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