Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 370

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
* * * * * * * * *
*
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC * 09-0360-E-CS
*
* * * * * * * * *
HEARING TRANSCRIPT

* * * * * * * * *
BEFORE: MICHAEL ALBERT, Chairman
JON MCKINNEY, Commissioner
EDWARD STAATS, Commissioner
HEARING: Tuesday, October 27, 2009
9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: PSC Howard M. Cunningham
Hearing Room
201 Brooks Street

Charleston WV

Reporter: Brett Steele

Any reproduction of this transcript


is prohibited without authorization
by the certifying agency.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 JOHN R. AUVILLE, ESQUIRE
4 Public Service Commission of West Virginia
5 201 Brooks Street
6 Charleston, WV 25301
7 Counsel for the Public Service Commission
8

9 CHRISTOPHER L. CALLAS, ESQUIRE


10 JAMES R. ALSOP, ESQUIRE
11 STEPHEN N. CHAMBERS, ESQUIRE
12 Jackson Kelly, PLLC
13 1600 Laidley Tower
14 P.O. Box 553
15 Charleston, WV 25322
16 Counsel for Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
17
18 BRADLEY W. STEPHENS, ESQUIRE
19 Stephens Law Office, PLLC

20 235 High Street


21 #518 Monongahela Building
22 Morgantown, WV 26505
23 Counsel for Allegheny Front Alliance
24
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
3
1 INDEX TO WITNESSES
2
3 WITNESS: Michael Jin
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 by Attorney Trivelli 10 - 12
6 CROSS EXAMINATION
7 by Attorney Stephens 13 - 17
8 EXAMINATION

9 by Commissioner Albert 17 - 20

10 WITNESS: Randall Childs

11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 by Attorney Chambers 20 - 23
13 CROSS EXAMINATION
14 by Attorney Stephens 23 - 29
15 EXAMINATION
16 by Commissioner Albert 29 - 32
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Chambers 32

19 WITNESS: Terrance DeWan


20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 by Attorney Chambers 33 - 35
22 CROSS EXAMINATION
23 by Attorney Stephens 35 - 36
24 EXAMINATION
25 by Commissioner Albert 36 - 49

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
4
1 INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4 by Attorney Chambers 49 - 52
5 RECROSS EXAMINATION
6 by Attorney Auville 53
7 WITNESS: James D. Barnes
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 by Attorney Alsop 54 - 56
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 by Attorney Auville 56 - 58
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 by Attorney Stephens 59 - 73
14 EXAMINATION
15 by Commissioner Albert 73 - 77
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 by Attorney Alsop 77 - 84
18 RECROSS EXAMINATION
19 by Attorney Trivelli 84 - 86

20 RECROSS EXAMINATION
21 by Attorney Auville 86 - 87

22 WITNESS: William Llewellyn

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 by Attorney Callas 88 - 90
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
5
1 INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2
3 CROSS EXAMINATION
4 by Attorney Stephens 90 - 95
5 EXAMINATION
6 by Commissioner Albert 95 - 97
7 WITNESS: Jeffrey Maymon
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 by Attorney Chambers 98 - 100


10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 by Attorney Auville 101 - 102
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 by Attorney Stephens 102 - 103
14 EXAMINATION
15 by Commissioner Albert 103 - 106

16 WITNESS: Kathryn Kuranda

17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Chambers 106 - 108

19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 by Attorney Stephens 109 - 129
21 CROSS EXAMINATION
22 by Attorney Auville 129
23 EXAMINATION
24 by Commissioner Albert 129 - 134
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
6
1 INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4 by Attorney Chambers 135 - 139
5 RECROSS EXAMINATION
6 by Attorney Auville 139 - 140
7 DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 140 - 142
8 WITNESS: Dixie Kellmeyer

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 by Attorney Auville 143 - 145
11 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 by Attorney Stephens 145 - 151
13 EXAMINATION
14 by Commissioner Albert 151 - 153
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 by Attorney Callas 153 - 160
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Auville 160

19 WITNESS: Donald Walker

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 by Attorney Auville 161 - 163
22 CROSS EXAMINATION
23 by Attorney Stephens 163 - 178
24 EXAMINATION
25 by Commissioner Albert 178 - 181

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
7
1 INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4 by Attorney Auville 182 - 184
5 DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 184 - 186
6 CERTIFICATE 187
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
8
1 E X H I B I T S
2
3 Page
4 Number Description Offered
5 Building Trades
6 1 Prepared Direct Testimony of
7 Michael Jin 10
8 2 Prepared Direct Testimony of

9 Darwin L. Snyder 142


10

11 Alliance

12 9 Application Milestones 92
13 10 DEP Document 92
14 11 Maryland Inventory of Historic Places 113
15
16 Company
17 2 Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to
18 82 CSR2 120

19
20 Staff
21 1 Direct Testimony of Dixie L. Kellmeyer 144
22 2 Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker 162
23 TJD-D Direct Testimony of Terrence DeWan 34
24 JDB-D Direct Testimony of James Barnes 55
25 WEL-D Direct Testimony of William Llewellyn 89

