IWAG's latest comments on the power purchase agreement ("PPA") filed by Deerfield Wind, and the accompanying affidavits of John Amelang and William Strong, are offered merely to bolster IW A G's prior position. Mr. Short's affidavit is nothing more than a reworking of IWAG's prior comments on the REC market-indeed, his affidavit states that its purpose was "to assess the REC market relative to Deerfield's contracted price." IWAG had an opportunity by the deadline to support its position with supplemental materials, but chose not to. IWAG's new comments (and affidavit) on the nature of integrated planning and prudency review simply miss the point Deerfield Wind made in its prior response, i.e., that GMP's decision-making is not being subjected to formal review and approval by the Board in Deerfield Wind's post-CPG process.

Most signfficant/y, IWAG's comments on the PPA and its impacts to ratepqyers exceed the Board's grant ef intervention. Its Motion to Intervene of October 12, 2007 states that it has a substantial interest in the orderly development of the region under section 248(b)(1), need for the Project under section

3 The comment deadlines set by the Board and the relevant orders were as follows: 1st Set of Compliance Filings: June 1, 2015 (Order of May 22, 2015) 2nd Set of Compliance Filings: June 22, 2015 (Order of June 3, 2015), enlarged to June 30, 2015 at IWAG's request (Order of June 22, 2015) 3rd Set of Compliance Filings: July 22, 2015 (Order of July 8, 2015)

3

248(b)(2), and environmental criteria under section 248(b)(5).4 The DPS -- the public agency in Vermont representing the interests of ratepayers (see 30 V.S.A. § 2) -- reviewed the PP A and stated unequivocally that it is satisfied with it. See DPS letter to the Board dated July 22, 2015.5

IWAG's remarks on Mr. Kaliski's and Ms. Vissering's submissions are little more than credibility attacks, and are based on slender material. Unable to show any substantive deficiencies in Mr. Kaliski's work in this docket, IWAG alleges that he "failed" in a different project. IW AG also claims that the Gamesa G80 turbine is still available, based solely on news articles concerning projects in Egypt and England. It is not Deerfield Wind's job to account for Gamesa's worldwide supply chain, or its sales contracts on other continents. Gamesa has affirmatively represented to Deerfield Wind that it will not sell it the G80 for this Project, and the G80 is not available for purchase, and Deerfield Wind has adapted accordingly. In addition to being incorrect, IWAG's arguments on the G80 are irrelevant.

Similarly, IW AG expresses remarkable surprise and concern that the visual simulations cited by Ms. Vissering were prepared by VERA, even though each one is prominently labeled "Prepared by VERA." Its claim that Ms. Vissering was incorrect that traffic could turn left from the access road onto Route 8 is, frankly, puzzling. Cars can turn left from the access road onto Route 8. The southern leg of the "Y" intersection in the Final Design Plans provides an easier angle of entry than the tight turn required under the CPG-Approved Plans.

IWAG's comments were filed months past the Board's deadlines. They go beyond IWAG's intervention, are premised on mistakes of fact, and focused on irrelevant side issues. They do not begin to justify the kind of de nova Section 248 review that IWAG yet again demands. The Board should decline to consider IWAG's filing, as it is procedurally and substantively unsound.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above and in Deerfield's prior letters concerning the 1 '\2nd, and 3rd set of compliance filings, Deerfield Wind respectfully requests that the Board find that all four sets of compliance filings meet the requisite CPG conditions and should be approved.6

4 Nothing in IWAG's supplemental filing of November 12, 2007 expanded the scope of its intervention.

5 Review of PP1\s by the DPS is not simply incidental to this proceeding; it is embodied in Board Rule 5.200 (Notification of Power Supply Transactions). GrvfP filed this PPA with the Board under Rule 5.200, and at the end of the 90 day notice period the DPS did not request an investigation nor did the Board choose to open one stta sponte.

<> Should the Board determine that any of the compliance filings cannot be approved without further proceedings, Deerfield \\!ind respectfully requests the opportunity to provide substantive responses to I\\!,-\ G's late-filed comments.

