Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (March 8, 2019)
4 CapitalPress.com Friday, March 8, 2019 Renewable energy siting bill worries farmland advocates Cheese By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Increasing demand for renewable energy in Ore- gon has spurred a pro- posal to exempt most such projects from compulsory review by a statewide siting panel. Supporters argue it would be less expensive and time-consuming for county governments to review plans for solar arrays and other renewable energy facilities. However, advocates of farmland preservation argue that counties will scrutinize renewable energy projects less rigorously that the Energy Facility Sit- ing Council, which aims to ensure such facilities meet statewide standards. Under House Bill 2329, the threshold for mandatory EFSC review of solar facil- ities would be increased from 100 to 200 acres of arable farmland and certain wind, geothermal and trans- mission projects would also be exempt from the state- wide process. A proposed amendment to the bill would require county governments to con- sider the same standards for siting energy facilities as EFSC. “More renewables are coming to this state and we need to be ready to site them,” said Rikki Seguin, policy director for the Renewable Northwest non- profit group, during a Feb. 28 legislative hearing. Oregon’s renewable energy portfolio standard calls for half the state’s power needs to be gener- ated by renewable facilities by 2040. Some local gov- ernments, such as the City of Portland and Multnomah rather than EFSC, so county governments clearly have the expertise to deal with the issue, she said. Those counties that are short- staffed could also recover fees from developers to pay third-party consultants for review. “We need to recognize our counties are fully capa- ble of siting renewable energy projects at a time our state is demanding them,” Seguin said. Each county government is unique not only with staff- ing and resources but also in how it applies statewide land use regulations and the standards it applies beyond the minimum requirements, said Todd Cornett, adminis- trator of the energy facility siting division at the Ore- gon Department of Energy. “The bill could result in significant variation in the review and conditions applied to renewable energy projects across the state,” Cornett said during a March 5 hearing on the bill. Capital Press File More solar projects would be exempt from mandatory review by Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council under a proposal before lawmakers. County, have even more ambitious goals, she said. The EFSC review pro- cess typically costs more than $1 million to complete, compared to about $50,000 to $80,000 for the county land use process, she said. The statewide process also usually takes a year longer than the county process. Developers face a “tick- ing clock” with federal tax incentives to build renew- able energy facilities, she said. “This timeline makes it more difficult to jus- tify building projects in Oregon.” When lawmakers estab- lished EFSC in 1975, the process was designed for coal, gas and nuclear plants, while solar and wind proj- ects are more modular and don’t vary as much techno- logically from site to site, Seguin said. All solar projects built so far in Oregon, except for one, have been approved through county processes Prohibition on cyanide devices debated in Oregon Oregon Farm Bureau argues M-44s used sparingly in narrow circumstances By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Cyanide devices aimed at killing coyotes would be banned in Oregon under a bill that supporters claim is necessary to protect children, pets and non-target species. The Oregon Farm Bureau, how- ever, has urged lawmakers against approving the proposal, arguing the M-44 devices are needed for controlling the predators in severe weather and rugged terrain. The contraptions were described by critics as “indiscriminate killers” during a Feb. 28 hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on Senate Bill 580, which would prohibit pred- ator control implements that rely on cyanide. “This is not a tool that we need. This is a tool that is dangerous and ineffective,” said Bob Sallinger, conservation director for the Audu- Courtesy of USDA A coyote attacks a lamb in this USDA photo. Oregon lawmakers are considering a prohibition against M-44 cyanide devices that target the predators. bon Society of Portland. There’s no way for signs to pre- vent wildlife from engaging with the devices and the “evidence is overwhelming” they regularly kill non-target animals, he said. Between 2006 and 2016, the devices have