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
9
1 E X H I B I T S (cont.)
2
3 Page
4 Number Description Offered
5 RAC-D Direct Testimony of Randall Childs 21
6 JHM-D Direct Testimony of Jeffery Maymon 99
7 KMK-D Direct Testimony of Kathryn Kuranda 107
8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
10
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ---------------------------------------------------------
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Good morning. We are back on the
5 record. I think we're going to take Mr. Jin this morning
6 as the first matter. So Mr. Trivelli, do you want to
7 call your witness?
8 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

9 Yes. Thank you. And I appreciate the


10 parties and the Commission agreeing to the slight change
11 in schedule. I'd like to call Mr. Jin to the stand. I'd
12 like --- I just handed out a document, which I'd like to
13 be marked for identification purposes Building Trades
14 Number One. Mr. Jin needs to be sworn in.
15 (Building Trades Exhibit One marked for
16 identification.)
17 ------------------------------------------------------
18 MICHAEL JIN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS
19 FOLLOWS:

20 ------------------------------------------------------

21 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

22 I'm going to try to sit to make this


23 work.
24 DIRECT EXAMINATION
25 BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
11
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jin. Would you say and spell
2 your name for the record, please?
3 A. My last name is J-I-N. My first name is
4 X-I-A-O C-H-E-N or call me Michael.
5 Q. Okay. Mr. Jin, do you have in front of you a
6 document that I've just handed you, which is marked for
7 identification purposes as Building Trades Number One?
8 It starts out as prepared Direct testimony by Michael

9 Jin?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that document consists of, let's see, seven
12 pages of testimony, then Exhibit A which is a short
13 resume of yours and then Exhibit B which is a document
14 entitled the estimated economic impact of Pinnacle Wind
15 Power project in West Virginia?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that your --- intended to be your testimony,
18 your exhibits in this case?
19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you prepare this? Was this prepared by you


21 or under your direction?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If I ask you the questions that are in the
24 testimony today in person, would your answers be about
25 the same?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
12
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know of any corrections that you need to
3 make in this testimony?
4 A. No, not that I'm aware of.
5 Q. So therefore you adopt this testimony as your
6 Direct testimony in this case?
7 A. Yes.
8 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

9 Okay. Mr. Chairman, then I'd like to


10 move the admission of Building Trades One into evidence,
11 and with that Mr. Jin is available for Cross Examination.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 All right. Without objection, Building


14 Trades One is admitted in evidence. Mr. Callas, do you
15 want to ---?
16 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17 No questions.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 All right. Fine. Mr. Auville?


20 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
21 No questions.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Mr. Stephens?
24 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
13
1 CROSS EXAMINATION
2 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jin. My name's Brad Stephens.
4 I represent Allegheny Front Alliance, the Intervenor in
5 this case. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Each
6 one of the following questions, until I tell you
7 otherwise, I'm asking whether you've prepared any
8 opinions expressed in your Direct testimony and your

9 Exhibit B, the report you prepared, whether you took


10 these things into account. Do you understand?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. First, I want to ask if you, in doing those
13 things, did you consider or evaluate potential impacts to
14 property values in the vicinity of the property?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Would that be possible to do or feasible
17 to do in an economic analysis?
18 A. You know, the answer is yes and a no. Our
19 model, we didn’t take that into consideration. The

20 reason is very simple. Because we really don’t know what


21 kind of an impact it would have on the property tax, so,
22 you know, it would take a certain time to make estimate
23 and to look at all kinds of models and see if the project
24 I guess would have a negative or positive impact on the
25 property.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
14
1 Q. Okay. Just to clarify, Mr. Jin, I'm not going
2 so far as to ask about property taxes. I'm just asking
3 about property values.
4 A. Property value.
5 Q. Yeah. Well, I understand that's an extension of
6 property values perhaps, but let's just stick with
7 property values. Would it be feasible for you to take
8 into consideration any impacts to property values?

9 A. No, it is not.
10 Q. And why is that?
11 A. You know --- I mean ---. Okay. Property value,
12 when the companies move into a big construction project
13 like this and --- they will pay for the property they're
14 looking to put the windmill on, where wind farms are.
15 So, you know --- I mean, I don’t know. It will probably
16 pump up the property value or depress property value. It
17 can go either way, so I didn't take this into
18 consideration and say it would depress or increase
19 property value into consideration.

20 Q. And you did not perform any research into


21 whether it would increase or decrease property values;
22 right?
23 A. No, not at this moment. You know, my focus was
24 very simple. When you have the amount of dollars going
25 into that project, what kind of impact you will have on

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
15
1 the local economy, that's it. I'm not talking about
2 property value.
3 Q. I understand. Second, did you take any
4 potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5 human health impacts of the project into account?
6 A. No. It's much more complex, so usually people
7 wouldn’t do that.
8 Q. Okay. Would it be feasible for you to have

9 taken into account either social, environmental or human


10 health impacts of the project?
11 A. At this moment, my answer is no.
12 Q. And why is that?
13 A. It's too complex. It's --- you know, you have
14 all those kind of issues. For example, health issues,
15 you know, what kind of --- in the way we deal with wind
16 power, I know we will have all kinds of concerns; for
17 example, sound. It's hard to translate those kind of
18 concerns into an economic number and say what kind of
19 benefits or damages it would have. So it's difficult

20 to ---.
21 Q. Okay. But the bottom line is you did not
22 perform any research in any of those areas, social,
23 environmental, human health ---
24 A. No.
25 Q. --- impacts to perform your study; correct?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
16
1 A. No.
2 Q. All right. Third, did you take into effect any
3 potential direct or indirect impact to historic resources
4 in the vicinity of the project or the tourism potentially
5 spurred by the integrity of those resources?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. Would it be possible to integrate such
8 elements into an economic analysis?

