Highlanders pick apart wind plans 60 of 66 speakers at SCC hearings oppose HNWD application
By Anne Adams • Staff Writer
MONTEREY - Bleachers and basketball nets notwithstanding, Highland's elementary school gym played host this week to perhaps the most important debate in county history. The seriousness of the proceedings was underscored by courtroom formality complete with examiners, attorneys, and witnesses framed by U.S. and Virginia flags as they were sworn in by a bailiff. What took place was a full court press by industrial scale wind generation opponents that left no doubt as to where the great majority of Highlanders stand on the prospects of such a facility here.
While the tone established over some 14 hours of testimony was more subdued, the State Corporation Commission got the same, clear signal from Highlanders as county supervisors did nearly a year ago - that an industrial wind utility here is not welcomed by the majority of residents and landowners. Of 66 speakers over two days, 60 of them spoke strongly in opposition to Highland New Wind Development's plans for a 39-megawatt commercial wind utility.
The difference this time was in the details. The same passion to preserve and protect Highland's environment and economy was there, but this time, those who testified under oath were often quite specific about what they found lacking in the application. Most submitted supporting research for their arguments, complete with footnotes and references.
Highland New Wind Development LLC is applying for a state certificate to build and operate its facility on Allegheny Mountain. It would include about 20 turbines each standing 400 feet high on a relatively small but conspicuous portion of some 4,000 acres of property owned by the McBride family. The McBrides, owners of the company, hope to begin construction next year.
The hearings were conducted by SCC examiner Alexander Skirpan, who was accompanied by other agency officials, including SCC attorney Wayne Smith. Skirpan commended those speaking for their participation in the case; there were, on average, 60 people attending each of the four sessions held Monday and Tuesday. Testimony over the course of nearly 14 hours was about six hours more than the one local hearing held last year which lasted until 2 a.m.
In general, concerns from those who spoke included: degradation of Highland's landscapes, wildlife and Laurel Fork; uncertain tax revenue; loss of tourism and other business interests; federal subsidies from taxpayers' pockets; the proliferation of more such projects allowed if this one is approved, and an overall diminishing of Highland's peaceful quality of life.
Only one county supervisor, Robin Sullenberger, attended for less than 30 minutes to witness the proceedings. Sullenberger voted against the project's conditional use permit last year. Supervisors Jerry Rexrode and Lee Blagg supported it.
Of the six speaking in favor of the project, two were county residents - Jacob Hevener, who said he couldn't see anything wrong with the plans, especially if the project tax revenue helped offset the tax bills on local farmers and large landowners; and Dave Smith, who was also concerned about tax burdens. The others included Dr. Jonathan Miles, director of operations for the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative group based at James Madison University; Diana Dascalu, an attorney for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network out of Arlington; Roscoe Moyers, an Allegheny Mountain landowner who hopes to lease a portion of his own land if HNWD owner H.T. "Mac" McBride gets approval to build; and Bath County supervisor Stuart Hall, a Highland landowner, who was also concerned about the real estate tax rate.
Attorneys for respondents in the case sat at tables facing the podium, occasionally asking questions of the speakers. Mitch King, president of Old Mill Power Co., had the most questions, and often asked whether speakers considered themselves experts on the testimony they gave. King, also a VWEC partner and strong proponent of wind energy, has said he hopes to buy the power generated by HNWD's project when it's up and running.
His interrogation of Highland resident Rick Webb created about the only tension recorded in the proceedings. Webb, a state senior scientist at the University of Virginia, testified there was not enough information to assess potential negative effects the utility might have on the environment and wildlife species in the site area. He felt there was not enough yet to even attach conditions to a permit for a project like this, and advocated in-depth assessment prior to building any wind energy facilities in Virginia.
King asked about his expertise, and wanted to know who had nominated Webb to the National Academies of Science subcommittee currently studying wind energy.
"I don't know," Webb replied, saying he did consider himself an expert in some way on most of the issues he addressed.
