Wind project hearing set for held Tuesday

RICHMOND — Virginia's Department of Historic Resources found itself flooded with letters and calls this week when citizens learned the agency was holding a private meeting with Highland New Wind Development Tuesday in Charlottesville.

Many were concerned that would result in an agreement between DHR and HNWD, and no hearing would be held by the State Corporation Commission next week about DHR's complaint that HNWD was not meeting the intent of the SCC's order.

But following the meeting with HNWD, DHR director Kathleen Kilpatrick told The Recorder that, "consistent with the order, there will be a hearing (before the SCC) on Tuesday."

When citizens learned of the meeting with HNWD, several of them urged those eager to protect Camp Allegheny from the impacts of HNWD's utility to write Kilpatrick and ask her not to "cut a deal" with HNWD before the matter was heard at hearing.

The SCC set the Tuesday, Oct. 13 hearing following assertions from DHR that the company was not meeting one of the conditions attached to HNWD's permit, as established by the SCC in December 2007.

The order stipulated HNWD was to work with DHR, and conduct studies, if necessary, to determine the impacts of the company's 400-foot towers on historic resources in the area. DHR has for years asked HNWD to provide an objective viewshed analysis it can use to make recommendations for minimizing the towers' impacts. HNWD has repeatedly argued such studies are not needed, and that it has provided everything it needs to the agency.

Finally, HNWD put an end to further discussion, telling DHR it would no longer consult the agency about the issue, but would allow DHR to visit the site after the project was under construction.

DHR's then complained to the SCC, and the SCC set the matter for next week's hearing.

HNWD responded to the complaint by arguing all issues of viewshed were considered already by Highland County officials, and the SCC could not consider those again under laws that regulate its authority.

SCC held a hearing on that motion Sept. 23, after which hearing examiner Alexander Skirpan ruled viewshed issues would be considered at the Oct. 13 hearing.

When citizens learned later that Kilpatrick was going to meet with HNWD, they were concerned the hearing would be cancelled, and that perhaps DHR had changed its position. A web site established by Dawn Barrett of Pocahontas stated, "Highland New Wind, in a last ditch effort to deny public opinion and dismiss the spirit and intent of the law, has scheduled a private meeting with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources on Oct. 6. Neither the public nor the media is welcome. Any company going to this extent to avoid public disclosure of what they are actually doing seems to have something to hide, don't you think? If you have nothing to hide, why go to such effort to prevent the public from knowing what you're doing? And, if you're the Department of Historic Resources, why would you aid and abet them?

"HNWD's stubborn refusal to cooperate with the SCC is the bad news, but not, actually the worst news. The worst news is that DHR Director Kathleen Kilpatrick has agreed to meet HNWD, not in her home office of Richmond, but in a venue more convenient to the defendant, HNWD. This willingness to go out of her way to meet HNWD on their terms does not bode well for public interest or the law … Skirpan has given (DHR) the opportunity to present evidence about the impact of the turbines on a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If she recoils from this opportunity, she establishes a precedent that American history is meaningless. Write, e-mail or call Kathleen today. Ask her not to cut a deal. Ask her not to deny citizen input on a decision of national importance. And most of all, demand that the truth about the HNWD project and the people be heard on Oct. 13."

"DHR has not changed its position," Kilpatrick told The Recorder Monday. "As you know, our involvement in this project rests solely with the SCC order and the conditions placed on HNWD … that is to conduct certain studies, in cooperation with the department, assess effects and minimize effects," she said. "We've complained to the SCC about the adequacy of the studies, their (HNWD's) willingness to share information, and their willingness to engage in meaningful consultation with us. We can hardly decline now to consider the information they may have, and to be consulted, pursuant to our role."

From DHR, Kilpatrick and Roger Kirchen met with HNWD representatives, accompanied by Earl Nance from the Virginia Attorney General's office.

"The issue is now, and always has been — what did the order mean, and has HNWD met the requirements? Our complaint was that HNWD had not met those conditions in the order … We would like to see what's now available (HNWD's information) and take it from there," Kilpatrick said before the meeting.

Also, she said, as DHR noted in its complaint to the SCC, "even in the absence of information provided by HNWD, we believe there is a potential adverse effect on the battlefield."

She stressed that DHR believes the SCC's order is intended to have meaning. "It's not just about conducting studies, but then, what to do to minimize effects," she said. "We believe the SCC's order and its conditions are intended to have meaning, to minimize impacts."

She said she is "enormously sympathetic" with those concerned about the battlefield. "But we are a public agency. We don't have regulatory authority — only that authority which is markered in the order, which is to receive (information) and review and be consulted."

Monday, Kilpatrick said she would be "very surprised" if a decision is made this week about whether or not a hearing is still needed. It depended, she said, on what DHR received from HNWD, and whether it considered that information compelling. But after the meeting Tuesday, she told The Recorder the SCC hearing will be held. She declined to comment further on the nature of her meeting with HNWD or the information the company provided.

The hearing will be held Tuesday, Oct. 13 in Richmond, at 10 a.m. For those unable to attend, the SCC will "webcast" the hearing over the Internet. See: www. scc.virginia.gov, and look under "Case Information." At the time the hearing will stream, find case number PUE-2009-00092.