9 A. As I said, you know, my study is a much more


10 focused study. I mean, I don’t take into consideration
11 those kind of deviations.
12 Q. So you didn’t perform any research and do any
13 impacts on historic resources or tourism?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you take into account the federal production
16 tax credit which would be available to Pinnacle and
17 possibly successors in interest in the project?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Would it have been feasible to take that into

20 account in your analysis?


21 A. As I said, you know, my study is a very focused
22 study, only focused on the construction phase of the
23 project, so I didn’t take into consideration some of
24 those things.
25 Q. I understand. Did you take into account any

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
17
1 other state or federal tax credit or incentive, which
2 would be available to Pinnacle or any successor in
3 interest in the project?
4 A. No, I did not do that either.
5 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6 I believe that is all I have for you,
7 Mr. Jin. Thank you.
8 A. Okay.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 Commissioners?
11 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
12 No questions.
13 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
14 No questions.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 During your study, I was curious, in
17 reading it, whether or not as you do these --- you've
18 done a series of them now in --- on behalf of the Trades

19 Council for at least four or five that I'm aware of. Do


20 you go back and look to see or assess the accuracy of
21 your study, this one vis-à-vis earlier ones? And if so,
22 do you adjust your approach in any way?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 How do you do that?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
18
1 A. You know, I mean, first of all, those study ---
2 okay. I have --- how to put it. This is --- I usually
3 use a model. A model is --- you know, generates by
4 impact.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 Right.
7 A. And when I use an impact model, you know, I have
8 to make certain assumptions and when I make certain

9 assumptions, I try to stay consistent on making those


10 assumptions. When say, for example, if you have a big
11 project, construction project that's $300 million and the
12 labor cost, which is a very important variable, to put
13 into an impact I would say probably less than 27 percent
14 of labor costs. And then I try to stay consistent on the
15 assumptions. And by doing this I also verify those
16 numbers with written documents such as, let's say,
17 prevailing wages charts produced by West Virginia. So I
18 try to, you know, stay consistent on those issues.
19 And after I do the study, I always compare those

20 numbers and look at all the studies I did. For example,


21 with one of those numbers, we call them multiples,
22 multiplies. When direct job, how many indirect and the
23 use of job can produce by one direct job. And that to a
24 certain extent is a fixed ratio, 3:1 or 2.31. And then I
25 will look at this as a verification to see if those

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
19
1 numbers are consistent. So basically when I do those
2 four, five studies I always look back and use previous
3 study as a standard and to verify the numbers to see if
4 they are, you know, good or not.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 Then I assume that based on your look
7 back or review of the prior projects, that you're
8 satisfied that the approach you've been using accurately

9 predicts the economic impact of these projects?


10 A. Oh, yes. Yes, I always do that.

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 Is there any --- are there any


13 empirical ---? Other than correcting your data as you go
14 forward, do you do any empirical studies on each project
15 to determine whether your projection of that project
16 matches actuality or can that even be done? I'm not ---
17 I ---.
18 A. Yeah. It's hard to be done like this because,

19 you know, in reality we really don’t know, you know. The


20 economic impact would be realized in a certain way, you
21 know, I mean, unless you talk to the state, talk to the
22 county people, you know, to see if they do see those ---
23 for example, the tax revenues and those type of things we
24 have to, you know, do --- have to talk to the people in
25 the field. Then you can know if it's severe or not.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
20
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 All right.
3 A. But this is an estimate.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 Well, I understand. Thank you, sir.
6 Mr. Trivelli, any Redirect?
7 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8 No, sir.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 All right. Any other questions? Thank


11 you, Mr. Jin. We appreciate your participation.
12 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
13 May Mr. Jin be excused?
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 Yes, sir, you may.
16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17 Your Honor, we'd call Randall Childs.
18 ------------------------------------------------------

19 RANDALL CHILDS, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED


20 AS FOLLOWS:
21 ------------------------------------------------------
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Childs.
25 A. Good morning.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
21
1 Q. Would you please state your name and business
2 address for the record, please?
3 A. Randall Childs. Business address is P.O. Box
4 398, Reedsville, West Virginia 26547.
5 Q. What is your occupation?
6 A. I'm a principal with Community and Economic
7 Development Consultants and also a research assistant
8 professor at WVU.

9 Q. There's a notebook that should be in front of


10 you of testimony, Pinnacle testimony. I believe tab
11 eight?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is the document behind tab eight --- do you
14 recognize that?
15 A. Yes, it's my Direct testimony.

16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

17 Your Honor, I request that the


18 testimony nine, tab eight be identified for --- marked

19 for identification as Exhibit RAC-D.


20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 It's so marked.
22 (Exhibit RAC-D marked for
23 identification.)
24 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25 Q. Mr. Childs, was your testimony prepared by you

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
22
1 under your direction?
2 A. Yes, it was.
3 Q. Do you wish to make any changes or corrections
4 to your testimony?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Is your testimony true and accurate to the best
7 of your knowledge and belief?
8 A. Yes.

