Wind energy issues to hit House, Senate
By Anne Adams • Staff Writer
RICHMOND - It will come as little surprise to Highland residents that pressure at the state level to develop wind energy projects continues to mount. And now, the county's own legislative representatives are jumping in to the debate with separate bills introduced in the General Assembly session.
The legislative proposals are entirely different, but if passed, they would each have a significant effect on the current plan for a 39-megawatt facility here, and any future commercial wind projects that are likely to surface.
Taxing the wind
Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-24th District) is again proposing a bill to set a specific tax rate on industrial wind power equipment.
Senate bill 404 amends a portion of the Code of Virginia related to property taxes on generating equipment of electric suppliers. If Highland New Wind Development were to construct its utility here, under this plan it would be taxed $5,000 per megawatt of nameplate capacity (39). The bill does not address the number of years that rate would be effective, but were the project to be up and running 20 years, Highland County could receive $195,000 annually, adjusted every five years for inflation, or more than $3.9 million during the life of the project.
Hanger introduced this bill at the request of the Highland County Board of Supervisors, which last year was taken aback by the senator's similar proposal then of only $3,000 per megawatt. And that, he says, is the extent of his involvement. "This is the issue we'll all have our feathers singed on," he said Tuesday. "The board asked me to sponsor (this bill), and since I was asked by the local government, I was willing to set up a mechanism for them."
During last year's session, Hanger introduced the bill at the request of the developer and its attorney, John Flora. The bill passed the Senate, but got bogged down in committee due to some mixed signals, Hanger said. The bill had given a ballpark figure for tax revenue after much discussion in a House finance subcommittee and was set to go. But when the full committee approached its deadline, Hanger said there was confusion about the proposal. "Some had mistakenly thought I didn't really want the bill to go through."
The committee chairman held a special meeting at his desk on the matter, and at that point the bill was left to die. "I expect it to go through this year unless we have some new information from the State Corporation Commission or other folks," he said. "Last year, the SCC was receptive to structuring it this way."
Hanger expects there will be some who express concern about the measure "because all the rules haven't been well-defined" on the issue, he said. "(Wind energy) is being discussed now nationally and for the most part, in a positive light. But there are downsides. And it really depends on where (wind development) is. The prevailing sentiment is that while there are significant changes to the skyscape, it actually doesn't degrade the environment. But it really changes the whole viewshed when you look up at those monsters."
Hanger says he slips in and out of Highland County regularly, for Ruritan club events among others. "My sense is that this project has been divisive. Most who have been here for generations are probably disproportionately in favor of this project. Most who have come here in the last generation or so, are disproportionately opposed to it. But I'm not trying to influence the outcome either way."
Hanger sat in on several meetings when Sen. Frank Wagner's Virginia Energy Plan was being developed, and is encouraged that the proposal's original plan to bypass all local land use ordinances has been tempered. But generally, he feels decisions should be left to local leaders. "If a local government comes and says we're willing to do this, hopefully they have the finger on the pulse of their community."
Wagner, he says, is looking at the broader implications of energy use in Virginia. "But Highland County is in many ways unique. And in this instance, I really believe most of the weight should be given to local decisions. I would not support the state's ability to do this to you, only if the local government says we want it."
Wagner's bill, now introduced in similar form on the House side by Highland's Del. Chris Saxman, calls for a "one-stop permitting process" for certain utilities that meet requirements. If they qualify, and the state deems a potential site suitable for that kind of development, the plants are considered to satisfy any local building and zoning regulations without having to get a local permit.
"I'd have some reservations on that point," Hanger says. "In this instance, I don't know that it's even necessary."
Hanger speaks from the position of the new chairman of the Chesapeake Bay commission, and says he's got several initiatives on his plate involving water quality, farmland preservation, and land conservation.
Virginia Energy Plan
Del. Chris Saxman (R-20th District) has introduced legislation based on the Virginia Energy Bill proposed by Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach, but has not taken up the tax proposal requested by Highland supervisors. "I think Virginia should be a leading state in the country on energy. Fundamentally, I believe and I know gas prices are higher here and we need to become competitive."
Saxman, who has long supported lifting the federal ban on natural gas exploration in Virginia, is proposing a House-side bill nearly identical to Wagner's, and includes the "one-stop permitting" process for siting wind facilities, and other utilities.
House Bill 1292 directs state agencies (Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; State Corporation Commission; Department of Environmental Quality; and Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research) to prepare the energy plan to implement policy.
The first order of business would be to get an exemption from the moratorium on offshore natural gas exploration and development, and to get exclusive jurisdiction over offshore energy development for Virginia, which would include turbines.
The bill also outlines the scoring system introduced by Wagner to determine potential sites for suitability in wind, nuclear, and liquefied natural gas. The scoring system, to be designed by the SCC, would review any site recommended by the state, a local government, or an individual property owner. If a site is deemed high-scoring, a low-emission energy plant could get one permit at the state level considered to satisfy all local zoning requirements. In other words, if the SCC gives a site high marks, a developer will not need to go through local land use reviews.
Saxman's bill also includes the proposal similar to Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple's that grants money for using renewable, high-efficient energy sources or appliances.
If passed, wind energy plants could be eligible for 85 cents per kilowatt of power generated.
Saxman stresses the energy plan on both sides of the aisle is a work in progress, and he and Wagner have different versions. He expects it has a good chance of getting passed, but notes it hasn't yet even gotten committee referral. He believes it will go to the conference committee so that wording in both bills can be identical. "Right now, we disagree on some concepts," he said.
The one-stop permitting idea and the sense local governments could lose some control over land use decisions is probably one measure that will require a good bit of revision. "I don't want to run roughshod over local government," he said. "We're just looking for a way to streamline the whole process, and I imagine any permitting process will have a means for public involvement."
Industrial wind development is included "only with respect to siting standards," he added. "I don't think this would affect (HNWD's plan) but it depends on when those standards are adopted. You've got timing issues there."
Saxman says wind energy is part of the overall plan in the bill as part of the process. "I'm still not a big proponent of wind. It just doesn't add that much (electricity). I haven't seen any evidence yet that it will and I'm not comfortable supporting wind at this point," he said. "(This bill) is not an attempt to support wind, it's just to provide some standardization in case some places want (wind development) to move ahead. We're just saying, if you're going to do it, do it right."
| 