4

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above, and please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

ndrew N. Raubvogel, Esq. Alexander "Sash" Lewis, Esq. DUNKIEL SAUNDERS ELLIOTT RAUBVOGEL & HAND, PLLC

Ends.

cc: Service List

5

STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Docket No. 7250

Amended Petition of Deerfield Wind, LLC for a certificate ) of public good authorizing it to constn1ct and operate 17 turbine, ) 34 to 35.7 MW wind generation facility, and associated transmission ) and interconnection facilities, on approximately 80 acres in the ) Green Mountain National Forest, located in Searsburg and ) Readsboro, Vermont, with 7 turbines to be placed on the east side ) of Route 8 on the same ridgeline as the existing GMP Searsburg ) wind facility (Eastern Project Area), and 10 turbines along the ) ridgeline to the west of Route 8 in the northwesterly orientation ) (Western Project Area) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gillian Bergeron, certify that on October 21, 2015, I forwarded copies of Deerfield Wind,

LLC' s Letter to the Public Service Board re 41;, Set ef Compliance filings, to the following service list by the

method noted:

By Hand Delivery and E-Mail:

Mrs. Susan Hudson, Clerk Vermont Public Service Board 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2701

By First Class Mail and E-Mail:

Jeanne Elias, Esq. Geoff Commons, Esq. Vermont Dept. of Public Service 112 State Street, Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601

Richard H Saudek, Esq. Diamond & Robinson, P.C. 15 East State Street, Suite 201 Montpelier, VT 05601 (Towns of Searsburg and Readsboro)

Catherine Gjessing, Esq. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3901

Charlotte Ancel Green Mountain Power Corporation 163 Acorn Lane Colchester, VT05446

John W. Kessler, Esq. Dale E. Azaria, Esq. Vermont Dept. of Housing & Comm. Affairs Agency of Commerce and Community Dev. National Life Bldg., Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-0501

Jamey D. Fidel, Esq. Vermont Natural Resources Council 9 Bailey A venue Montpelier, VT 05602

Peter Zamore, Esq. Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C. 30 Main Street, 6'h Floor P.O. Box 66 Burlington, VT 05402-0066 (For Green Mountain Power)

Chris Campany, Executive Director John Bennett, Senior Planner Windham Regional Commission 139 Main Street, Suite 505 Brattleboro, VT 05301

Nancy S. Malmquist, Esq Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC 90 Prospect Street P.O. Box 99 St.Johnsbury, VT 05819-0099 (For National Grid)

Ms. Deidre Matthews National Grid 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02451

Lisa Linowes, Executive Director Industrial Wind Action Group 286 Parker Hill Road Lyman, NH 03585

Fairwind Vermont P.O. Box 543 Londonderry, VT 05148

Thomas Shea 32 Lamprey Road Kensington, NH 03833

Paul Burns, Executive Director Vermont Public Interest Research Group 141 Main Street, Suite 6 Montpelier, VT 05602

Robert M. Fisher, Esq. Fisher & Fisher Law Offices 114 Main St., PO Box 621 Brattleboro, VT 05302-0621 (For the Town of Wilmington)

Sandra Levine, Senior Attorney Conservation Law Foundation 15 East State Street, Suite #4 Montpelier, VT 05602

Clifford and Diana Duncan Duncan Cable TV Services PO Box 685 Wilmington, VT 05363

Gerald DeGray P.O. Box 1717 Wilmington, VT 05363-1717

Ed Cherian, Project Manager Iberdrola Renewables P.O. Box 326 Concord, NH 03302

Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 21 sr day of October, 2015.

