Michael Sandoval

Sat 5/21/2016 11:10 AM

To:
senatorbrophy@gmail.com

Greg,

Below you will find an excerpt from the minutes (also attached) of the April 18, 2016 Lincoln
County Board of County Commissioners meeting:

The Board discussed a request for a letter of support for Xcels proposal to build additional
renewable energy generation in Eastern Colorado and a letter already submitted to the Denver
Post. Mr. Ensign provided a copy of a sample letter that Greg Brophy requested the
commissioners send to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Public
UtilitiesCommission, as well as a copy of his email to Mr. Brophy explaining the Boards
hesitation indoing so. The email informed Mr. Brophy that endorsement of any yet unpermitted
projects that would require any permitting decision on the part of the commissioners could be
perceived as prejudicial and inappropriate. He added that while the commissioners certainly
agreed with several of his points, they were in no position to formally or informally endorse such
a letter.

A letter claiming to be written by Lincoln County Commissioner Doug Stone appeared in
theDenver Post; however, Mr. Stone had not written the letter. County Attorney Stan Kimble felt
the Board needed to object to the letter, and Mr. King stated he thought they should send a
letter to the paper denying any involvement and disavowing the letter they claimed was written
by Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone commented that he had left a message for Mr. Brophy and told him he
agreed with his points and the letter sounded okay to him, but that he would have to speak with
the other commissioners first. After the Board agreed that they could not appear to support one
particular energy company over any others at their meeting on April 6, Mr. Stone left Mr.
Brophy another message that the commissioners had agreed not to get involved. Itwasnt long
after that the letter appeared in the Denver Post.

Mr. King said he didnt have a problem sending a generic letter in support of renewable
energythat did not back one particular company over another, but he certainly did not want
to endorse the letter provided by Mr. Brophy. Mr. Ensign will work with Mr. Kimble to draft a
letter to the Denver Post and will have it available for the commissioners to sign at their special
meeting on Friday. He asked if the Board did want to send a letter of support to the PUC and it
was suggested that the paragraph directly referring to Xcel be removed.

I would like to clarify a few things--are you working on behalf or in partnership with Xcel/Public
Service Company of Colorado, and if so, in what capacity? Does this include a wind project, as
yet unnamed in the minutes but now scheduled to be called Rush Creek?

In the minutes, it is alleged that Commissioner Stone did not write the letter in question and
that the letter appeared in the Denver Post without permission. Do you agree with this
assessment, and why or why not?

Are the rest of the details submitted in these minutes by the Lincoln County BOCC accurate? If
not (in whole, or in part), would you like to amend or elaborate where the commission's
minutes are in error?

Any additional comments, documents, or other supportive evidence you may have would be
welcome.

I would appreciate a response by 9pm tonight, May 21, 2016.

Best,
Michael

Michael Sandoval
Sat 5/21/2016 11:15 AM
To:

lcadmin@lincolncountyco.us

Members of the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners,

Below you will find an excerpt from the minutes (also attached) of the April 18, 2016 Lincoln
County Board of County Commissioners meeting:

The Board discussed a request for a letter of support for Xcels proposal to build additional
renewable energy generation in Eastern Colorado and a letter already submitted to the Denver
Post. Mr. Ensign provided a copy of a sample letter that Greg Brophy requested the
commissioners send to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Public
Utilities Commission, as well as a copy of his email to Mr. Brophy explaining the Boards
hesitation in doing so. The email informed Mr. Brophy that endorsement of any yet unpermitted
projects that would require any permitting decision on the part of the commissioners could be
perceived as prejudicial and inappropriate. He added that while the commissioners certainly
agreed with several of his points, they were in no position to formally or informally endorse such
a letter.

A letter claiming to be written by Lincoln County Commissioner Doug Stone appeared in
the Denver Post; however, Mr. Stone had not written the letter. County Attorney Stan Kimble
felt the Board needed to object to the letter, and Mr. King stated he thought they should send a
letter to the paper denying any involvement and disavowing the letter they claimed was written
by Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone commented that he had left a message for Mr. Brophy and told him he
agreed with his points and the letter sounded okay to him, but that he would have to speak with

the other commissioners first. After the Board agreed that they could not appear to support one
particular energy company over any others at their meeting on April 6, Mr. Stone left Mr.
Brophy another message that the commissioners had agreed not to get involved. It wasnt long
after that the letter appeared in the Denver Post.

Mr. King said he didnt have a problem sending a generic letter in support of renewable
energy that did not back one particular company over another, but he certainly did not want
to endorse the letter provided by Mr. Brophy. Mr. Ensign will work with Mr. Kimble to draft a
letter to the Denver Post and will have it available for the commissioners to sign at their special
meeting on Friday. He asked if the Board did want to send a letter of support to the PUC and it
was suggested that the paragraph directly referring to Xcel be removed.

I would like to clarify a few things--Is Mr. Brophy working on behalf or in partnership with
Xcel/Public Service Company of Colorado, and if so, in what capacity? Does this include a wind
project, as yet unnamed in the minutes but now scheduled to be called Rush Creek?

In the minutes, it is alleged that Commissioner Stone did not write the letter in question and
that the letter appeared in the Denver Post without permission. Do you agree with this
assessment, and why or why not?

Are the rest of the details, including the conversations described by Mr. Stone and submitted in
these minutes by the Lincoln County BOCC accurate? If not (in whole, or in part), would you like
to amend or elaborate where the commission's minutes are in error?

Were there any subsequent conversations between the board and Mr. Brophy on this subject?
Any actions taken by the Board beyond what is described in this passage from the minutes on
April 18, 2016?

Any additional comments, documents/emails, or other supportive evidence you may have
would be welcome.