9 Q. If I were to ask you here today the questions


10 that appear in that written testimony, would your answers
11 be substantially the same?
12 A. Yes, they would.
13 Q. Do you wish to adopt this testimony as your
14 Direct testimony in this case?
15 A. Yes, I do.

16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

17 Subject to Cross Examination, we would


18 move for the admission of Exhibit RAC-D.

19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 All right. Without objection, it'll be
21 admitted.
22 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23 This witness is available for Cross
24 Examination.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
23
1 All right, sir. Mr. Trivelli?
2 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3 I have no questions.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 Staff?
6 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7 No questions.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Mr. Stephens?

10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

11 Thank you, Your Honor.


12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 Yes, sir.
14 CROSS EXAMINATION
15 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Childs.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Brad Stephens. I represent Allegheny Front

19 Alliance in this case, and I'm sure you heard my


20 questions for Mr. Jin. My questions to you are going to
21 parallel those precisely pretty much. I'm going to ask
22 you a series of elements --- ask about the series of
23 elements and ask ---. I'm asking for each one whether
24 you took into account, considered or evaluated in
25 preparing either your testimony or your economic

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
24
1 analysis, each one of these elements. Do you understand?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. First, I want to ask if you took into account
4 potential impacts to property values in the vicinity of
5 the project?
6 A. It's kind of yes and no. Yes, I took into
7 consideration. I didn’t make any adjustments. There are
8 no credible studies that indicate that there would be

9 negative or substantially positive impact on the property


10 values.
11 Q. Okay. Could you tell me what studies you're
12 referring to?
13 A. There was some by Renewable Energy Project ---
14 Policy Project, I believe. There have been other studies
15 around the country. There's studies underway in West
16 Virginia. Just recently the West Virginia working group,
17 they discussed those studies and difficulties and tried
18 to come up with credible estimates.
19 Q. Would you tend to think that studies sponsored

20 by something called a Renewable Energy Policy Project and


21 the Industrial Wind Working Group would tend to find that
22 property values were adversely affected or not affected
23 or positively affected by construction projects?
24 A. The one, it wasn’t Industrial Wind Working
25 Group. It's actually another university, so I don’t have

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
25
1 any reason to think that their results are going to be
2 slighted one way or the other.
3 Q. Okay. Second, did you take into account any
4 potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5 human health impacts of the project?
6 A. I did not make any adjustments in the models for
7 any of those types of impacts.
8 Q. But would it be feasible to incorporate such

9 considerations into an economic analysis such as the one


10 you performed?
11 A. If there --- if you can quantify it
12 economically, then it could be incorporated into the
13 model.
14 Q. So you did not make any attempts to quantify
15 that; correct?
16 A. No, I did not.
17 Q. Third, did you take into account any potential
18 direct or indirect impact to historic resources in the
19 vicinity of the project?

20 A. No.
21 Q. I'll split this off separately. I rolled them
22 into one when I was examining Mr. Jin, but I'll ask, did
23 you take any --- into account any adverse impacts to
24 tourism in the vicinity of the project?
25 A. Again, that's one where there's not been

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
26
1 credible studies to indicate that there is a negative ---
2 some of the studies that I've seen have actually
3 indicates there's positive impacts that there are now
4 wind tours at the facilities. But I didn’t make any
5 positive or negative adjustments for tourism.
6 Q. But you wouldn’t be in a position to say whether
7 or not with any degree of confidence that the
8 construction of industrial wind projects either --- or

9 impacts to any degree tourism? And when I say tourism,


10 people coming to see things other than the wind turbine
11 facility itself.
12 A. Well, I make --- in the adjustment for that I
13 make adjustment for how many come to see the wind
14 turbine, so I don’t know ---. From the studies that I've
15 seen, there's no indication of any net change in tourism
16 positive or negative.
17 Q. Could you tell me anything about the studies are
18 the --- I guess you're referring to studies that suggest
19 that people come to visit wind turbines?

20 A. Well, it was wind tours. You know, you can do


21 --- you know, search on the internet and find that there
22 are now tours where they go and visit. You know, they
23 have bus tours that go visit different wind turbines. So
24 what I included in my impacts are the things that I can
25 easily quantify and have credible results for. I don't

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
27
1 know of any credible studies that indicate any negative
2 or substantially positive impacts on the wind turbine.
3 Q. Did you take into account the Federal Production
4 Tax Credit available to Pinnacle or any successors of
5 interest in the project?
6 A. Only in a sense that, you know, the tax credit
7 --- without it it may --- probably it couldn’t go
8 forward. Then in that sense it would be included. Other

9 than that, it's not included.


