Renewable energy bills still alive in session

RICHMOND — Bills aimed at providing strong incentives to wind energy developers in Virginia continue to make their way through this session of the General Assembly.

Whether they could affect the state's first wind energy facility proposed in Highland County remains unknown, but Highlanders aren't taking any chances, and are making their voices heard in Richmond.

The legislative proposals are garnering opposition from those concerned about their potential to weaken environmental studies related to wind utilities, and those who oppose language that would significantly reduce potential revenue for cities and counties with wind plants, and offer tax breaks to individual shareholders in wind companies.

Since the bills were introduced, Highlanders for Responsible Development, the loose knit group of Highland County citizens formed initially in opposition to the industrial wind facility planned a few miles from Monterey, has been contacting its members and colleagues to call senators and delegates voicing concern.

Some who have been in Richmond this week say that since Gov. Tim Kaine apparently supports these bills, they are likely to pass without an outcry from citizens. "These bills would let anyone develop ridges with little consideration of impacts," one noted. "They consider 50 turbines a 'small' project that needs no State Corporation Commission oversight."

At least a few Highlanders got on the phone Monday and called every member of the commerce and labor committee.

Here's where the proposals stand after legislative meetings early this week:

Senate Bill 1194: Small renewable

energy projects

• Introduced by Sen. Phillip Puckett (D-Tazewell); referred Jan. 13 to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources. Sen. Emmett Hanger, Highland County's representative, serves on this committee, along with Sen. Creigh Deeds, a former Highland delegate, and Sen. Mark Obenshain, the Harrisonburg attorney whose firm represents Highland New Wind Development, LLC.

• Since last week, the bill was referred from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources unanimously, with a 14-0 vote. Monday, the bill was sent back to the committee on commerce and labor in the Senate. The bill:

• Addresses renewable energy sources including sunlight, wind, falling water, and the like, but does not include coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power;

• Defines small renewable projects as those with a rated capacity of 100 megawatts or less;

• Requires the DEQ to create a "permit rule" for such projects by Jan. 1, 2010; and

• Under the permit rule, local governing bodies would certify the project complies with local land use ordinances; an analysis of potential environmental impacts would be required; for wind projects, an analysis of potential impacts on migrating birds is required, including one year of preconstruction monitoring.

• The rule would also requires an engineer to certify such facilities meet standards established by the permit rule and complies with any other environmental permit required.

• Any developer of a project this size would be exempt from SCC regulations in place on utilities.

• Highland supervisors find the reference to local land use ordinances "more palatable" than the lack of such in SB 1347 and HB 2525, which they oppose.

• Identical bill (HB 2175) introduced in the House by Del. Clark N. Hogan (R-SouthBoston); referred Jan. 26 to the House commerce and labor subcommittee on energy.

Senate Bill 1347: Small wind energy

facilities

• Introduced by Wagner; referred Jan. 23 to the Commerce and Labor subcommittee on utilities, where it remains this week. This bill:

• Proposes that smaller wind energy plants be desig- nated as those with a generating capacity of less than 100 megawatts; and

• Instead of approval through the State Corporation Commission, as all utilities are, smaller wind energy plants would get permits from the Department of Environmental Quality, and the SCC would not be allowed to step in and set any additional conditions. DEQ would be considered the lead agency.

• DEQ would not be allowed to require monitoring studies on birds or other wildlife that last more than a year after the plant is operating.

• The developer would not be responsible for paying for any studies outside the first year; DEQ would set costs it feels are reasonable for post-construction monitoring, but the proposal does not say who would pay for more studies if needed.

• The wind project company's partners or shareholders would get to share a state tax credit equal to 35 percent of the cost of construction, equipment, or leasing equipment. The credit be taken in five installments, and cannot be more than half what the owners owe in taxes or higher than $500,000. The credit would be reported on their individual income tax returns.

• For wind utilities this size, 80 percent of their value would be exempt from state and local taxes.

• Opposed by the Highland County Board of Supervisors.

• Identical bill (HB 2525) introduced in the House by Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas); referred Jan. 26 to the House commerce and labor subcommittee on energy, where it remains.

• A fiscal impact statement on both SB 1347 and HB 2525 has been released by the state Department of Planning and Budget, which notes the DEQ says it can absorb the costs associated with issuing permits. However, "the magnitude of the investment tax credit and local property tax exemption is unknown,î the report says. ìAccording to the Department of Taxation, it is unclear when the wind farm projects under consideration will move forward, and if the projects are developed, to what extent the projects meet the criteria for the credit. Wind turbines and towers that are constructed and qualify under the provisions of the bill, will result in a state and local revenue loss.î

The report also notes that one clause in the bill charges the SCC and DEQ with developing joint guidelines for ìpre-applicationî requirements, and the agencies are to put together a ìworking group of interested partiesî to comment on those.