|
CACHE
Citizens’ Alliance for a Clean, Healthy Economy
PO Box 39
State Road, NC 28676
January 9, 2010
PRESS RELEASE
For release Immediately
CACHE (Citizens’ Alliance for a Clean,
Healthy Economy) today released their response to Surry County
Commissioners Chairman Craig Hunter’s rebuttal testimony to
the North Carolina Utilities Commission opposing a request by
Duke Power and Progress Energy to delay the poultry litter
set-aside in General Statute 62-133-8 (f).
Sam Tesh, President of CACHE said, “We are a grassroots
organization opposed to the siting of a Fibrowatt, LLC poultry
litter incinerator, not only in our county, but also in two other
counties selected by Fibrowatt: Sampson and Montgomery. We are
responding to Commissioner Hunter’s testimony because we are
concerned that his testimony is flawed in that he and his lawyer
were selective in the questions he chose to answer. We are also
concerned because he has made general statements without regard
to actual facts. For these reasons, we are offering our rebuttal
to his testimony.”
The rebuttal to Commissioner Hunter’s statement is as
follows:
In a sworn and notarized statement to the North Carolina
Utilities Commission on December 17, 2009, R. Craig Hunter,
Chairman of the Surry County Board of Commissioners, through the
office of Edwin M. Woltz, Attorney, filed a Rebuttal Testimony to
oppose a request by Duke Power and Dominion Energy to delay the
poultry waste set-aside in NC General Statute 62-133-8(f) and in
support of Fibrowatt, LLC.
Chairman Hunter later was quoted in the Mt. Airy News, as saying,
“My testimony to the NC Utility Commission was exactly what
it states — information on the positive impact expected from
Fibrowatt/Fibrohills building and operating a new renewable
energy power plant in Surry County and the negative consequences
if that does not happen as announced by the company.”
On page 2, in lines 21 & 22 of Mr. Hunter’s testimony,
in response to the question, What actions, any, has
Surry County taken to attract Fibrohills, LLC? Mr.
Hunter says, “Surry County has spent or committed in excess
of $2, 174,545.00 for the purchase of land, site development and
the delivery of utilities to the site.” This is less than
the amount he mentioned in June, 2008, when Surry County
announced that they had reached an agreement with Fibrowatt. At
that time, in a Winston-Salem Journal article, Mr.
Hunter said that although Fibrowatt had not asked for any
incentives, the county had committed to provide $3.2 million in
incentives. However, on the Fibrowatt web site, dated June 5,
2008, the company says that they will be receiving “a tax
incentive and construction package from the county that could be
worth $5.2 million.”
CACHE wants to know exactly how much Fibrowatt has been
promised by our commissioners, and how long it will take to make
this money back through taxes? Also, we are concerned that the
county has committed to these incentives before holding the
required public hearing on the matter.
An additional point concerning Fibrowatt: In a meeting of the
County Commissioners (when the commissioners voted to rezone the
proposed site along Highway #268), when concerned citizens asked
to speak in the public comment portion of the meeting about
re-zoning that particular site from Agricultural to Heavy
Industry zoning classification, Chairman Hunter instructed
speakers that they were not to use the word “Fibrowatt”
because the commissioners were not re-zoning the
site for that particular company, but for industry in general.
Mr. Hunter’s statement that Surry County “has spent or
committed in excess of $2,174,545” in response to the
question, “What actions…has Surry County taken
to attract Fibrohills, LLC?” indicates that he was
not being completely honest when he forbade us from mentioning
Fibrowatt in our concerns about re-zoning the land. It appears
that the site was, indeed, intended for Fibrowatt.
We are also concerned about the expenditure or commitment of
either $2 million , $3.2 million, or $5.2 million in order to
obtain what Terry Walmsley, a representative of Fibrowatt, has
admitted would only be 8 to 10 new jobs. The great
majority of the jobs, Mr. Walmsley has said, will be for truck
drivers who are already employed in moving poultry litter. Of the
fewer than 30 on-site jobs, our group wonders, how many will be
hired locally and how many will (as many do in Benson, MN)
commute to work from more urban areas (like Winston or
Charlotte)?