unintentionally killed 376 domestic dogs, accord- ing to USDA statistics compiled by the Predator Defense environ- mental group. Proponents of SB 580 also testi- fied about incidents in which M-44s have sickened people, such as the 2017 case in which such a device poisoned an Idaho teenager and killed his dog. Danielle Clair of Benton County recounted witnessing the “horrific” death of her dog, which struggled for eight hours after it encountered one of the devices in 2002. “That was probably the most hor- rible day of my life,” Clair said, not- ing that several young children lived near the device’s location at the time. “It is a matter of time before a child is killed.” Jonathan Sandau, public policy specialist with Oregon Farm Bureau, testified against SB 580, arguing that M-44s are deployed only by trained agents of USDA’s Wildlife Services division. Since 2017, the agency has not deployed the devices on public lands in Oregon and has only used them in three Oregon counties, he said. “These devices are used in Ore- gon under tight regulations and in limited capacity,” Sandau said. If the USDA’s Wildlife Services division was prohibited from using M-44s, that would force the agency to use more expensive predator con- trol tools that would draw resources from other programs, he said. When asked by Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, about the “collateral damage” of pets killed by M-44s, Sandau said, “There’s been a learning curve” in signage and placement of the devices. Oregon Solidarity wines coming to store shelves LEGAL 9-2-3/999 PURSUANT TO ORS CHAPTER 819 Notice is hereby given that the following vehicle will be sold, for cash to the highest bidder, on 3/14/2019. The sale will be held at 10:00am by AFFORDABLE TOWING INC 2994 BLOSSOM DR NE SALEM, OR 2018 FORD MUSTANG CN VIN= 1FATP8UH4J5156561 Amount due on lien $3,724.00 Reputed owner(s): PV HOLDING CORP BK OF NY MELLON TRUST CO a special event following the Oregon Wine Sympo- sium on Feb. 12, and bottles became available on store shelves beginning March 1. The Oregon Solidarity Chardonnay will be released on May, and Pinot noir on Aug. 1. Proceeds will ben- efit Rogue Valley growers who lost some or all of their grapes in 2018. Copper Cane Wines & Provisions, based in Ruth- erford, Calif., makes several popular Oregon wines under the brand name Elouan. Just days before harvest last year, the winery abruptly canceled orders from approximately 15 Rogue Valley vintners, citing smoky grapes and leaving an estimated $4 mil- lion worth of fruit to rot on the vine. The news sent shock waves up Interstate 5, where King Estate Winery, of Eugene, Ore., and Wil- lamette Valley Vineyards, near Salem, vowed to buy as many of the stranded grapes as possible at full contract price. Together, they pur- chased 140 tons of grapes at $323,750, enough to make 7,500 cases of wine. Christine Clair, winery director at Willamette Valley Vineyards, said the grapes were independently tested for smoke taint by ETS Lab- oratories in Medford, Ore. Results showed the samples tested had low enough lev- els of guaiacol and meth- ylguaiacol — compounds released by burning wood that contribute to an unpleas- ant smoky or ashy flavor in wine — that they were not concerned with quality. “We did not want to make any wine that would be faulted by any means,” Clair said. Silvan Ridge Winery, also of Eugene, and The Eyrie Vineyards, of McMinnville, Ore., soon joined the coalition to help produce Oregon Soli- darity wines. The first variety up for release, rose, was made 50/50 between Silvan Ridge and The Eyrie Vineyards, and bottled Feb. 7 at Willamette Valley Vineyards. “It’s been received very well,” Clair said. “There was no reason why these grapes couldn’t be used in making high-quality wines. I think we’ve proven that.” Oregon Solidarity wines are labeled from the Rogue Valley American Viticultural Area. While Clair said the 35-day federal government partial shutdown in late December and January did result in a backlog of wine label approvals at the fed- eral Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, it appears that issue has been resolved with help from Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. LEGAL A t the SAGE Center, you will see firsthand the process of getting food from the farm to your table. Our mission is hands-on learning and education through one-of-a-kind exhibits. Watch potatoes turn into curly fries, try your hand at milking a cow, take a simulated hot air balloon ride over Morrow County, sample some yummy Tillamook ice cream and browse our gift shop. Come see us soon! See you at the FFA State Convention in Redmond. March 23rd & 24th 101 Olson