10 Q. And just to clarify, would it be feasible to
11 incorporate into your analysis that the impact of the
12 Federal Production Tax Credit itself as it applied ---
13 would apply to Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the
14 project?
15 A. It would really only have an impact whether ---
16 if it meant the project happened or didn’t happen. The
17 economic impact just traces the expenditures that happen
18 and how that multiplies through the economy through the
19 different rounds of spending. If the Production Tax

20 Credit --- it doesn’t exist and the project still moved


21 forward, then the impacts are zero. The project doesn’t
22 happen. If it happens then the impacts are what I
23 indicated.
24 Q. Okay. Well, let me back up then and ask you, if
25 you could indulge me, can you define for me what exactly

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
28
1 is a tax credit in the sense of an income tax credit,
2 federal income tax credit. Could you just define that
3 for me?
4 A. The tax credit that you apply --- I don’t know
5 what you're really looking for here, but the Production
6 Tax Credit, it's a tax credit that they receive for
7 producing electricity and generating electricity both.
8 Q. Okay. And what is --- what would be the actual

9 affect of Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the


10 project having available to it that Federal Production
11 Tax Credit? In other words, would Pinnacle or a
12 successor in interest end up paying less federal income
13 tax under that provision, that tax credit than it
14 otherwise would without it?
15 A. Yes, only if the project was able to come to
16 fruition without it.
17 Q. So the federal government would receive less
18 revenue than it would without the Production Tax Credit
19 in place; correct?

20 A. If the project went forward. The project can't


21 survive without that, the project doesn’t exist and they
22 would receive zero.
23 Q. I understand it can end up being circular to the
24 extent that it may impact decision making as to whether
25 to go forward with the project, but you would not

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
29
1 disagree with me that under the Federal Production Tax
2 Credit in place that Pinnacle and any successor in
3 interest in the project would pay less in federal income
4 taxes each year than we would without it?
5 A. I'll just restate, if the project happens
6 without it, it means that the project doesn’t happen,
7 then no.
8 Q. Did you take into account any other federal or

9 state tax credit that might be available to Pinnacle or a


10 successor in interest of the project?
11 A. No.

12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

13 I believe that's all I have for you,


14 Mr. Childs.
15 A. Okay.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 All right. Commissioners?
18 COMMISSIONER STAATS:

19 No questions.
20 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
21 No.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Mr. Childs, I'd like to sort of explore
24 with you the same questions I asked Mr. Jin and that is,
25 have you been involved in prior wind turbine economic

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
30
1 analysis studies?
2 A. Yes, I've done a lot of economic impacts of
3 different energy, coal, cogen, wind.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 Okay. With respect to the wind
6 projects, you indicated in your testimony that you
7 project $2 million annually in increased business volume,
8 15 new jobs and 705,000 increased employee compensation.

9 That's the impact in Mineral County. Then you have a


10 second series of similar for the statewide. Do you go
11 back sort as an after-the-fact assessment to look at ---
12 or can you, in fact, go back after the fact and look at
13 your analysis and your estimates and compare them with
14 the real world results from the construction of a
15 project?
16 A. It's not really possible because you have
17 everything else changing at the same time, so you can't
18 pull that out after the fact. The only thing that we
19 have is anecdotal evidence of when you see, for example,

20 a plant closing or something happening to have a ripple


21 effect. We can easily see that it has an effect. To go
22 back through and say after the fact, was it $2 million
23 created or was it, you know, $1.3 quarter million or was
24 it $2.5 million, we can't really say because it traces
25 all that extending from not just what the business spends

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
31
1 but what its employees spend and then the expenditures
2 that it takes. If they buy something from the local
3 businesses, then that business in turn spends with other
4 local businesses. It pays its employees, so through all
5 those rounds of spending, it's just impossible to trace
6 it fully, particularly with confidentiality of data from
7 private business.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Given the fact of the ripple effect


10 then of some of the projects, the wind turbine projects,
11 have you been able to verify at least to your own
12 satisfaction that there has been a positive impact from
13 these projects?
14 A. Oh, yes.

15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

16 How so? I mean, ---.


17 A. Well, the same way we look at when, you know, a
18 business closes, when we look at any new activity

19 happening in an area, whether it's the construction or


20 the operation, we see increased economic activity in the
21 area. When you see construction, you see an increase in
22 economic activity. So we know that those are having
23 positive impacts just the same way we know when a
24 business closes, we see a negative impact from that. So
25 we have that information, we just can't verify what the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
32
1 exact dollar is because of, you know, the confidentiality
2 of data from individual firms.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Thank you, sir. That's all I have.
5 Questions?
6 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7 Your Honor, just brief follow up.
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

10 Q. Mr. Childs, you can confirm the direct impact in


11 terms of verifying things like employees hired and
12 payroll and things of that nature?
13 A. Yeah, just not the all the ripple effects once
14 it goes down to successive businesses. We can't get
15 that, but the directs of it, absolutely.
16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17 That's all I have.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 All right. Anyone else? Thank you,


20 Mr. Childs.
21 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
22 I ask that this witness be allowed to
23 be excused.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 He certainly may.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
33
1 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2 We call Terrance DeWan.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Okay.
5 ------------------------------------------------------
6 TERRANCE DEWAN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
7 AS FOLLOWS:
8 ------------------------------------------------------

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION

10 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

11 Q. Good morning.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. Please state your name and business address for
14 the record.
15 A. My name is Terrance DeWan. I'm the principal of
16 Terrance J. DeWan & Associates, 121 West Main Street,
17 Yarmouth, Maine.
18 Q. Mr. DeWan, would turn to your testimony in the

19 notebook there? I believe it's tab five. Is that the


20 testimony that was previously filed, your prepared Direct
21 testimony?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Your Honor, I ask that Mr. DeWan's
25 testimony be marked for identification as TJD-D.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
34
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 It'll be so marked.
3 (Exhibit TJD-D marked for
4 identification.)
5 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6 Q. Mr. DeWan, was that testimony prepared by you or
7 under your supervision?
8 A. Yes, it was.