Of course, estimates of from 200 to 400 short-term (less than two
years) construction jobs are possible; however, in building the
Fibrohills plant near Elkin, how many of those jobs will go to
local workers, and how many will be imported? As a matter of
fact, in October, 2009, Fibrowatt announced that they had
executed an initial agreement with Fagen, Inc. in Minnesota
“for the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) of
its first biomass-fueled power project in North Carolina.”
On page 3, line 8 of his testimony, Mr. Hunter says that the
incinerator would add at least “$140,000,000.00 to the
County’s tax base.” We would like to know where he got
his figures, and whether he took into account that experience
elsewhere shows we can expect a 20% drop in residential and farm
property values with the coming of an incinerator. Because
realtors are required by law to disclose the possibility of such
an incinerator, we know that already some home and property sales
have been lost..
On page 3, lines 21 and 22, continued on page 4, lines 1-3: Mr.
Hunter says, “A small number of vocal opponents have made
negative headlines about the project.” We also recall that
this is the same person who told us that “77,000 people in
Surry County” were in favor of this project, when the US
Census Bureau in 2008 estimated the total population in Surry
County only at about 72,400. Perhaps his “small number of…opponents”
is limited to the population of Elkin? (By the way, 41 doctors
and 11 pharmacists are among that “small number.”)
He also says that “the vast majority of Surry County
residents favor the expansion of the County’s tax base and
the creation of new jobs….” This is akin to saying the
vast majority of Americans are in favor of democracy. Does he
think those of us who are vocal against Fibrowatt are against
expanding the tax base and new jobs? We certainly are not! We
simply believe that Fibrowatt is not the best way to achieve
those goals. We want to encourage economic growth. We see
Fibrowatt as a short-sighted attempt to gain a questionable
industry at the risk of losing other, cleaner industries and
businesses.
We also would like to call Mr. Hunter’s attention to the
survey conducted by The Yadkin Riverkeeper in which 80% of the
respondents in both Surry and Yadkin counties were opposed to
Fibrowatt.
Moving on to page 4, lines 20-23, in response to the question,
“Are you familiar with the poultry waste set-aside
of Senate Bill 3, Session Law 2007-397…?”, Mr.
Hunter says, “…generally…and (I) have discussed
the implications with various Department Heads, including the
Surry County Tax Administrator and the Surry County North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Director.”
Our question is whether he went outside of Surry County to
discuss implications? Perhaps with the power companies who are
required to purchase this higher-cost electricity? Perhaps with
Mike Ewall or Alan Mueller, the acknowledged experts in poultry
litter incineration? Perhaps with any states which have said
“no” to incinerating poultry waste, such as Delaware
and Pennsylvania? Or countries such as Ireland? Our best bet is
no, he did not. We are concerned that since 2005, Fibrowatt has
had lobbyists in place to quietly “sell” their industry
to legislators and public officials.
On page 5, lines 13-19, of his testimony, in response to the
question, “In Surry County’s Due Diligence
Process, has any county representative visited any other
Fibrowatt facility, other than Fibrominn? Mr. Hunter
replies that yes, the county did send one delegate to England,
whose research and personal observations were all positive. That
delegate was Robyn Rhyne, who was at that time President of the
Economic Development Partnership. According to a Winston-Salem
Journal newspaper story (June 8, 2007) , Rupert Frazer,
President of Fibrowatt, says that Robyn “cornered” him
and sold him on the merits of Surry County. He also said that at
one point he began to think of Ms. Rhyne “as a member of his
own team.”
CACHE’s question is, was Ms. Rhyne qualified [i.e.: what
kind of science education or environmental courses did she have
prior to this trip?] to consider the environmental impact of
British Fibrowatt, or did she merely see a recruiting
opportunity? After all, her job depended upon how many industries
she recruited.
CACHE members certainly understand that the Surry County
Commissioners, including Mr. Hunter, have committed themselves so
entirely to Fibrowatt that they would lose face if they were to
admit that this was not a choice made in the best interests of
the people of the county; however, we encourage them to review
their decision and tell this company that Surry County citizens
will not sell our health and safety for a few pieces of silver.
Citizens’ Alliance for a Clean, Healthy Economy, Betty Tesh,
Secretary
Contact Person:
Sam Tesh
336-366-2980 or 7905
wtesh@surry.net
326 Gramar Rd.
State Road, NC 28676
|