1  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 CASE 19-E-0121 Petition of Bluestone Wind, LLC for an Original Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and for an Order Granting Lightened  Regulation.  PROCEDURAL CONFERENCE  DATE: February 10, 2020 LOCATION: Third Floor Hearing Room  Agency Building Three, Empire State Plaza Albany, New York  ALJ SEAN MULLANY, DPS    2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  (On the record 1:09 p.m.)  A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm going to call the  case to order. This is Case 19-E-0121, Petition of Bluestone Wind, L.L.C. for an original certificate of public convenience and necessity for an order granting : and for an order granting lightened regulations. This procedural conference is being issued pursuant to a notice that was issued on January 21, 2020. The first thing I'd like to do is take appearances for the record please starting with  the company to my left.  MR. WILSON: Steven Wilson, the Law  Firm of Young Sommer for Bluestone Wind, L.L.C.  MR. STANTON: Chris Stanton,  development manager for Bluestone Wind.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Is that S-T-A-N-T-0-  N, Mr. Stanton?  MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir. MR. WHITLOCK: William Whitlock, vice  president of development, Calpine.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir. MR. WISNIEWSKI: Benjamin Wisniewski  with the Law Firm of The Zoghlin Group, P.L.L.C. We    3  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 represent an intervenor party, the Broome County  Concerned Residents.  A.L.J. MULLANY: And I understand we  have at least one person who's participating in today's telephone conference by telephone. Ms. Sacco, could you please make an appearance for the  record?  MS. SACCO: Yes. This is Attorney  Cheryl Sacco, C-H-E-R-Y-L. Sacco is S-A-C-C-0. I'm a partner with Coughlin and Gerhart appearing on  behalf of the Town of Windsor.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. And we also  have another individual, Anne Lawrence who is a member of Broome County Concerned Residents who is listening in on the phone. Ms. Lawrence? I 1.  MS. LAWRENCE: Yes.  A.L.J. MULLANY: I note that you  requested party status quite some time ago in this  case.  MS. LAWRENCE: Correct.  A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm just pulling out  my paperwork here. Okay. So you filed a request for party status back on February 25th at 2019, and the rationale that you've cited is we have started a    4  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 coalition, Broome County Concerned Residents, and we want to play an active role in developing the record creating a win-win situation for all stakeholders involved, such as myself, living less than 2,000 feet away as well as residents down the valley and beyond.  Our home is right in the middle of the  proposed project area, and we are concerned with health and safety issues as well as the environmental implications of this application for our natural  environment and properties.  Now : and I'm : I guess my question  is directed first and foremost to Mr. Wisniewski as counsel for B.C.C.R. As you : you and I both know, I presided over the Article 10 proceeding with respect to Bluestone Wind, and B.C.C.R. was an active party in that case. The rules allow me to make a grant of party status under certain circumstances. And sO I draw your attention to Rule 4.3 which says : and this is Rule 4.3(c) sub 1, and it says any person may ask the presiding officer for permission  to intervene.  Permission will be granted if the  intervention is likely to contribute to the development of the complete record or is otherwise    5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 fair and in the public interest. So based on the only requests in the docket for B.C.C.R., which is Ms. Lawrence's on behalf of B.C.C.R., that request does not contain enough information for me to make a finding that a grant of party status to B.C.C.R. would be likely to contribute to the development of the complete record or otherwise be fair and in the public interest. So I just want to flag that for  you.  Idon't know if you're prepared to  speak to that and offer information that would help inform a decision on that particular standard that I  need to apply.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: I am, your Honor,  prepared to speak specifically to whether or not B.C.C.R. should be considered as a party pursuant to Rule 4.3 subsection C subsection 1. If, your Honor : Iam not able to provide sufficient detail for to make a determination today, I'd request an opportunity to file an additional written request within sO many days of this conference after speaking  you  more with my client.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Well, I understand  your request. But let's hear what you have to say    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  today and I'11 weigh that in evaluating your request for further opportunity to make a showing.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: All right. Your  Honor, sO with regard to B.C.C.R.'s desire to contribute to the record, when B.C.C.R. initially filed this request, obviously, it raised a lot of issues that would normally be litigated in the Article 10 proceeding and not in this proceeding. And therefore B.C.C. : and since that time, B.C.C.R. has retained counsel to have a better understanding of this process and understands that there really won't be many, if any, opportunities to litigate and flesh out the record on the issues that you just read  about.  