Road • P.O. Box 200 Boardman, OR 97818 (541) 481-7243 • www.visitsage.com 10-4/101 Solidarity is more than a feeling in the Oregon wine industry. It is now an exclu- sive vintage. When a large Califor- nia winery abruptly rejected 2,000 tons of grapes from the Rogue Valley in Southern Oregon last year — osten- sibly due to smoke dam- age from the season’s wild- fires — it prompted several winemakers in the neighbor- ing Willamette Valley to pull together and save as much of the crop as they could. The result is three new wines, including a rose, Chardonnay and Pinot noir, named “Oregon Solidarity” to reflect the partnership. Industry leaders got their first taste of the rose during 10-4/103 By GEORGE PLAVEN Capital Press PUBLIC LIEN SALE U-STORE SELF STORAGE SAT, March 23, 2019 1st Location 10 AM 1501 Hawthorne Ave NE Salem, Oregon Andrew Ty Allman, 2C01; Alisa June David, Y2-6; Felisia Davis, 2D45; Robin L Dix, 2B49; Fernando Gutierrez Juarez, 2D11; Sarah Jeffers, 2D49; Amanda Nicole Lee, 2D42; John Harold Leslie, Y221; Cesar Lopez Robles, 2D02; Jennifer C Lowder, 2D66; Gail Martinez, 1D04; Melissa McManus, 1C41; Kimberly Munz, Y217; Yovany Pena, 2C08; Michelle Phillips, 1A17; Jose Quintero, 2B55; Amanda Kaye Schultz, 1C01; 2nd Location 12 PM 1668 Industrial Way SW Albany, Oregon Chelsie Blanchard, B004; Pitsachaporn Boyd, A040, B012; Kelli Dooley, G051; Ash-leigh Kerekes-Queener, J026; Geneva Walters, A031; Cathy Holmes, J017; Bryan Huffman, J032; Tanya Manes, G006; David Neal, J027; Casey Stradley, J034 10-3-4/999 by any other name worries U.S. producers By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press Dairy groups are urging U.S. negotiators to stand firm against attempts by the European Union to monopo- lize common cheese names, warning of severe con- sequences if restrictions expand on the use of terms such as parmesan, asiago and feta. The U.S. Dairy Export Council and the Consortium for Common Food Names say the EU is aggressively pursuing geographic indi- cation — called GI — sta- tus for common cheese names within its borders and abroad. The impact of those efforts, left unabated, would cause a dramatic drop in demand for U.S. cheese, causing consumption to fall by 306 million pounds to 814 million pounds and prices to fall 14% in the short term. Those reductions would result in a loss of $9.5 bil- lion to $20 billion in dairy farm revenue from 2019 to 2021 depending on consum- ers’ willingness to pay more for cheeses with an EU GI label, according to a new study commissioned by the groups. The study, by Informa Agribusiness Consulting, examined the hypothetical impact of the EU expanding its GI restrictions worldwide through trade agreements, including a potential agree- ment with the U.S. GI is a term identifying a product originating from a specific geographic loca- tion, such as Parmigiano Reggiano. But the EU is attempting to restrict com- mon names, such as parme- san, to products made only in the EU. That would require U.S. cheese makers to stop mar- keting common cheeses to any market with GI restric- tions. Those cheeses would have to be relabeled with names unfamiliar to con- sumers, resulting in fewer purchases and lower prices for those products, Informa stated. “The changing consumer demand for U.S. cheeses would have profound and deleterious impacts on the U.S. dairy industry,” the Informa analysts said. Falling consumption would lower farm gate milk prices from baseline fore- casts by $0.97 to $2.14 per hundredweight in the first three years, the study predicted. “Low milk prices and poor farm margins would exacerbate the ongoing loss of U.S. dairy farms,” the analysts said. The study also exam- ined long-range impacts if subsequent GI status is approved for popular cheeses such as provolone and mozzarella. In that scenario, it found dairy farm margins would be significantly below breakeven levels for seven years of the 10-year forecast — forcing greater liquida- tion of the U.S. dairy herd. And farm-level reve- nue losses would continue to mount, reaching as much as a cumulative $71.8 bil- lion over 10 years, the ana- lysts said. “This threat is serious and mounting,” Jaime Cas- taneda, executive director of the consortium, said in a press release announcing the study. LEGAL PURSUANT TO ORS CHAPTER 87 Notice is hereby given that the following vehicle will be sold, for cash to the highest bidder, on 3/11/2019. The sale will be held at 10:00am by COPART OF WASHINGTON INC 2885 NATIONAL WAY WOODBURN, OR 2001 INTRNL 4000TK VIN= 1HTSCAANX1H322098 Amount due on lien $1,555.00 Reputed owner(s): D S SERVICES OF AMERICA INC 9-2-3/999 More projects would be exempt from statewide panel review