9 Q. Do you wish to make any changes or corrections


10 to it?
11 A. No, I don't.
12 Q. To the best of your knowledge, is it true and
13 accurate?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. If I were to ask you various questions contained
16 in that testimony here today, would your answers be
17 substantially the same?
18 A. Yes, they would.
19 Q. And do you wish to adopt that testimony as your

20 official testimony in this case?


21 A. Yes, I do.

22 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

23 Your Honor, subject to Cross


24 Examination, we move the admission of TJD-D.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
35
1 Without objection it'll be admitted.
2 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3 We tender Mr. DeWan for Cross
4 Examination.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 All right. Mr. Trivelli?
7 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8 No questions.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 Staff?
11 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
12 No questions.
13 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14 Thank you, Your Honor.
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. DeWan.
18 A. Good morning.

19 Q. Brad Stephens. I represent Allegheny Front


20 Alliance in this case. I only have maybe two or three
21 questions for you. First is, I believe you took into
22 account the viewshed impact of the Pinnacle project, what
23 it would be in the State of Maryland; is that correct?
24 A. As part of the work we did, we extended out
25 about 20 miles, including into Maryland.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
36
1 Q. And why did you do that? Why did you take into
2 account the viewshed impact for the State of Maryland?
3 A. When we typically do viewshed analyses for wind
4 power projects, we go out I a prescribed radius, and it
5 happened to be across the state lines.
6 Q. Did you have any communications in the course of
7 your preparation of your testimony or the report that
8 appears at appendix J with any of the other witnesses

9 being presented by Pinnacle in this hearing?


10 A. I don’t believe I did.
11 Q. Okay. So that would include no communications
12 with Ms. Kuranda or Mr. Maymon?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Nor anyone working under their
15 supervision; correct?
16 A. That's correct.

17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

18 Okay. Thanks. I believe that's all

19 for you, Mr. DeWan.


20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 All right.
22 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23 No questions.
24 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
25 No questions.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
37
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 Mr. DeWan, are you --- if I have
3 questions about the photo simulations, are you the person
4 I should ask?
5 A. You can try. I am ---.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 I can try. Well, let me try then.
8 A. The reason I say that is that Mr. Friend, who

9 you heard yesterday, prepared the majority of the photo


10 simulations.

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 Okay. We're going to try to get him


13 back up then, but let me ask you some questions. Did you
14 --- you did site visits on all these things?
15 A. On two different occasions, yes.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 And to the extent that the photo
18 simulations represent simulated views from various and

19 sundry locations around the project site, you visited


20 each of those in preparing this?
21 A. Some of the photo simulations that were included
22 as part of the --- our testimony we did not visit.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 Okay.
25 A. We did visit the majority of them.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
38
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 I looked at all of the photo
3 simulations. I just have a reaction to them and I wanted
4 to ask if I'm --- where I'm wrong or if I'm wrong and it
5 seemed to me that when I was visiting these sites that
6 when we looked up at the tops and saw the MET towers and
7 those things, they looked fairly large from two to three
8 and five miles around. But yet when I see the towers, I

9 was sort of --- I expected them to appear larger in the


10 photo simulations. Now, I realize you can't get in my
11 mind and assess what I expected, but what is the
12 explanation for that?
13 A. Let me ask you a question. When you were up
14 visiting the sites, did you have the photo simulations
15 with you?

16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

17 No. All I was doing was looking up at


18 the MET tower and thinking, well, that's 200 feet, then

19 the tower ought to be some ---


20 A. Yeah.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 --- magnitude larger than that and ---.
23 A. I think if you would have the photo simulations
24 and you held it up like this (indicating) you would find
25 it would have been a very accurate representation. When

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
39
1 we did the photo simulations --- as you know, David
2 Friend did the photo simulations, our office did a
3 computer generated model of the area and inserted it
4 above the MET tower as well as the turbines. And so we
5 know that they were accurate. I think the human eye has,
6 you know, the ability to perceive more detail than you
7 actually can get in photographs.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Not necessarily my human eye, but I


10 appreciate that.
11 A. In general.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 All right. Did you attend any of the


14 meetings that were held with, I don’t know, the county
15 commission or the city or any of those?
16 A. No, I did not.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 All right. And do you know whether or

19 not in time the photo simulations were available at the


20 time of those meetings?
21 A. It's my understanding they were available.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Did you understand --- is it your
24 understanding that they were shown at those meetings?
25 A. My understanding is that they were shown at

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
40
1 those meetings.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 All right. In your testimony at page
4 three, you talked about you visited non-profit recreation
5 areas. You drove major public roads, visited known
6 recreation areas, historic properties, scenic overlooks,
7 et cetera, within a 25-mile radius. How did you decide
8 where to go?

9 A. The first order of business was to review the


10 viewshed analysis map that was prepared by Mr. Friend and
11 that showed us where there was potential visibility.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 The viewshed analysis map is not the


14 photo simulations at that stage?
15 A. That is correct.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 All right.
18 A. And as you know, there is a negative and a

19 positive photo simulation --- or a viewshed map.