Therefore, if B.C.C.R. is granted  party status, it intends to limit its contribution to the record to issues related to both the financial viability of Calpine and its ownership structure as both of these issues are expressly committed for review under Article 68 of the Public Service Law and have also been approved for litigation in this type of proceeding under the siting board's decision in  Cassadaga Wind.  A.L.J. MULLANY: So you've explained    7  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone  Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  to me in brief the scope of the proceeding.  But you  you have nothing to offer as to how B.C.C.R. would  flesh out the record on those issues?  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Your  Honor, if : I  actually am prepared to speak to specific issues and concerns B.C.C.R. has. I was going to present those as part of a request for discovery in this proceeding, but I can do it now if you believe that  also would help 1.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Let's proceed to it  because it's a threshold question.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Okay.  A.L.J. MULLANY: And if we're going to  discuss it now, that will help shed light on further discussion down the road on potential discovery.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: I can do that, your  Honor. Would you like me first to speak a bit more about why it might be in the public interest for  B.C.C.R.?  A.L.J. MULLANY: Well, my first  concern, public interest is a very squishy concept.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Right. A.L.J. MULLANY: And I'm very  concerned about how B.C.C.R. is going to contribute    8  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 to this particular record in light of the narrow relatively narrow scope of a Section 68 proceeding. And you mentioned financial viability, but I'm : I'm curious to know how is it that you might seek to add to the record with respect to the financial viability  of the applicant?  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Your Honor, as  established in the manner of Cassadaga Wind, the C.P.C.N. proceeding associated with that case, in : in that case the : the judge did allow discovery on precisely the issues of financial viability and ownership structure. And here we believe we have an analogous proceeding where there's a petition that makes numerous conclusory statements but doesn't have, in our opinion, sufficient evidence to prove  those conclusory statements.  So, you know, keeping in mind that  there are two primary issues that we believe we are permitted to litigate, the first being financial viability and related : relatedly the ability to construct and operate the project and the second being ownership structure, our review of the petition has identified a few statements that we believe do not pass scrutiny and are not supported by the    9  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  evidence in the record.  So to begin I'1l just, you know, read  what those statements are from the petition itself which has already been filed in this case. First off on page 14 of the petition, Bluestone states that consistent with the discussion of Calpine and its parent companies above, the owners of the facility are financially viable and the facility itself is economically feasible. There's really no clear tie between this statement and the information above, in  our opinion.  Second, once the project receives the  permits and approvals, the financing needed to construct the facility will be obtained through balance sheet, construction loans or other financing mechanisms. B.C.C.R. believes that statement is open ended and lacks any detail whatsoever.  very  Third, the petition states, the  facility will realize income from the sale of pursuant to a long term off take agreement. And then  energy  in brackets with an unaffiliated third mark, close brackets, and the sale of green  party question  attributes.  Again, although this is an    10  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 aspirational statement and could explain in concept how this project is financially viable. We've taken a-- a closer look at what's available in the public domain that might conflict with those factual statements and have identified a series of factual issues that we would intend to engage in discovery on in order to address the issue of whether or not this project actually is financially viable, and whether or not the ownership structure has been adequately  explained on the record.  A.L.J. MULLANY: So you  yousay_you  developed a series of questions related to these  concerns?  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Yes, your Honor. A.L.J. MULLANY: Do you have anything  that's you'd be prepared to share with the company  today?  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Your Honor, I can  read through what I have in my notes. We do not have formal discovery demands. I can turn them around  relatively quickly if needed.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: So I'11 attempt to  elucidate a bit more about what my client's concerns    11  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 are and types : and there will be some questions in here that are similar to what ultimately we would serve on Calpine should we be granted the opportunity  for discovery here.  