Groups disagree on wind turbines

Christian M. Giggenbach

LEWISBURG — Lawyers for the $300 million Beech Ridge Energy project in Greenbrier County say they were blind-sided when anti-windfarm advocates recently filed documents with the state Public Service Commission suggesting a “proposed settlement agreement” was in the works to decrease the number of giant, electric-producing turbines by nearly 50 percent.

Beech Ridge lawyer Lee Feinberg, of the Charleston law firm Spillman, Thomas & Battle, called the move “a complete surprise” and “another attempt at delaying a final decision” in a Dec. 11 letter written to Sandra Squire, the PSC’s executive secretary.

Feinberg said neither he nor any Beech Ridge official had been contacted about the Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy proposal that demanded limiting the construction of wind turbines to just 63 near the western end of the project. Current plans call for 119 turbines to be constructed.

Feinberg accused MCRE of “attempting to mislead the commission” that a settlement was near at hand.

“That type of proposal has always been, and is today, a total non-starter and is economically impossible,” Feinberg wrote. “Moreover, MCRE knows that this type of proposal is unacceptable. In other words, it is making an offer which it absolutely knows will be rejected.”

The PSC has yet to rule whether Beech Ridge complied with all pre-construction rules set by the three-man commission. Last October, Beech Ridge and MCRE both presented evidence during two days of hearings. A green light by the PSC would give Beech Ridge the authority to begin construction.

The MCRE settlement agreement was filed by Morgantown lawyer Bradley W. Stephens Dec. 10.

In it, Stephens threatened Beech Ridge with more litigation should the Chicago-based company decline to accept its offer and also offered to drop all current opposition to the project should the wind energy company play ball.

“The agreement essentially enables Beech Ridge to construct 63 turbines ... and in exchange MCRE agrees to refrain from further adverse action against Beech Ridge,” Stephens wrote. “Litigating the matter has taken a substantial emotional and financial toll on the members of MCRE, as I am sure it has in many respects for those with Beech Ridge who are intimately involved in the project. In the interest of putting the past behind us, and putting our best foot forward, I trust that Beech Ridge will carefully consider and evaluate the proposed agreement ...”

In a cover letter to Squires, Stephens admitted the proposal “should not be understood to reflect a meeting of the minds between the two parties.”

Stephens’ proposal would also limit Beech Ridge and any other companies from constructing any future wind projects within a 20-mile radius of turbines already constructed.

Finally, Stephens described MCRE’s membership as being “loosely defined over the last few years” and listed the names of 12 individuals he said were “active members.”

Feinberg also took the MCRE lawyer to task over making the offer public, thus sidestepping prior settlement agreements which were held privately.

“Beech Ridge has spent significant hours and resources attempting to achieve a settlement in this case,” he wrote. “Beech Ridge believes those conversations were intended to be confidential so it will not reveal their content in this letter. However, it does not want the commission to see MCRE’s (settlement offer) as accurate.

“(Beech Ridge) believes that this is just another attempt to mislead the commission with a false hint that a settlement is near.”

Feinberg ended his correspondence with Squire stating that Beech Ridge “simply must move forward as quickly as possible to be able to construct the project in 2009” and hoped the commission would render a “final decision as soon as possible.”

In response to Feinberg’s letter, Stephens wrote the PSC on Dec. 12 stating “the organization was dismayed that its attempt (at a settlement) was met with such a great degree of cynicism.”

— E-mail:

cgiggenbach@register-herald.com

Text Only