20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 Right.
22 A. And we use that to scope out where we should
23 travel. It was two days for the field trip, and we
24 stopped periodically along the way to check the accuracy
25 of the viewshed map and then to record photographs and

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
41
1 observations at various viewpoints. We wanted to make
2 sure that we had a sense of what we called a
3 characteristic landscape. From people that are living or
4 driving and working in the area, this is typically what
5 they would expect to see. So we tried to get photographs
6 from observation points that were representative of the
7 area and the view that people would expect.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 So the decision in that regard was


10 yours?
11 A. We guided the process with Mr. Friend.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 All right.
14 A. That's correct.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 You also indicate at the bottom of page
17 three that DeWan & Associates independently verified, is
18 the term you used, the accuracy of the photo simulations

19 prepared by Pinnacle Wind. And given my reaction to them


20 that's --- I was interested in that statement when you
21 say you independently verified the accuracy of those
22 prepared by Pinnacle, what did you do to independently
23 verify the accuracy of them? What process did you go
24 through?
25 A. Independent --- Mr. Friend used a program called

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
42
1 WindPRO. We did not own the software at the time. We
2 have it now. We used another process using another piece
3 of software, and in our software we were able to
4 construct a three dimensional model of the landscape and
5 then insert the turbines in the exact locations that they
6 were proposed to be located. We then superimposed our
7 computer model on top of the existing photographs and
8 then compared that to the simulations that Mr. Friend

9 prepared.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 And your decision or your judgment was


12 that they were accurate?
13 A. They were very accurate.
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 On page four you say your --- DeWan &
16 Associates calculated the viewing distance of each photo
17 simulation and incorporated it into the title block of
18 each image. Is that the process you were talking about

19 that you did?


20 A. Yes, it is. That's why I asked if you had had
21 them out in the field because when you're out there it
22 says, you know, hold this ---.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 I read all that. After the fact, it
25 would have been great to have them there. Next time we

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
43
1 do one, we will have them there. But we didn’t
2 unfortunately. But that's what you were doing then?
3 A. That's one of the steps we went through. That's
4 correct.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 How many viewshed photo simulation
7 analyses has DeWan & Association undertaken to date?
8 Well, either in your own --- I mean, to the extent you

9 were in some other enterprise, but let's talk about you


10 specifically.
11 A. Yes. We've been involved in about 15 of them so
12 far.

13 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

14 Okay. As a matter of curiosity, have


15 you been involved in any where there was a city or a town
16 within three to five miles of the wind turbine projects?
17 Three to six, I guess, is probably more accurate.
18 A. Most of the work we were doing is in Maine,

19 rural parts of Maine. There are --- we just got one


20 permitted called Record Hill in which there was a
21 community within three miles, I believe. And so, you
22 know, we have been involved in some where there are
23 communities in similar instances.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Roughly the same size towers?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
44
1 A. Yes, probably 400 feet tall.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 So most of the views from the City of
4 Keyser would fall on what you would define just as the
5 mid ground?
6 A. That's correct.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 And the same with the views from the

9 Potomac State College?


10 A. That's correct. That was a little bit --- it's
11 about a little over two miles.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 There was a --- there were questions


14 asked about --- of the economic witnesses about the
15 impact on environment --- not environmental but historic
16 areas. I take it that your work in this area did, in
17 fact, look at historic and scenic areas and the impact of
18 the project on those?

19 A. To a certain extent. We did not do an impact on


20 historic structures analysis. SHPO had asked us, for
21 example, to prepare an illustration about what the
22 presence of the turbine would do to the site of Duling
23 Church.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Do you make a --- I realize most of

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
45
1 what you do is an objective, mathematical and I'll use
2 the term scientific as sort of a broad capture of the
3 thought with respect to the photo simulations. Do you
4 also make a subjective assessment of the impact in any
5 way or do you feel that's part of your project?
6 A. I hesitate to use the word subjective, but we do
7 make certain quantitative and qualitative assessments.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 What are the qualitative assessments


10 that you make?
11 A. Well, you look for --- the terms we use are is
12 there contrast in the color, form, line, texture, scale,
13 and dominance. And then we do an analysis to find out,
14 for example, color. You know, the turbines as we know
15 will be painted white, and generally that produces a
16 contrast in color because most of the landscape is green
17 or a dark brown.

18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 Why don’t they paint it camouflage?


20 Because you have to put night lights on them then, I
21 guess?
22 A. That is correct. Strobe lights.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 And it makes them even more visible?
25 A. I've seen in some places in New York where the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
46
1 bottom of the base are painted green. That, to me, looks
2 like there's moss or mold growing out of them. It's very
3 hard to camouflage a structure like this. I think the
4 intent is to make them as clean as possible.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 You talked about two structures within
7 five miles and indicated that the project is not expected
8 to have a significant impact on either of these

9 structures. What's your basis for that statement?


10 A. Those would be historic structures you were
11 talking about.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 The --- well, whatever.