So first and foremost, in Calpine's  application it states that, quote, road construction and tree clearing must commence by November 1st, 2019 so that the projects can be completed and commence commercial operation by December 31st, 2020. If the project does not enter a commercial operation by the state it will lose its production tax credit jeopardizing its economic viability, end quote.  thereby  Now obviously those dates have come  and gone and this raises a series of questions that we would intend to obtain answers to. First and foremost, and I think we know the answer to this so we probably wouldn't answer it, but did road construction and tree clearing commence by November 1st, 2019. I think we all know that the answer to  that is no.  A second question, when must  construction commence in order to commence commercial  operation by December 31st 2020?  Third, what is meant by the term    12  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 commence commercial operation in this context?  Fourth, how will the project's  economic viability be jeopardized by failure to commence commercial operation by December 31st, 2020. Fourth, if Calpine is unable to commence commercial operation by December 31st, 2020 and loses its production tax credits, what is Calpine's plan for  economic viability?  Five, which is a more fundamental  question, are projection tax credits necessary for Calpine's financial viability in this case? Six, in the event construction commences and the project becomes no longer economically viable, what will Calpine do? So that's the first set of questions having to do with economic viability and the idea that the deadlines that were initially proposed in the petition have come and gone. And that would seem to cast over the assertion that we needed to have shovels in the ground by November in order to obtain production tax credits which are purportedly essential to the economic viability of this project.  Moving on to a second. Through our  firm's own research, we've been able to review Calpine's third quarter 2019 financial reports.    13  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 Pursuant to that port : report, we have discovered that several power plants which provide energy and related projects through Calpine are actually under the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation.  So, in  essence, we've determined that Calpine has multiple  power agreements with PG&E.  As you may know, your Honor, PG&E  filed for bankruptcy on January 14th, 2019. And sO it : the important thing here is there's now a question of fact over whether or not PG&E will be able to perform under its agreements with Calpine. And if not, how that might impact the financial viability of Calpine and therefore its ability to  construct and operate.  So from those third-quarter financial  reports, which I do not have with me but they are available online, a direct quote from PG&E is that we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, this matter being the bankruptcy, and continue to monitor bankruptcy proceedings. So with all this in is going, how PG&E comes out of it and how whatever the bankruptcy revolves : resolves impacts the purchase agreements of Calpine, we have the following  mind and the uncertainty about where the  bankruptcy    14  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 questions that we'd like addressed in this  proceeding.  First, in the event PG&E is unable to  fulfill its obligations under the P.P.A., how will that impact Calpine's economic viability? Second, in the event PG&E is unable to fulfill its obligations under the P.P.A.S, how will that impact Calpine's ability to finance this project, Bluestone Wind? Third, as Calpine determined the amount of loss as a result : it can sustain as a result of PG&E's bankruptcy before Calpine's ability to financing and construct this project would be impact : impacted.  Fourth, we've determined that it's  been publicly estimated that Calpine generates fifteen percent of its earnings before income taxes, appreciation, PG&E. What is the percentage of : that's what I just defined earlier, that is from the P.P.A.S with PG&E? And then finally, and there's some sub questions here, in 2019 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the northern district of California determined that the federal : federal energy regulatory commission has no say in whether the utility PG&E may reject its P.P.A.s if it chooses  if it chooses to while in bankruptcy.    15  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  Calpine filed a notice of appeal to  this decision. Based on that, we would like to know what is the status of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Has PG&E rejected it's P.G. : P.P.A.'s with Calpine, and what is Calpine's current exposure if PG&E rejects the P.P.A.s? So those are the second set of concerns. The second set of concerns have have to do with Calpine's relationship with a now bankrupt company which is Pacific Gas and Electric.  The third set of concerns have to do  with Calpine's express reliance on renewable energy credits or other green attributes to support the financial viability of the project. And, again, that assertion is specifically made on page 14 of the  petition. I read it earlier.  