Christian Giggenbach
Register-Herald Reporter
August 30, 2006 10:21 pm
—
Now that the state Public Service Commission has ruled in favor of the Beech Ridge Energy wind farm, will Greenbrier County residents and businesses embrace the 400-foot turbines or has the fight against them just begun?
As expected and in much the same fashion that framed the debate between those for and against the farm, it depends on to whom you talk.
Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, still reeling from Monday’s PSC decision granting a siting certificate for the 124-turbine wind farm on Cold Knob — which would become one the largest such power facilities east of the Mississippi — has already petitioned the PSC for a “reconsideration” of its decision and appears to be digging in for the long haul.
Groups and individuals associated with the decision — called intervenors — have 10 days from the issuing of the certificate to ask the PSC to reconsider its decision. However, the PSC will not be under any specific time limit during this review process; PSC rules indicate the commission must respond to reconsideration requests in a “reasonable amount of time.”
While MCRE spokesperson Dave Buhrman has previously only hinted that lawsuits may be looming on the horizon, in a phone interview Wednesday he pointed to two projects for which the PSC has already granted certificates, but which are both currently entangled in litigation.
These projects include the 166-turbine Mount Storm wind farm in Grant and Tucker counties issued in 2002 and the 200-turbine Grant County Ned Power wind farm issued in 2003.
“It’s just too early to say what Greenbrier County is willing to accept from Beech Ridge. I personally want to be realistic, but when Jim McNeely (MCRE’s attorney) fought the Monroe County high-transmission lines in the ’90s, he lost many appeals and motions, but finally won in the end,” Buhrman said.
“Some dogs just won’t let go and I doubt the four-to-one opposition to this project will suddenly decide turbines in Greenbrier are a good thing simply because the PSC has granted a permit. It remains to be seen how events will play out in the future.”
While those numbers are apparently on MCRE’s side, Beech Ridge project director Dave Groberg places an emphasis on a Greenbrier County poll completed last spring which declared 64 percent of residents either strongly favored or somewhat favored the proposed $300 million wind farm. A statewide poll held even higher favorable numbers, 72 percent.
Groberg said construction on the wind farm and the hiring of an estimated 200 part-time construction workers could begin as early as next spring and commercial operations could start in November 2007.
“We don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. While the PSC order was a huge step, it is not the last word on the project,” he said Wednesday. “Beech Ridge still has some work to do, including surviving opposition requests for reconsideration, and if the Mount Storm project is any indicator, we may be fighting lawsuits and injunctions.”
The Greenbrier, which wrote a letter to the PSC opposing the project, issued somewhat of a conciliatory statement Wednesday on its views of the PSC decision.
“The Greenbrier appreciates the efforts and the processes that the PSC employed in their decision to allow the Beech Ridge project to move forward,” President and CEO Ted Kleisner said. “While we remain concerned about the impact on the quality of life in our region and the tourism industry, we are open to innovation and hope this project will benefit our county, state and country.”
In its decision, the PSC firmly stated the nation’s need for clean, renewable energy outweighed any negative impact the wind farm may cause Greenbrier County, thus tipping the scale in favor of Beech Ridge when considering the overall interests of the public.
The Greenbrier County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, which made headlines last winter when its board voted against supporting the wind farm, isn’t ready just yet to jump on the Beech Ridge bandwagon. That’s in stark contrast to the state’s only existing wind farm in Tucker County, where a 22-turbine facility graces the cover of the county’s CVB brochures.
“We stand behind our position that no definitive studies have been performed that indicates what impact these types of projects have on the tourism industry. We certainly don’t want to gain one industry at the expense of another,” executive director Kim Cooper said. “As a non-membership bureau, we strive every day to promote our attractions without bias and I’m sure we will do the same for the turbine project, if and when it comes to fruition.”
Frank Maisano, spokesman for a coalition of wind developers in the mid-Atlantic, believes common ground can be found among all the groups involved in what he describes as an “emotional, complex and controversial issue.”
“The important thing to realize is that we have worked in a very open and collaborative fashion to try and understand why people oppose this project in Greenbrier County and give them an opportunity to voice their opinions,” he said Wednesday. “I hope they see that there is common ground on many issues such as bats and birds. The PSC needs to be commended because the public policy process worked, giving ample opportunity for all sides to be heard without having it drag on for years.”
— E-mail:
cgiggenbach@register-herald.com
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.