Miles testified to his belief this project's benefits would outweigh its costs. He quoted extensively from Recorder editorial opinions, taking exception to this newspaper's characterization of industrial wind facilities. He said he was speaking mainly as a concerned Virginian. He was questioned by attorneys for respondents opposed to the case - David Bailey pressed him for a yes or no response as to whether Miles believed this site was appropriate for this project. Miles said he could only reiterate his opinion that the benefits of the project outweighed the costs.
CCAN's Dascalu argued global warming was having a far more detrimental effect to Appalachian wildlife than the wind energy facility ever would. She claimed the utility would offset 84,000 tons of carbon dioxide emitted by traditional fossil fuels. "This project offers hope for the people in Virginia," she said. "I'd be proud and honored to have turbines in my yard."
Dascalu was quizzed by SCC attorney Wayne Smith, who asked whether her calculations for offsetting emissions took price relationships into account. She said they did not. "Without the price, you can't assume any other fossil fuel will be displaced," Smith said.
Bailey asked her whether she was familiar with environmental studies created for this particular project. She said she had taken a "preliminary look" at them, but was not qualified to comment on them. She agreed her statistics indicating only one to two birds were killed by turbines annually did not apply to Allegheny Mountain's site area.
After the hearings, Webb said he wasn't surprised by the testimony from Miles and Dascalu, or the questions he received from King.
"I don't think Mitch King understands the need for ethical rhetoric," Webb said. "His whole line of questioning seemed designed to maneuver me into saying something he could later take out of context and use to misrepresent my point of view. He's done it before.
"CCAN and their ilk make assertions about wind development solving global warming problems and eliminating the need for mountain top removal. They provide no real data to support these arguments, and they dissemble when challenged. As I pointed out in my testimony, the capacity for wind development in Virginia is too limited to make a real difference, especially when we consider the continuing rapid increase in electricity use. The wind capacity in Virginia, even if fully developed, couldn't even offset two years of growth in demand. The real wind capacity is in the Midwest and offshore, not in the Appalachian Mountains," he added. "I think Jon Miles was forced to admit that he hasn't done any real analysis to support his assertion that the benefits of the Highland project would outweigh its costs. He admitted that he had done no analysis of the economic benefits, though he alluded to some kind of behind the scenes negotiations between McBride and the supervisors."
The majority of the hearings' speakers spoke firmly about what they saw as a lack of specific information in HNWD's application, and the misinformation or weaknesses in its environmental studies.
Local caving professional Rick Lambert, for example, gave a detailed accounting of HNWD's reports and studies on bat populations and noted how much of the information was either wrong or incomplete.
"Initially with this project, I was for it," Lambert said. "I even had my name published in the paper as one of 19 people for it … and I believe I even told Mac McBride I was for it." However, Lambert said, after he was asked to review bat studies associated with the Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, W.Va., and ones submitted by HNWD here, "I changed my conclusions."
Lambert pointed to inconsistencies and errors in those reports, including misinformation on the location of certain caves, the kinds of bat colonies found, and the number of caves in the area that contained endangered or threatened bat species. Endangered Indiana bats, for example, are found in good numbers within 50 miles of the project site. "These are 69 percent of the total known in Virginia and West Virginia," he said. While Indiana bat populations are down in the rest of Virginia, 3 percent of the entire known population is within 28 miles of the project site.
Lambert also pointed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation to avoid construction near endangered colonies, and that a 5- to 6-mile buffer zone is considered essential to their survival. HNWD's project site, he noted, is closer to the bat populations and therefore at higher risk of being impacted. HNWD, he said, has failed to follow USFWS guidelines on siting projects, and failed to gather three years of data prior to construction. At the project site, he said, "a higher mortality rate is expected. It is likely to have a strong, adverse impact."
