I've just come back from the Board of Adjustment meeting, which ran from 6 pm until after 10 -- I left just before the vote, which appeared to be heading toward approval. It's hard to distill over 4 hours of public meeting into a blog post, but here's a quick try.
It certainly is good that the Upper County will see some jobs during construction. It was refreshing to hear the contractor virtually promise lots of local jobs, after hearing wind farm companies at other meetings basically say that the wouldn't be hiring local people. As for long-term jobs, I have a hard time coming up with 35 job titles for a facility with no moving parts -- it's not like they'll be running three shifts. But I digress.
What I keep coming back to is the poor business case for the project. We're much too far north for reasonable solar energy production. It's a matter of cosmology and physics. What we're seeing is an unintended consequence of government incentives for renewable energy projects. In other kinds of business, if a company makes a mistake like siting a $300+ million project hundreds of miles north of where it should be, the company loses money. In this case, it's us (we?) taxpayers who will be paying for the poor location.
Tax and other incentives are a good tool, but I have seen so much abuse of them in the renewable energy industry that I have to wonder if they really are such a good tool, after all. I'll have to think about this. Meanwhile, on the bright side (no pun!), we can expect to see the Governor and at least one Senator visiting Kittitas County, and that'll be fun.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Last night, I attended the same meeting regarding Board of Adjustment hearing on the Conditional Use Permit of the Teanaway Solar Reserve, who intend to build a 477 acre PV Solar array on the Cle Elum Ridge. I belong to a group opposing the site location, called Citizen's Alliance for a Rural Teanaway (CART). After 4.5 hrs of statements by TSR, Kittitas County staff, and the public, the Board of Adjustment approved the CUP.
ReplyDeleteCART's objections to the location centered on the lack of on site field studies done by TSR, they did their site studies for only 5 days total the end of June 09 and one day in July 09. We had testimony that TSR didn't follow standard protocol guidelines from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which recommends seasonal site studies. Neighbors and residents testified that 5 days is not enough time, and requested an Environmental Impact Statement. TSR and Kittitas County told the Boardthat the DFW Guidelines are not "required, just recommended" .
There also were no alternate site studies done, and TSR only stated that Kittitas County Code doesn't require an alternative site analysis for a MDNS, as they would require for and EIS. This location is on Forest and Range land that has been previously heavily logged. This is not an ideal location for solar energy by any standards we can find during our research. CART contends that the land owner, American Forest and Land Company, and the land lessor, Teanaway Solar Reserve LLC, are related companies, and never intended to use any other location. But TSR was not required to study any other sites, and continues to deny any relationship between TSR and AFLC.
Renewable energy incentives from the state and federal government are being used for this project, so TSR is using public money. CART wants more accountability for where the public money is going. No one from the county, state, or federal governments is questioning the location .
The Board was given recent public comment letters concerning the MDNS ruling at the beginning of the hearing, which means they couldn't have been given full consideration by the Board. Two members of the Board were Kittitas County employees, and one Board member stated after the decision to grant the CUP was made that he was a business owner who had dealt with being shut down by environmental issues, and stated what a pain that is. Another Board member stated after the CUP approval was made, that the issues the opponents to the project raised are unknown,"we just don't know". Exactly our point, and exactly why an EIS should have been required. We don't know, the Board doesn't know, the County doesn't know, and the TSR doesn't know. Therefore, let's approve it? Unbelieveable!
It seemed to me that the Board had made their decision before the hearing started. The only reason the hearing took 4.5 hours is that they also combined the SEPA appeal hearing with the CUP hearing. Both were found in favor of TSR and Kittitas County.
I am very dissappointed and feel that a project of this magnitude should be required to do an Environmental Impact Statement, which would require an alternate site analysis.
CART is not anti Solar, we just want it to make sense, and this location doesn't unless you realize that the land owner and the TSR are related companies, and the landowner only wants to use his land for this project.
There is still a lawsuit filed by neighboring land owner Jim Brose, regarding the covenants of one parcel of the property stating that the property cannot be used for business use, and this parcel is the property TSR will connect to the power lines with, and AFLC did not previously own it. They did purchase it before plans were announced for the solar reserve.
I don't know what the next step will be for CART, but I heard last night at the hearing that there is an appeal process that will go before a state judge, and I guess that it's possible CART will appeal. Nothing was announced.
In Mason County Adage is taking advangate of this incentive. They are going to build an incenerator to burn forest product waste. They plan on trucking the remains of logging projects to the incenerator, burning it to produce electricity to sell to California. I don't understand the "green" or "renuable" part of the plan. Seems like another unintended consequence of government incentives for renewable energy projects. Our county commisioners approved it.
ReplyDelete