Fibrowatt finished here
Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Fibrowatt finished here
by Karen Martin, Staff Writer
Fibrowatt is history.
With an unexpected motion by Dr. Jim Harrell Jr. to cease all
discussions with Fibrowatt, the Surry County Board of
Commissioners voted unanimously to discontinue negotiations with
the company.
Prominent members of Elkin were in attendance at the
commissioners meeting with powerful words and thoroughly
researched information in hand to oppose the industry being
allowed to come into the area.
Ive been struggling in the details of the deal with
Fibrowatt, Harrell said. Sometimes you get a first
impression of a company that is not fully accurate. Over the last
six to eight months, Ive seen the publics opinion and
their struggle with the legitimacy of Fibrowatt.
At some point it becomes an issue thats not worth it,
he said. The Fibrowatt issue has been a distraction from
things the county needs to be doing. It (the issue) has been
keeping us from being unified.
Terry Walmsley, vice-president of environmental and public
affairs of Fibrowatt said although he had not yet, (as of Tuesday
afternoon), spoken to anyone with Surry County or any of the
county commissioners, he had heard through media reports of the
decision to discontinue negotiations with Fibrowatt.
It did come as a bit of a surprise, Walmsley said.
Weve been working with Johnson (Paul), and Dr.
Harrell and when we met a little over a month ago, we thought we
had come to an agreement.
We have held two open house meetings and a large forum at
the Elkin high school where we tried to dispel some of the
incorrect information about our industry. We have had outreach
with the local groups who have been in opposition to us.
The Fibrowatt officials refused to respond to our questions
and request for more information, Harrell said. They
continued to keep information private and unclear. I believe weve
made the best decision for the county and its residents.
Walmsley said that the length of time it has taken waiting on a
power purchase agreement allowed the percieved negatives about
the alternative power plant to gain traction in the community.
If we would have been allowed to get through the power
purchase agreement and move into the permitting process, a lot of
the rumors would have been dispelled, Walmsley said. The
United States has a very complex and comprehensive permitting
process and the environmental impact of the omissions from the
plant would have been better explained. The process of permitting
the plant is very transparent because of the nature of the
industry. It is unfortunate that were not going to be
allowed to come to the end of the process.
According to Harrell, the property that was proposed as the
location for the Fibrowatt plant was initially found in reference
to another industrys interest in moving to Surry County. A
site located in the current industrial park was too small for the
interested company, therefore, the county went in search of a
larger parcel.
Almost simultaneously, Fibrowatt came in, Harrell
said. Fibrowatt proposed using the site for its
biomass energy plant. The initial proposal seemed to be a good
one and the company along with the county moved forward.
In a packet of information formulated by Lucy Chatham for the
county commissioners, Chatham provided not only the history of
why Fibrowatt was proposing a plant here, but also reasons why
she felt the county commissioners had incomplete information.
...Key to this (reason for Fibrowatt proposing Elkin as a
location to build a plant), is a recent piece of enacted NC
legislation requiring power companys to buy a certain percentage
of biomass-produced (specifically chicken litter) power by 2014
at a rate higher than what it normally costs to produce energy
from traditional plants, Chatham wrote. The Fibrowatt
proposal to locate a plant in Surry County should be viewed by
the county as a venture-capital investment and vetted as such
in addition to the County considering the project in the
light of economic development. This is due to the nature of the
proposal from Fibrowatt and the magnitude of Surry County
taxpayer funds that will be invested. The risk, reward, and
payoff must be carefully considered.
Given that this is Surry Countys first foray into a
venture capital investment, I strongly recommend that the
commissioners retain their own investment banking firm to
collect, review, and evaluate the pertinent data, and to render a
professional opinion about the probable success of this venture.
The firm should be requested to give especially careful
consideration to all risks, liabilities, and opportunity costs
attendant to this venture because the county, unlike the other
limited partners, has the additional liability of housing the
manufacturing site.