If homes for bats were endangered, so too will be homes for people, according to Brian Richardson, local attorney and president of the Highland County Chamber of Commerce. He compared home-building data and land transfers in a six-month period before and after county supervisors approved HNWD's project. "You can interpret this any way you like," he told the agency. First, he said, relocation packets sent out by the chamber numbered about 200 a year before the permit was granted; afterward they dropped to 50 a year. Furthermore, he said, he sensed a decline in his own business, which mainly centers around real estate transactions, and compiled statistics from the clerk's office. From Oct. 1, 2005 to Feb. 28, 2006 there were 38 real estate transactions - about $3.9 million worth of real estate changed hands. But before the permitting decision, in the same period from Oct. 1, 2004 to Feb. 28, 2005, there were 45 transactions - about $8.5 million worth changing hands. "That's a more than 50 percent drop," he said. "I'm convinced this project has already had an adverse impact on my own livelihood, and the county."
Asked whether he felt a rise in interest rates contributed to the decline, Richardson said he would expect the slight increase to have some impact, "but I would not expect a more than 50 percent drop." The recent real estate reassessment also had no impact, he said, because the field work had been mostly done before the decision.
Both chamber director Carolyn Pohowsky, and former board president Lorraine White, concurred with Richardson's conclusions, and suggested Highland was already seeing a drop in relocation interest while potential landowners waited to see whether HNWD's project would be approved.
Pohowsky discussed the number of state and federal grants the county had received to support tourism plans, and expressed her concerns this project could derail what may be the county's only growing industry.
Scott Foster of Monterey focused on the potential impact to Camp Allegheny, a Civil War site central to the history of Highland and Pocahontas County, W.Va., which lies 1.5 miles from the project site. He described its well-preserved earthworks, and how carefully its parking lot was screened from the battlefield by hawthorn trees. "You can't see the parking lot, but you can see Tamarack Ridge," he said. "There were more families (in Highland and Pocahontas) affected by this site than any other Civil War site. He quoted one source calling it "most likely the best preserved winter encampment." Foster noted there are "no modern incongruities over the whole view shed" at Camp Allegheny, and listed about a dozen state and federal agencies that should be contacted by the SCC during HNWD's application review.
Sandra Bratton, whose family owns Sapling Ridge on the Bath/Highland border, told the agency about petitions signed opposing the project in the county. "People here do not want (the facility)," Bratton said. Of the roughly 1,400 signatures collected, 1,246 of them were from Highland residents and landowners, in a county with 2,500 total population, she explained.
Lucile Miller, who had done a master's dissertation on Laurel Fork where it runs through private property, and Dan Foster of the Mountain Soil and Water Conservation District, testified McBride had entered into a state program to renew damaged stream banks on his property. Both said while Laurel Fork seemed to be in pristine condition downstream, it was somewhat degraded on McBride's property and should be protected from further damage. They were especially concerned about tunneling under the fork, a move planned to join the two clusters of turbines on the site with a power line.
Seventeen-year-old Elana Brody pleaded passionately for denying the permit, explaining her growing up years on Bear Mountain. "I feel really lucky to live there," she said, urging the SCC to preserve the place for generations to come.
SCC's Skirpan explained after the last of the testimony he still needed to wait for the Department of Environmental Quality report before he could schedule the evidentiary hearing that will follow in Richmond, or complete his recommendation for the three commissioners who will ultimately make a decision on whether to grant a certificate to HNWD.
Tuesday evening, as if to emphasize the words of so many citizens who had described the beauty of Highland, the sun set behind Monterey Mountain in a dizzying array of color, as a nearly full moon rose simultaneously in the east over the crests of Jack Mountain. And, on both days, gusty winds whipped through the county buffeting the school.
County resident John Walters was one of the last to testify. His quote from a past president summed up the many thoughts of those who went before him.
"President LBJ once said, ââ¬ËIf future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.' It is my belief that when the vast majority of the citizens of our community want to live in a place that is a ââ¬Ëglimpse of the world as it was in the beginning,' and others from outside our community wish to impose ââ¬Ëthe miracles of technology' upon us, this vast community voice has every right to be heard and has every right to have its wishes respected and upheld," Walters said. "This is what I ask of you (SCC) ... I ask you hear and listen to this voice of the community and then to vote to support a community which wishes to uphold a way of life, a quality of life that seems to have slipped away from so many places in the world."
| 