In relation to that issue, we have the  following questions. First, what valuation is Calpine using for its rec sales? How is this  valuation calculated?  Second, has Calpine entered into  agreements for the sale of its anticipated recs for  other green attributes?  Third, if SO, who has these contracts  and what are they worth? We need to know more about    16  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  them.  Fourth, if sO, are the agreements  contingent on the operation day? And then finally, how is Calpine's financial viability impacted by failure to meet any operation dates that are included in rec contracts? For example, does Calpine have an existing rec contract with NYSERDA? If SO, is there an operational date in that contract? If sO, has it been met? If it has not, is Calpine required to pay additional financial security in order to protect NYSERDA in the event that Calpine is unable to perform as required by the contract. And if SO, how would that payment of security or additional security later impact the financial viability of this case?  Moving on to a fourth issue. In  footnote 6 of the petition, this goes to ownership structure as set forth. Footnote 6 in the petition indicates that Access Industries, Inc. which is a privately held multinational industrial group transferred its limited partnership interest and in both parent L.P. to A.I. International Holdings, L.L.C. and then to A.I. Holdings L.P.  A.I. Holdings L.P. is organized under  the laws of the British Virgin Islands. According to    17  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 the petition, A.I. Holdings L.P. has no experience running or operating a power plant. This raises the following issues of fact. How was A.I. Holdings L.P. formed? Who is A.I. Holdings L.P.? Is A.I. Holdings  L.P. financially viable?  Moving on to another issue, B.C.C.R.  and our law firm's research has indicated that Calpine recently became a privately held company and it was : when it was acquired by Energy Capital Partners. Prior to the acquisition by Energy Capital Partners, by all appearances, Calpine was deeply in debt. Calpine filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008, and in 2017 they were over $11.31 billion in  debt.  On August 17th, 2018 Calpine entered  into an agreement plan and merger plan with the affiliates of Energy Capital Partners. Capital Partners paid more than the market value for Calpine shares and assumed all of Calpine's debt. The transaction closed on March 18th, 2018. In relation to this transaction we have the following which we think are relevant to financial viability.  questions  First, what are the details of  Calpine's agreement and merger plan for the    18  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  affiliates of Energy Capital? How : how did going private impact Calpine's finances and what are they now required to report pursuant to the merger? What are they required to disclose and how have their financial audits changed under that merger or  acquisition?  Your Honor, that is : that is a : a  sampling of the questions that we would intend to ask if discovery is granted. Again, we think the scope of these questions is narrow and falls squarely within the scope of issues that are relevant to this proceeding and that have not been supple : or supplanted by the holding that already exists in the associated Article 10 case or Bluestone Wind.  Your Honor, we believe that by asking  these questions and receiving answers, one of two things will happen. Either there will be sufficient evidence in the record as a result of this that will allow you to make a ruling granting certificate. Or it will raise additional questions and substantial issues of fact that will require further evidentiary  proceedings in this matter.  Either way, we believe that B.C.C.R.  will contribute to the record directly, and it's in    19  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  the public interest to have a party like Calpine asking these questions in this proceeding.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, Mr.  Wisniewski. Anything in response Mr. Wilson?  MR. WILSON: Yes, your Honor. I--  well, first off and these are all new questions and these : this is the first time we're hearing of all this : all these lines of inquiry. I'd still question though just because there's questions that B.C.C.R. has : has come up with with respect to viability, I'm not sure that that still answers Honor's threshold question as to how B.C.C.R.'s participation in this case will contribute to the  your  record.  SoI-- I don't know, in other words,  I don't know the fact that they have questions : that they came up with questions that still shows or  demonstrates that they are going  that they should  be granted party status in this proceeding. And, know, with respect to the rest of the questions, we're not prepared to address or : any of those at  you  this time.  But I also question, you know, the :  the relevancy of a lot of those questions. And I    20  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 don't think that your Honor should necessarily use use most, if not all, of those questions as a basis here for B.C.C.R.'s party status or for requiring discovery here. For example, the PG&E ties, Pacific Gas and Electric. I--IC don't see how that or any kind of dealings with PG&E bears on Calpine's ability to finance, own and operate the Bluestone project. You know, and I : and I say the same for a lot of the other questions. But there's so many I can't address each one individually. That's our position  on : on what was just said.