Highland New Wind - Details
Developer: Highland New Wind, LLC
Highland County, VA
- Project Background
- Regional Context
- Siting and Zoning
- Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse
- Conclusions
- Bibliography
Project Background
Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) is located on Red Oak Knob and Tamarack Ridge in Highland County, Virginia. Known as “Virginia's Switzerland,” this area is a part of the Allegheny Highlands, a subregion of the Appalachian Mountain Range near the Virginia – West Virginia border. The county is very sparsely populated (population: 2,536; density: 5 persons per square mile), and the major land use pattern is agricultural. The county seat of Monterey has a population of 158 and is the only incorporated town in the county. In the 2000 census, the median household income in Highland County was $29,732 and the per capita income was $15,976.
The Conditional Use Permit issued by the Highland County Regional Planning Board allows HNWD to generate up to 39 MW using no more than 22 turbines with a total height of no more than 400 feet. In accordance, HNWD chose to install 19 GE 1.5MW turbines, which are 389 feet tall. The two sites are bald hilltop cow pastures which would require only very minimal cutting of trees to expand existing access roads for construction.
Highland New Wind Development, LLC is owned by Henry T. McBride, a retired poultry farmer who owns the 4,000 acre ranch on which he has proposed to site the turbines. HNWD has no prior experience developing, constructing, or operating wind farms. However, HNWD has stressed the role that expert advisors have played in the planning and development process. HNWD plans to sell electricity directly to a utility, a city, an energy cooperative, or another power purchaser, but has not found one yet. HNWD would interconnect with an existing Allegheny Power Company 69-kV transmission line that runs directly through the proposed site.
HNWD is branding the project as “the greenest wind farm in the world.” Their website describes HNWD as “commercial windpower developers with a vision.” Citing the benefits of wind power, they “see a future unclouded by global warming, air and water pollution, acid rain...and dependence on foreign energy.” Significantly, McBride predicts that HNWD would contribute between $175,000 and $225,000 annually in property taxes to the county, more than six times the next highest contributor.
After a long and contested planning process, the Highland New Wind Development was given final site approval from county officials on August 6, 2009. Construction is expected to begin soon.
 |
Highland Wind would not be the first project in the Allegheny Highlands. West Virginia currently has 300 MW of installed wind energy capacity and anothe 100 MW under construction. Southeastern Pennsylvania has roughly 160 MW operating. Statewide energy policy in Virginia is favorable toward wind development, but HNWD would be the first utility scale wind development in the state. There is a voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standard which provides financial incentives to utilities that provide 12% of base-year electric energy sales from renewable sources by 2022. Under this program, electricity from both wind and solar sources count double toward the goal. Furthermore, state legislation in 2006 established a Renewable Electricity Production Grant Program which would grant 0.85 cents per kilowatt-hour produced.
Highland County does not have any specific guidelines for wind development but the HNWD project is subject to both the Highland County Planning Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC). In July 2005, the Planning Commission issued a Conditional Use Permit for the project. In December 2007, after a lengthy and contentious review process, the SCC granted HNWD a conditional permit to construct and operate up to 20 turbines.
Siting and Zoning top
The Highland site has high wind speeds and an existing transmission line through it. Additionally, it is located on cow pasture, rather than woodlands, and the surrounding area is sparsely populated. It is also significant to note that the site was already owned by the developer, Henry McBride. The County Board of Supervisors issued a conditional use permit on July 14, 2005, which was challenged by a group of Highland County citizens and upheld by the state Supreme Court on September 13, 2007. The State Corporation Commission granted conditional approval to HNWD's application on December 20, 2007.
Virginia has no state guidelines for addressing wildlife impacts for wind power, no wind-specific siting agency, and no legally required visual impact studies for wind developments. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) coordinates a review of any proposed project's environmental, wildlife, noise, and visual impacts with the relevant state agencies and then submits a report to the SCC with comments from the various agencies and recommendations for the project, and those recommendations are considered by the SCC. State law does not allow the SCC to address issues that have already been ruled on by local agencies. In the HNWD case, the County Board of Supervisors had already examined (to some degree) the issues of property values, tourism, viewshed, height restrictions, setbacks, lighting, color of structures, fencing, security measures, erosion and sediment control, signage, access roads, and decommissioning. Therefore, the SCC had no legal jurisdiction over these issues, and they were not considered as a part of the SCC ruling.
