Published: November 23, 2005 09:07 pm         

Commissioners hear both sides in wind farm controversy

Would a proposed wind farm in northwest Greenbrier County take away the “wild flavor” of the mountains there? Or would it provide a clean, renewable energy source?

Leaders on both sides of the debate over Chicago-based Invenergy’s proposed $300 million Beech Ridge Wind Farm project addressed the Greenbrier County Commission Tuesday. Presentations by both sides were made for informational purposes only; the commission listened but took no action.

The decision to grant Invenergy a permit remains in the hands of the state Public Service Commission, which has five months to render a verdict. Public hearings are expected early in 2006.

Opponents at the meeting stated what more than 700 letter-writers have already expressed to the PSC since Nov. 1, when Invenergy asked the agency for permission to build 124 electricity-generating wind turbines on 500 acres of MeadWestvaco property.

“For as long as I can recall, West Virginia has promoted its wild and wonderful characteristics, and industry-weary tourists have flocked to our state for the mountains’ majesty, wildlife and natural beauty, free from the stamp of industrialization,” Dave Buhrman, spokesperson for Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, read in an open letter to the commission. “If the wind industry’s plan for the entire Allegheny front is to pound giant metal towers onto the tops of all our tallest ridges, we should be aware that our state will lose its wild flavor and take on the appearance of one more expanse of land that has come under modern man’s domination.”

Buhrman and other opponents question the efficiency of wind harvesting in the East and believe the wind turbines will damage property values, ruin views, hurt wildlife, cause fires, increase pollution, emit radio signals that would interfere with Green Bank observatory in neighboring Pocahontas County and tarnish the surrounding watershed and groundwater.

The PSC had received only two letters in support of the project as of Tuesday.

But Dave Groberg, project manager for the Beech Ridge Wind Farm, says the opposition has made “many inaccurate statements, misrepresentations and false accusations about the farm, where turbines would use the wind to generate up to 186 megawatts of electricity to meet the annual power demands of more than 50,000 American households.”

“At a time of national energy price squeezes and shortages, I’m sure that everyone agrees we need more domestic and cost-effective sources of energy,” Groberg said.

He believes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and pointed to Tucker County, where the Convention and Visitors Bureau has embraced a similar wind project there, going as far as to picture a wind turbine on the cover of its visitors’ guide.

- - -

Groberg also addressed commissioners Tuesday, stressing the following points:

-- The project is not seeking any special tax breaks or preferential financial arrangements from the county or state. The $300 million investment would come from private capital sources.

-- The farm would generate an annual average of $400,000 in tax revenue for the county and its schools in 20 years.

-- There is no evidence to support the claim that the farm would adversely affect property values in the small communities of Williamsburg and Trout. Groberg pointed to property value increases near Canaan Valley, particularly at condo units with a view of the Mountaineer Wind Project in Tucker County.

-- The farm would not increase pollution. “It’s also been contended, through a giant contortion of logic, that our generation of wind energy in Greenbrier County will somehow actually increase pollution in the Greenbrier Valley because we have some type of secret deal with MeadWestvaco that will allow them to increase air emissions at their (paper products) plant in Covington, Va.,” Groberg said. “This is patently false ... The fact of the matter is that every hour of electricity produced by Beech Ridge Wind Farm will replace an hour of electricity that would have been made instead by some other, higher polluting power plant.”

-- The farm would create about 200 jobs through its construction phase and then approximately 20 permanent positions with full benefits and an average annual salary of about $35,000. There would be no minimum-wage jobs during construction or operations.

Groberg also addressed environmental concerns, saying the farm has been “carefully designed to have a minimal footprint on the ridges we will be using for the project — ridges that I might add have all already been forested or mined in some degree. Our total project footprint will occupy less than 500 acres, including the transmission line, of the 70,000 acres in this particular tract of MeadWestvaco property.”

Very few other private landowners would be affected, he added. And turbines would be one mile from any private home “except for a select few exceptions that may be just inside of one mile,” Groberg said, adding the company’s projects in other states allow turbines to be as close as 750 feet.

He also said there would be no reflection of light from the turbines onto residences, no potential effects from ice breaking off turbine blades and hitting a home, and that sound levels from the turbines operating at that distance would be significantly lower than existing indoor and outdoor background sound levels.

Also, “risk of fires at wind turbines is very low,” and the project would not affect operations at Green Bank.

“The Beech Ridge Wind Farm has been designed to operate fully within the requirements governing the Green Bank observatory,” Groberg said. “There will be no effects whatsoever on the observatory.”

Wildlife impact studies, including those concerning the potential impact on bats, continue at the site, he said. “No endangered species have been sighted within the project area, and studies investigating migratory bird patterns have not produced any evidence of the project footprint being within a flyway.”

Groberg also said his company would not be spraying herbicides on the project; therefore the watershed area would not be damaged. And, he added, the company would plant native seed mixes and work with MeadWestvaco and local hunt clubs to manage the project in ways to facilitate the continued use of the property for hunting and other outdoor recreation.

“The Beech Ridge Wind Farm is ready to help West Virginia lead our nation in rapidly moving toward a time when our own electricity needs are increasingly met from renewable sources that will produce zero air pollution, no smog or haze, and no polluting of our streams, lakes and rivers,” Groberg said.

- - -

Buhrman, on the other hand, said West Virginia should continue serving the nation’s energy needs while still keeping some of its scenic beauty intact. He called the turbines “monstrosities.”

“We should reject the argument that everything must be useful and that every place and every aspect of life should be commercialized because at this point we are putting Greenbrier County’s future economic potential at risk by allowing the wind industry access to our loftiest vistas,” he said.

“Wind companies have arrived at our doorstep with this giant prototype saying this is ‘state of the art’ wind harvesting equipment,” he said. “They seem unaware that by scaling up to such a size their wind energy collectors inadvertently become the new focal point for miles around.

“Heritage mountain views millions of years in the making are altered during one building season. The wind industry lacks a proven track record in the East, where winds are admittedly erratic,” Buhrman continued. “Their overall efficiency has been questioned because they produce nothing when winds are too high or too low. The 15-mile-long string of turbines targeted for Greenbrier County will be a very inefficient use of space. A modern 500-megawatt baseline plant will produce six to eight times more power with just a 2-acre footprint.”

Despite what Groberg said about Tucker County, Buhrman believes the state’s tourism industry would suffer.

“ ... when people can no longer get a sense that this area is wild, wonderful and undisturbed, they will look elsewhere for their solace,” he said. “The impact to the forest habitat will extend well beyond the 500 acres cleared and leveled for these turbines. Do we really want to tamper with the billions of dollars that come in statewide from hunting revenues? Also, the landowners in the shadows of the turbines who will suffer economic loss from declining property values need to be addressed. This is a very real and documented fact. When wind turbines go up, surrounding property values go down.”

He said the county’s natural beauty is a far greater resource than the wind.

“I’m told the key to any successful enterprise is identifying what customers like most about that enterprise and showcasing that,” he said. “I’m confident that if you asked tourists what they like most about Greenbrier County, they would tell you it’s long, unobstructed ridgelines sloping down to picturesque valleys. They see this county as paradise, and erecting 400-foot wind turbines atop those very mountains’ majesty could prove to be a bigger blunder for the tourist draw than New Coke was for the soft drink industry.

“If instead, Greenbrier County officials recognize our natural beauty is a far greater resource than the wind and we stay true to the wild and wonderful claims of our state, tourism will continue to play an ever-expanding role in our economic development.”

— E-mail: bnaudrey@register-herald.com