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. If there's  nothing further then I am going to rule on the threshold question about party status. I think Mr. Wisniewski's explanation of what he anticipates B.C.C.R. may contribute to the record, and also bearing in mind that there's a two-prong test for party status which is likelihood that they'11 contribute to the record and likelihood that it would  be fair and in the public interest.  I'm sutticienty persuaded to grant  B.C.C.R. party status, and in sO doing, I'm not offering any commentary on the legitimacy of the questions that he might propound through discovery or    21  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 = Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 the legitimacy of any position you might seek to take in an evidentiary proceeding. This is for the limited purpose of allowing you to participate as a party which would give B.C.C.R. the right to engage in discovery in this case. Okay? Anything : any  questions?  Okay. So B.C.C.R. is granted party  status in this proceeding. Now let's go on to the Closely-related question of discovery. I heard what you said, Mr. Wilson. You said a moment ago that you didn't see how, for example, the questions related to PG&E were relevant and material to the application. of seeking information that might lead to relevant and material information. So it's a slightly lower threshold. You can propound information requests and discovery requests with respect to information that may not, in fact, be admissible, but it's a way of seeking out information to try and find out more about the application of the representations made in  Discovery is allowed for the purpose  the petition.  So based on the questions I heard  articulated by Mr. Wisniewski, I am sufficiently persuaded that discovery into these matters would be    22  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  allowable. But I don't want to spend a great deal of time on discovery. I think in the Cassadaga case they : Judge Lecakes allowed a week to 10 days of discovery. I'm prepared to allow limited discovery to, you know, for the duration of 10 days. It sounds, Mr. Wisniewski, as though your inquiries are already pretty well formulated, and it's a matter of typing them up. Is that a fair characterization?  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Yes, your Honor.  We'd : we'd like to do : if discovery is granted we would like to do a little bit more work on them. But, yes. I could turn something around relatively quickly. If we were given 10 days to serve our request from now, that would be sufficient.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.  MR. WILSON: Your Honor, I believe in  Cassadaga they were allowed 3 days to serve discovery. And then responses were due 9 days later and the entire process was wrapped up in about 26 days. So 10 days : if they're in sufficient form already, then I think 10 days is : is a lot of time  to : to allow service and discovery.  A.L.J. MULLANY: So what I'm going to  do is split the baby sO to speak. I'm going to grant    23  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 = Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 all parties up to 5 business days starting as of tomorrow to serve discovery requests. And then the responses will be governed by the rules of procedure. And I think that fairly balances the interest articulated by the company and : and by B.C.C.R.  Okay?  Ialso want to note for the record  that we don't have Ava Thorin participating. She's not on the call today, right? And we don't have Joni Riggi (phonetic spelling) on the call today. We also had party requests from both of these individuals but they're not represented today. Nobody has filed any objection to their request for party status. However, because the requests of party status don't provide enough information to make a : a decision as to whether or not their participation would contribute to the development of the record or would otherwise be fair and in the public interest, I'm going to deny the party status request of Joni Riggle  and of Ava Thorin.  And the transcript of this procedural  conference will serve as the documentation of that ruling. And for purposes of preserving the record, I - I have before me 1 the information I have before    24  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  me is a request that was filed by Joni Riggle on February 22nd, 2019. It's available on the Document Matter Management System. And in that request, Ms. Riggi articulates the nature of her : of the party's  interest in the case as follows.  Quote, I believe it is extremely  premature to be requesting a C.P.C.N. before a full Article 10 record is developed. I was a party to the Cassadaga Wind project, familiar with the C.P.C.N. and want to have the ability to add and contribute to the complete record. So I would note that : end  quote.  And so I would note that the record  for the Bluestone Wind Article 10 proceeding has, in fact, been closed. So there's no basis for allowing Ms. Riggi to : Riggle to participate in this case. It's a separate proceeding and I don't see that she's articulated a basis for a granting of party status. So Joni Riggle's request for party status is denied.  