On December 20, 2007, the SCC issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing the project subject to a number of conditions including, but not limited to, submitting a detailed final site plan to the appropriate regulatory agencies, minimizing impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable, and implementing an extensive monitoring and mitigation plan to protect endangered species. HNWD submitted their final site plan in mid-June of 2009, which received approval from county officials on August 3, 2009, only weeks before HNWD’s Conditional Permit was expected to expire.
Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse
 |
Figure 1: Simulation constructed by Highland New Wind Development |
HNWD never conducted formal environmental or visual impact assessments, and did not work closely with Virginia state agencies in assessing potential impacts. Rather, the developer chose to hire costly outside experts to conduct studies which were not always fully relevant or necessary, but were often lacking in crucial areas. HNWD unsuccessfully argued that its studies, because they were conducted by experts in their fields, should be able to replace any public hearings that might otherwise be held on the subjects they covered. HNWD did carry out one visual simulation of the proposed project, which was featured on HNWD’s website but not its application. It did not carry out a comprehensive viewshed analysis for the project, and repeatedly refused to allow representatives from agencies such as the Department of Historical Resources to study the site for viewshed impacts on nearby sites.
One result of HNWD's reluctance to work directly with Virginia state agencies to address environmental concerns has been the requirement that HNWD implement an extensive monitoring and mitigation program on site. The SCC's approval was conditioned on the implementation of this program, which was designed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF). The program originally required HNWD to spend a maximum of $150,000 per year for the first three years of the project for monitoring, followed by a maximum of $100,000 per year thereafter, and a maximum of $50,000 per year for mitigation including possible measures as drastic as shutting down turbines during critical migration periods, but the SSC eventually removed the spending caps.
HNWD also chose not to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan or to seek an Incidental Take Permit, which it was not required to do. Without these safeguards in place, if it were determined that endangered species were being killed by the turbines, the project could be subject to costly shutdowns. The SCC wrote in its final order that, “this is a business risk voluntarily assumed by Highland Wind, which may impact the viability of the project.” Surprisingly, HNWD seemed to expect that none of these issues would be raised, or at least would not be enforced. At one point in the SCC proceedings, HNWD asked that an environmental assessment portion of the application process be forgone (the proposal was rejected). The SCC final order quotes HNWD saying that it “did not expect a monitoring and mitigation plan...to become the tipping point for the economic viability of the Project.”
There has been widespread negative public response to HNWD within Highland County, often citing the county's rural character as a disqualification for “industrial development.” Such diverse stakeholders as local landowners, conservation groups, and even state agencies have expressed serious concerns about the project. The Highland County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing which was attended by 97 residents. The board also received a petition against the project signed by 1,246 residents and landowners. In a New York Times article, Patti Reum, who owned Bear Mountain Farm and Wilderness Retreat at the time, worried about the effects on her business. She stated that “If the development proceeded, we would have to leave...If our business doesn't make it, we can't live here.”
 |
Figure 2: Simulation from Highlanders for Responsible Development |
Highlanders for Responsible Development (HRD) is an organization that was formed by citizens in 2005 to oppose the HNWD project, specifically, and the siting of industrial wind turbines on Highland County ridges more generally. Its website was clearly active during the contentious period around the SCC proceedings. Currently, HRD encourages visitors to the site to write letters to the editor, participate in a Golden Eagle tagging program (which may have some effect on the HNWD project), to read the draft revision of the Highland County Comprehensive Plan (which will not affect the HNWD project), and prepare for its upcoming public comment period. This indicates that HRD most likely served as a hub of local organization against the project and an informational source for Highland County residents. HRD's website also hosts a visual simulation of the project created by resident John Sweet, which is “not intended to be a precise depiction of the HNWD proposal but just to give an idea how it might look.” Although HRD’s website has not been updated since early 2008, they continue to have a presence in community gatherings and media.
The Nature Conservancy expressed concerns about the potential impact on bird and bat populations, citing a US Government Accountability Office study from 2005 that had found bat mortality rates to be comparatively higher at wind farms in Appalachia and California than the rest of the country. These concerns, echoed by the DGIF and the DEQ, ultimately are what led to the stringent monitoring and mitigation program required by the SCC.
There has also been public support for the HNWD project. While 216 public comments were made to the Board of Supervisors against the project, 93 individuals did write in support of the project. Roy Waggoner, a sheep farmer and banker, was quoted in the same New York Times article as a supporter of the project. He stated that “One way to clean up the environment is with the wind turbines; it's green energy. I don't want to see them on every inch of land, but that ridge is very secluded.” There was a legislative attempt to support the project as well. Frank Wagner, a Republican state Senator from Virginia Beach, introduced a bill that would have exempted all renewable energy projects smaller than 50 MW from environmental regulations. The bill stalled in committee under worrisome (and obvious) concerns about the ability of developers to simply string small projects together and therefore avoid any environmental oversight.