I would appreciate a response by 9pm tonight, May 21, 2016.

Best,
Michael

Greg Brophy <senatorbrophy@gmail.com>

Sat 5/21/2016 3:36 PM
To:
Michael Sandoval
Cc:
Amy Cooke

Below you will find email confirmation from Commissioner Stone where he okays the
placement of a LTE that clearly references the Svaldi
piecehttp://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29687033/colorado-farmers-reap-9-million-
payments-from-turbines and has nothing at all to do with any specific project.
Any commissioner from eastern Colorado understands that royalty payments make a huge
difference for farmers and ranchers in rural Colorado. Further, commissioners from a half
dozen rural counties know that property tax payments from wind farms provide much
needed revenue to provide basic services for their constituents. I realize the Denver-centric
think tank might be unaware, but rural Colorado hasn't experienced much economic activity
outside of agriculture and energy lately and ag and fossil fuel prices aren't exactly stellar at
the moment.
At a later date the full Board of Lincoln County Commissioners sent a letter to the PUC
stating, effectively, that as commissioners they wear two, or more, hats, they are chief
cheerleaders for economic development and responsible for permitting such development in
a manner consistent with the law and interests of their constituents. In that capacity they
believe that building wind farms is economically beneficial (let me shock you with
something - it is) and that they can acknowledge such without changing their duty to vet
and finally okay or deny permits for specific projects. In short they do their jobs.
Now, I have a question for you: why do you want to stop a project that benefits rural
Colorado without costing anyone else a dime extra? I'll expect your answer by noon
tomorrow.
Best,
Greg Brophy
It looks ok to me, go ahead with it

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:16 PM, "Greg Brophy" <senatorbrophy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Attached is the LTE that we discussed. If you like it, I will get it placed in the Post
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Rich Coolidge"
<RCoolidge@eissolutions.com<mailto:RCoolidge@eissolutions.com>>
> Date: Mar 31, 2016 3:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Wind LTE 1
> To: "Greg Brophy" <senatorbrophy@gmail.com<mailto:senatorbrophy@gmail.com>>
> Cc:
>
> No, here is a clean copy sans track changes.

>
> From: Greg Brophy
[mailto:senatorbrophy@gmail.com<mailto:senatorbrophy@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:49 PM
> To: Rich Coolidge <RCoolidge@eissolutions.com<mailto:RCoolidge@eissolutions.com>>
> Subject: RE: Wind LTE 1
>
>
> I'm driving. Is the doc you sent back edited? Can I just forward to my commissioner?
> On Mar 31, 2016 3:41 PM, "Rich Coolidge"
<RCoolidge@eissolutions.com<mailto:RCoolidge@eissolutions.com>> wrote:
> Nice work. Just a couple edits.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Brophy
[mailto:senatorbrophy@gmail.com<mailto:senatorbrophy@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:48 PM
> To: Rich Coolidge <RCoolidge@eissolutions.com<mailto:RCoolidge@eissolutions.com>>
> Subject: Wind LTE 1
>
> Got time to proof read this?
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please
visit http://www.symanteccloud.com____________________________________________
__________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
> <Wind LTE 1.docx>

Greg Brophy <senatorbrophy@gmail.com>

Sun 5/22/2016 7:40 AM
To:
Amy Cooke

Cc:
Michael Sandoval;
Jon Caldara

The problem I have is that you are picking on Lincoln County and for naught.


Think about this: the LC Board of Commissioners have little to no say over whether this
project is necessary or not. They have land use, siting and end of life oversight. Their
constituents, the landowners impacted by the project are private property owners. All, or
at least most of them, want the project built on land they own. Does II want to stand
between the commissioners and their constituents on that question?

You should be asking your questions of the government authority that has the obligation to
ask and answer the concerns that you raise, the Public Utilities Commission. Sending CORA
requests to Lincoln County is like beating up a third grader, for something they didn't even
do. That's what makes bothers me.

I'll let Xcel and the PUC defend their decision to build an electricity generating facility
themselves, but I won't stand by and let a Denver think tank take pot shots at friends of
mine in eastern Colorado.

Greg Brophy

Amy Cooke

Sun 5/22/2016 9:13 PM

Greg,
We agree with you about the Lincoln County Commissioners. According to their official minutes posted on
line, they including the county attorney acted appropriately, which is why we asked to make sure those
minutes are an accurate representation of what was discussed at the April 18th meeting. We dont want to
quote something and then find out that a corrected or different version exists. We also wanted to give you a
heads up since your name was mentioned.

We disagree on CORA. CORA requests arent potshots. They are how the private sector citizens and
entities keep an eye on what government is doing with our resources. And we dont believe that definition
of government is limited to state government located in Denver. Any one who runs for office knows CORA.
Those who believe in transparent government dont fear CORA; they accept it. And, yes, some even welcome
it.

Finally, you calling us a Denver or Denver-centric think tank surprises me. It's similar to me calling you a
DC or Denver resident. Its inaccurate. My guess is you are aware of that, but EISs strategy seems to be to
kill the messenger to deflect from the economic argument.

For the record, over 31 years, weve garnered tens of thousands of investors and supporters from all over the
state. Just as you dont live in Lincoln County, still you feel like you speak for your friends in Lincoln County.
Well, our headquarters arent in Lincoln County, but our supporters there feel like we represent them too
and that goes for all of rural CO including the Western Slope.

Fortunately the principles of limited government, transparency, and free markets transcend geographic
location. Otherwise, Americans would never know of Hayek; Coloradans wouldnt be familiar with Milton
Friedman; IJ couldn't defend Douglas County; and CEI couldnt partner with II to explain Colorados "Great
Green Deception." But I know you are aware of that too.

Best wishes,

Amy