Bv:

Gi~lil~ 'e. rgeron Pakalcga~

\ \ \, \ ',~J

2

STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Docket No. 7250 Amended Petition of Deerfield Wind, LLC for a certificate ) of public good authorizing it to construct and operate 17 turbine, ) 34 to 35.7 MW wind generation facility, and associated transmission ) and interconnection facilities, on approximately 80 acres in the ) Green Mountain National Forest, located in Searsburg and ) Readsboro, Vermont, with 7 turbines to be placed on the east side ) of Route 8 on the same ridgeline as the existing GMP Searsburg ) wind facility (Eastern Project Area), and 10 turbines along the ) ridgeline to the west of Route 8 in the northwesterly orientation ) (Western Project Area) )

Averment 1: Deerfield Wind, LLC Confidential Documents and Information

A. Identification of Document or Information.

Documents and information classified as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) concerning the proposed Deerfield Wind Farm (“Project”) and its potential impacts within the ISO New England (“ISO-NE”) System. Deerfield Wind, LLC (“Deerfield Wind”) submitted the documents and information to ISO-NE as part of system impact study process for the Project, including the following:

• System Impact Study Report (Siemens PTI, June 16, 2015).

B. Degree of Confidential Information.

Deerfield Wind is informed by ISO-New England that this information is deemed to be CEII. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has defined CEII as:

specific engineering, vulnerability, or detailed design information about proposed or existing critical infrastructure that: (1) relates details about the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution of energy; (2) could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure; (3) is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000); and (4) does not simply give the general location of the critical infrastructure.

18 C.F.R. § 388.113.

Docket No. 7250 Averment # 1 of Deerfield Wind, LLC

Confidential Documents and Information Page 2 of 3

October 21, 2015

C. Confidentiality Factors.

i. Extent Information Known Outside Company.

Deerfield Wind has not released the information to any other parties beyond the company and its consultants working on the ISO-NE review process. Deerfield Wind understands that ISO-NE does not release this information to third parties other than entities (utilities, transmission system owners) that are part of ISO-NE’s review process.

ii. Extent Information Known by Employees and Independent Contractors.

The information is known to employees and independent contractors of Deerfield Wind only to the extent needed to work on the ISO-NE review process and the Section 248 proceeding.

iii. Measures Taken to Guard Security.

Deerfield Wind has informed its staff and consultants that the CEII information cannot be disseminated to third parties and should be segregated from other files.

iv. Value of Information to Company and Competitors.

This criterion does not apply to CEII documents; it pertains to confidential business information/trade secrets.

v. Amount of Money or Effort to Develop Information.

This criterion does not apply to CEII documents; it pertains to confidential business information/trade secrets.

vi. Cost/Difficulty in Acquiring/Duplicating Information.

It is not possible to acquire/duplicate the information contained in these documents without going through the same ISO-NE regulatory process.

vii. Harm of Disclosure.

This criterion generally pertains to confidential business information/trade secrets, rather than CEII, and thus doesn’t apply. However, it is Deerfield Wind’s understanding that CEII information contains details about the location, status, and design of critical infrastructure that FERC has determined could present a national security risk as well as risks to Deerfield Wind and ISO-NE’s infrastructure if revealed.

Docket No. 7250 Averment # 1 of Deerfield Wind, LLC

Confidential Documents and Information Page 3 of 3

October 21, 2015

D. Time Period.

Until such time as ISO-NE indicates that the information is not CEII.

E. Partial Disclosure or Redaction.

It is Deerfield Wind’s understanding that ISO-NE considers the entire document to be CEII and that it cannot be redacted.

F. Other Factors.

None.

Docket No. 7250

STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Amended Petition of Deerfield Wind, LLC for a certificate ) of public good authorizing it to construct and operate 17 turbine, ) 34 to 35.7 lvfW wind generation facility, and associated transmission ) and interconnection facilities, on approximately 80 acres in the ) Green Mountain National Forest, located in Searsburg and ) Readsboro, Vermont, with 7 turbines to be placed on the cast side ) of Route 8 on the same 1idgeline as the existing GMP Searsburg ) wind facility (Eastern Project Area), and 10 turbines along the ) ridgeline to the west of Route 8 in the northwesterly orientation ) (Western Project Area) )

DOCUMENTS TO BE TREATED AS

SCHEDULE Ia

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION ("CEii")

1. System Impact Study Report (Siemens PTI, June 16, 2015).