On occasion, discussions about the Highland Project have gone beyond civil discourse. In HNWD's application to the SCC, the developer emphasized the possible need for security at any public hearings the SCC might hold. Referencing an article in the Roanoke Times, the application quotes Tom Brody (Patti Reum's husband) saying, “If this were West Virginia, McBride would be afraid to come up here.” The application also quotes Pen Goodall, another local resident, expressing frustration with supervisor Jerry Rexrode. “If this thing passes, I would like to punch his eyes out. If I had a baseball bat, I would crack him in the head.” There have been no reports of violence due to the project, but the issue is clearly emotionally charged for the residents of Highland County. Deep down, people felt threatened, explained Carolyn Pohowsky, executive director of the Highland County Chamber of Commerce. “It has been a very controversial and polarizing issue. Because this is a new industry in the state of Virginia, we have no idea what the outcome will be. You not only have the family farm at risk, and your livelihood at risk, but your heritage at risk.”
Conclusions
At this time, it is expected that HNWD will move forward with construction of their 19-turbine project. However, even if the project is completed as expected, it will continue to face close public scrutiny. The project was approved against the wishes of several organized and vocal residents and landowners in Highland County. The project’s opposition raised enough serious environmental concerns that, as of nearly two years after the permit was approved, HNWD has not yet found investors for the project.
What can we learn from this case study? It seems clear that the developer did not take the potential environmental impacts of this project seriously enough, and this failure led to the imposition of a monitoring program that may be so stringent that it drove away potential investors. The developer could have avoided this requirement, or at least had a much stronger argument for the project, had it taken the environmental impact assessment process seriously and worked with the proper state agencies. The SCC's approval lasts for two years, which nearly ran out before HNWD received approval.
The state DEQ has formed an advisory body to create new site-by-rules regulations for turbine development processes, to avoid further issues from “case-by-case” decision-making. The committee, which contains representatives from government, wind business, and environmental groups, aims to create a smoother process than was experiences for Highland Wind. However, as the regulations will not apply to HNWD, it remains to be seen whether Virginia's first proposed utility scale wind project will ever become operational.
Adams, A. “Seven years of wind: A timeline.” The Recorder. http://www.therecorderonline.com/news/2009/0618/news/007.html (accessed August 2, 2009).
Adams, A. “Developer ends talks with state agency.” July 30, 2009. http://vawind.org/Assets/Docs/073009/Recorder-073009-2.pdf (accessed July 31, 2009).
Adams, A. “Panel established to discuss wind energy.” July 23, 2009. http://www.therecorderonline.com/news/2009/0723/news/009.5.html (accessed August 3, 2009).
Highland New Wind Development. “Application for Approval to Construct, Own & Operate an Electric Generation Facility in Highland County.” Virginia State Corporation Commission. November 7, 2005.
Highland New Wind Development. “Greenest Windfarm in the World.” http://www.highlandnewwind.com/ (accessed June 26, 2008).
Highlanders for Responsible Development. http://www.protecthighland.org/ (accessed June 26, 2008).
Podger, Pamela. “In a Corner of Virginia's “Switzerland,” a Division Over a Planned Wind Farm.” The New York Times, February 13, 2007.
Sturgeon, Jeff. “Strings attached to state wind farm.” The Roanoke Times. December 21, 2007.
The Hook. “Highland wind farm bill blown out of the Senate.” The Hook News Blog. http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2008/02/14/highland-wind-farm-bill-blown-out-of-the-senate/ (accessed June 26, 2008).
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. The Virginia Energy Plan. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/2007_VA_Energy_Plan-Full_Document.pdf (accessed June 26, 2008).
Virginia State Corporation Commission. “Final Order; Application of Highland New Wind Development, LLC.” December 20, 2007.
Wright, Dan. “New Idea Blows In, Wind Power Makes Inroads In Valley.” The Daily News Record. January 25, 2008.
Image Bibliography
Figure 1: Highland New Wind Development. “Greenest Windfarm in the World.” http://www.highlandnewwind.com/ (accessed June 26, 2008).
Figure 2: Highlanders for Responsible Development. http://www.protecthighland.org/ (accessed June 26, 2008).