With respect to Ava C. Thorin, I'm  looking at a document dated February 25th, 2019, three o five p.m. Again, this is available on the Document Matter Management System. Ms. Thorin says I own a cabin on Reservoir Road in Sanford. My home    25  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 borders on the Deposit Reservoir and encompasses encompasses approximately 12 acres, 4 acres of Cleared land with a cabin and well, 4 acres of forest and 4 acres under the reservoir. I have been identified as a stakeholder in the Bluestone Wind  project.  Reading the petition document posted  on this page, I believe she's talking about the petition in Case 19-E-0121. Ms. : Ms. Thorin says I realize that construction on this part of the project will block for a considerable period of time the only access road to my home. I'11 be severely impacted by this project not only because Bluestone's map indicates that I will be surrounded by 4 turbines and a meteorological station. She shortens it to a met station, but I will also be denied access to my home.  Four turbines surrounding a small home  and property will have significant impact on my health and that of my family, the reservoir, the various migratory birds and eagles that frequent the location and the magnificent wildlife in the area. Given that my first notification of this project came in December 2018 and that now there is a petition to fast track approval, I need to know what is going on    26  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  in a timely manner sO that I can respond with the appropriate : within the appropriate time frame.  Thank you for your consideration. And  that's the end of Ms. Thorin's stated rationale for  her request of party status.  If find that this stated rationale does  not provide a sufficient basis to find that Ms. Thorin's participation as an active party in this case would add to the record or be fair and in the  public interest.  The concerns that Ms. Thorin  articulates fall within the scope of the related Article 10 proceeding and are not within the scope of this separate proceeding under Public Service Law Section 68 which is before the Public Service Commission rather than the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. For these reasons, Ms. Thorin's request for party status  is denied.  Okay. Thank you for bearing with me  during that dramatic reading. Is there anything further that parties would like to discuss today?  MR. WILSON: Yes, your Honor. We  could we also set a schedule beyond the discovery for    27  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  submission of any kind of issue statements and then a response by the company sO that we can have a  schedule for that today too?  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Let's talk. I  don't have a calendar in front of me. Let me go grab  a calendar.  Okay. So I secured a calendar for  purposes of reference. And, Mr. Wilson, you had made a request that we set some additional dates for schedule for closing off discovery and issue statements. And perhaps some other milestones as well. So we've just : let's see, we're on the 10th and we've said 5 business days for propounding. That puts us to Tuesday the 18th I believe of February  since Monday is President's Day.  And why don't we say issue statements  well, we're going to have to build in time for the company to respond. That is subject to a little bit of : I mean, there's minimums under the rules. But if it turns out that these requests require additional time, I : I understand the company's interest in moving forward in an expeditious way. So It trust the company is going to do its best to answer the : the discovery requests as expeditiously as it    28  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  can.  MR. WHITLOCK: That's correct. A.L.J. MULLANY: So for the sake of  setting the schedule, do you want to assume the  minimum dates?  MR. WHITLOCK: Yeah, I think that will  work.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Your Honor, should be  built in time for potential objections based on relevance, confidentiallty, anything else?  A.L.J. MULLANY: Voice of experience.  I-- I think what I want to do is : you know what I'm going to do? I understand your request, Mr. Wilson, and I - I am committed to getting this case moved forward. But I do want to see how the discovery proceeds. And what I'd like to do is give Mr. Wisniewski his time to propound the discovery request, have the company : and I'11 give the company an opportunity to evaluate those requests. And : and then perhaps we could have a - a call to talk about whether there's any need for additional time or if there are any objections to the discovery  request.  And perhaps at that time then we'd    29  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 have a better sense as to how that's proceeding, and we can set a : a deadline for issue statements because, of course, the responses are going to inform Mr. Wisniewski's articulation on his issue statements sO he's going to need a little bit of time for that. It just seems a little bit premature for us to assess  what that burden might be.  MR. WILSON: Okay. That's fine. A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay?  MR. WILSON: Yes. And the only other  thing that we would ask then because this is all dealing with financial information of Calpine or possibly its affiliates, and if : you know, we provide that information I think we might need a protective order in place. So assuming that we are going to answer the questions within 10 days on : or otherwise the 28th, I guess we would need a protective order then in place by that date.