Fibrowatt, a limited liability company, proposes to provide
financial and other consulting services to a new start-up Limited
Liability Company which wishes to build a plant in Surry County
for the purpose of burning poultry waste, wood chips,
construction waste, and other, as yet undefined, materials. This
start-up company (#1 LLC) will then enter into a lease/sale
agreement with a second limited liability company (#2 LLC) which
will operate the plant. The heat generated by the burn will be
converted into electricity by a simple steam-driven turbine
process, and the power will be sold to Duke Power under yet-to-be
negotiated contracts. Key to this is a recent piece of enacted NC
legislation requiring power companys to buy a certain percentage
of biomass-produced (specifically chicken litter) power by 2014
at a rate higher than what it normally costs to produce energy
from traditional plants. A third limited liability company (#3
LLC) will then purchase the ash residue from plant #2 LLC and
market it as fertilizer.
Potential revenue streams to be considered by fund
investors are federal stimulus funds and tax credits available to
LLC #1 as well as county-donated land and reduced property-tax
incentives; lease/purchase payments from LLC #2; and State tax
credits. LLC #2s revenue stream is guaranteed by Duke
Energys purchase contract and Federal and State tax
credits. LLC #3s revenue stream is based on the sale of the
fertilizer.
Chatham spoke to the board after the vote to discontinue
negotiations.
I am so delighted that the commissioners understood their
role in determining the effect that this industry would have on a
four county area, Chatham said. I feel that they (the
board of commissioners) really hadnt fully done their due
diligence. If they had, a lot of red flags would have come up.
I also put together a list of questions, some with the
answers, they should have considered, she said. I
believe the county has dodged a major bullet. I understand why
initially they may have seen this as a good thing in as much as
bringing industry to the area, but this is dirty industry.
If they would have done their own investigation, I believe
they would have arrived at the same conclusion much earlier.
Harrell continued to speak of economic development for the area.
I havent seen an issue like this come up in my 20
years of working to help promote our area, Harrell said.
It shows how important it is that the county commissioners
be represented geographically. People beyond four miles out of
Elkin arent so much affected by the commissioners
decisions that effect Elkin and its people.
Every community has every right to make decisions about the
types of business they bring in, Walmsley said. In
every case, such as with our plant in Minnesota, weve been
able to dispel statements that have been misunderstood in the
final process.
We need to work diligently to bring economic development to
Elkin and the county, Harrell said. Not only in
tourism, but industry also. Our area is prime for tourism based
workplaces because of the beauty of the county, and the kindness
and generosity of our people. We have a great site out there that
we can market to other companies that is within the Elkin school
district, which is one of the best in the state.
Countless residents and organized groups have voiced their
concerns and produced facts that showed the negatives
they believed Fibrowatt would bring to Elkin.
Many of the vineyard owners expressed their concerns also about
the harmful atmosphere the by-products of the plant would have
created for the grapes.
Being an organic vineyard, we would be forced to leave the
area if the Fibrowatt plant is built here, Clyde and Pat
Colwell, owners of Carolina Heritage Vineyards said. We cant
take the chance that the omissions from the plant would harm our
grapes.
When the board of commissioners made the decision to stop
their negotiations with Fibrowatt, they put the whole wine
industry back on track, Clyde Colwell said. People
were very worried about all of the impacts of Fibrowatt. Not only
the omissions, but the traffic, and visual impact of a 300 foot
smokestack. Im very proud to say that the folks in
the wine industry stood up and voiced their concerns. Almost all
of the vineyard owners signed a petition in opposition to the
industry being brought to our area.
This was the opinion of several of the Yadkin Valley vineyard
owners. During several of the county commissioners
meetings, doctors, pharmacists, engineers and countless residents
who had done their own research on the omissions that would come
from the plant told the county commissioners of the dioxins that
would be released into the air and could impact up to a 90 mile
radius.
Were in a position now to move forward with this
issue closed, Harrell said. Some even suggested that
the site would be great for another vineyard.
Fibrowatt LLC is owned by Homeland Renewable Energy of New
Hampshire. Fibrominn, the nations first poultry-litter
fueled power plant, opened in Benson, Minnesota, in 2007.
© elkintribune.com 2010
http://www.elkintribune.com/printer_friendly/7481877
Fair Use Notice: This page contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this page for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.
|