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. That's a  reasonable request. And I will set about putting together a ruling issuing or adopting a protective  order  MR. WILSON: Thank you.  A.L.J. MULLANY: : that's going to be    30  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 consistent with other cases I receive. And sO I'm hoping that can happen without objection or further  litigation or dispute.  MR. WILSON: Thank you, your Honor.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: And, if your Honor,  can I be heard briefly on the protective order?  A.L.J. MULLANY: Yeah. MR. WISNIEWSKI: Broome County  Concerned Residents would not object at all to a protective order. It may well be necessary in this case. Taking a step back, one of my client's fundamental concerns about proceedings before the Public Service Commission and the siting board is that some information that is deemed confidential in my client's opinion should not be confidential.  So I just want to raise a possible  issue now that there could be a dispute later over whether some of the issues that Calpine claims is confidential and subject to the protective order should actually be confidential and subject to the  protective order.  A.L.J. MULLANY: So I'11 : I'11 note  for the record then : I'11 note your concern,    31  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 obviously. But for the record there are procedures  in place for challenging assertions of  confidentiality. And, in fact, that's the purpose of a protective order is to allow the free exchange and allow parties to refine their case sO that an actual ruling on whether something is confidential can be forestalled until a party decides to actually offer  it into the record.  So there's going to be information  exchanged through discovery under the rubric of a protective order. And arguably objections to whether or not those assertions of confidentiality are, in fact, valid or premature unless and until you get to the point where you're proposing public disclosure of the information by offering that for admission into  the record.  MS. SACCO: Your Honor, may I be  heard? Cheryl Sacco.  UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor that A.L.J. MULLANY: Ms. Sacco, do me a  was  favor and just speak up if you could. That speaker  is pretty mild.  MS. SACCO: Okay. I'1l : I'11 speak    32  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 up, your Honor. I apologize. I just would like to be heard on the protective order for the Town of Windsor. As the court is aware, no other parties are aware, Town of Windsor is a municipality subject to a FOIL. I believe in the other Article 10 certificate proceeding the : your Honor was able to address the FOIL issues. And I would just ask that those : that that FOIL be addressed in this as well sO that the Town of Windsor is not balancing FOIL and your  Honor's protective order.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Yes, there were  provisions in the protective order, if my memory serves me, in the Bluestone case that addressed  MS. SACCO: Yes, sir.  A.L.J. MULLANY: : municipalities.  And it's my intention, Ms. Sacco, to incorporate those provisions in the protective order to be  adopted in this case.  MS. SACCO: Thank you, sir.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Wisniewski, I :  I'm not sure if you've had a chance to say anything more. I'd : I'd explain the procedures for objecting to claims of confidentiality. And then Ms. Sacco spoke up, sO just wanted to make sure there    33  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 wasn't something more that you had on that.  MR. WISNIEWSKI: Your Honor, I --I  think your explanation is sufficient for now. Again, I'm just anticipating a potential problem in the future and we will do our best to work within the  confines of the protective order.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir.  Which is the good practice of law, anticipating problems and hoping they don't come up. And when they do, trying to resolve them without involving me.  Okay. Is there anything further? MR. WILSON: No, your Honor.  A.L.J. MULLANY: No, to : Ms. Sacco, MS. SACCO: No, your Honor. I have  do you have anything further?  no thank you.  A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Thank you all  for taking time out of your day to come here and : and participate in this proceeding. Again, if questions come up you can reach out to me. And appreciate it if you do sO by e-mail. Just keeps things clean. Copy all the parties that you're communicating with with me. All right? Thank you.  Again. We are adjourned.    34  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  2-10-2020  Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121 (Off the record 1:50 p.m.)    35  1  2-10-2020 - Bluestone Wind, LLC - 19-E-0121  2 STATE OF NEW YORK  3 I, JANET WALLRAVIN, do hereby certify that the foregoing 4 was reported by me, in the cause, at the time and place, 5 as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that 6 the foregoing typewritten transcription consisting of 7 pages 1 through 34, is a true record of all proceedings  8 had at the hearing.  9  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto  10 subscribed my name, this the 14th day of February, 2020.  11 12  13 JANET WALLRAVIN, Reporter  14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25