14 C-A-R-S-K-A-D-O-N House and Mineral County Courthouse.
15 A. Mineral County Courthouse, as I understand it,
16 is a structure that's imbedded deep within the pattern of
17 the city and has only occasional views up to the
18 ridgeline there. I think you have to go up on the upper

19 floors to be able to see it. So the setting of that


20 particular courthouse is not going to be radically
21 altered by the presence of the wind turbines. The
22 Carskadon House, I think we have a photo simulation. One
23 of the panoramas we gave you that shows the house with a
24 tennis court in the foreground a running track, a
25 McDonald's off to one side, the turbine's on a hillside

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
47
1 and surrounded by grove of deciduous trees. And from our
2 analysis of that property when you are within --- or near
3 the house, you know, you're going to be aware of the
4 turbines probably through the trees, but, again, the
5 house is orientated towards the street, on Mineral
6 Street, I believe. And it's in a context that is very
7 village like or urban like. The turbines up in the
8 hillside are in the mid ground and will appear to be very

9 much in the background from that vantage point.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 You also talk about the Jennings


12 Randolph Lake project which we went to see. You say in
13 comparison to the existing manmade structures, the
14 turbines will seem --- will be seen as a relatively small
15 addition to the landscape. And again, I --- my query is,
16 what is the basis for that statement?
17 A. Well, you're at the overlook and then go down to
18 the lake itself, especially at the northern end there,

19 which is the only place where you're going to be seeing


20 the turbines. The human eye is also aware of the fact
21 that there was a long dam there, there's a snow wave
22 (phonetic), there's a very large water intake structure,
23 there are buildings there, there's a railroad bridge,
24 there's parking lots. It's clearly not a natural
25 environment and so the additional manmade elements is not

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
48
1 going to be seen as such a contrast as it would be if you
2 were in the middle of a totally natural environment and
3 all of a sudden had these turbines appear on the horizon.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 You described visits to three managed
6 land projects, and we were shown and ferried around. I'm
7 not sure that we --- maybe we visited some of them, but
8 in any event what exactly was the reaction to those and

9 your assessment of those, the impact on those?


10 A. Which three ---?

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 Well, there's --- your testimony at


13 page 11 talks about the Fort Mill Ridge WMA, which is, I
14 guess, a wildlife management or --- Springfield WMA and
15 Mason Mountain WMA. You said that in Maryland five where
16 it was 10 to 20 miles from the project, those being Mount
17 Nebo, Big Run, New Germany, Deep Creek and Dan's Rock.
18 And I was trying to assess whether you had made any

19 evaluation with respect to the impact on those sites.


20 A. We did. It's part of our testimony we provided
21 in our visual impact assessment. For those we relied
22 upon map analysis, looking at the distance that the
23 turbines were from each of these resources and the
24 distance of 10 to 20 miles they're going to be fairly
25 visible most of the time. The fact is you don’t even see

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
49
1 the blade because of the thinness of the blades and so
2 given the fact that these are, for the most part, largely
3 wooded environments with very little visual contact out
4 behind those resources, we didn’t feel that the turbines
5 at a distance of 10 to 20 miles had any effect
6 whatsoever.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 I think I asked you. Did you attend

9 any of the community advisory panel meetings, open house


10 discussions or meetings with the local organizations?
11 A. No, I did not.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 You shot down my camouflage idea. I


14 though I was on to something.
15 A. What pattern would you make it?
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 Essentially nothing. Most camouflage
18 patterns are, in fact, a pattern. They're not different.

19 Like on trucks and tanks and things. You think you just
20 throw the paint on there. There's actually a pattern to
21 it. A little something I can share with you.
22 A. That's a whole different discussion.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 Isn't it, though? The testimony at
25 pages 19 and 20 of your --- of the questions and answers

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
50
1 on pages 19 and 20 of your testimony talks about
2 mitigation measures. And you indicated that, obviously,
3 the prime measure is the selection of the site. Are
4 there other matters that can be actively pursued beyond
5 site selection to mitigate the visual impact of the
6 turbines? You mentioned something here and I just
7 wondered if there's --- if any of these are --- were
8 discussed with Pinnacle or need to be breaching

9 confidences, but ---.


10 A. Everything that we're showing on this page are
11 things that were actively considered and are being
12 adopted. I don’t think there's anything else that we
13 thought about that would be on this list.

14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

15 All right. Okay. Mr. DeWan, thank


16 you.
17 A. Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 Questions?
20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21 Yes, Your Honor.
22 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Q. Mr. DeWan, in response to one of the Chairman's
25 questions, I think you indicated that a significant

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
51
1 amount of your experience is in your own state of Maine?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. In the projects you've done, how does --- just
4 generally speaking, how does the terrain or landscape
5 that you work with, assessed in other --- in Maine or
6 other places compare with the Pinnacle project?
7 A. One of the fascinations about our job is to see
8 a lot of different landscapes and every one's different.

9 When you approach it with that attitude, Maine is very


10 similar to West Virginia in the fact that it is
11 consisting of a lot of rolling hills with a lot of plains
12 in between those hills. They also generally are oriented
13 in north, south directions, there's little villages
14 throughout, so it's somewhat comparable.
15 Q. Let's speak a minute about the methodology that
16 you used to conduct your assessment and how do you decide
17 what --- how you go about doing such an assessment? Is
18 there any guidelines or regulations?
19 A. The practice of visual impact assessment was

20 really established by the forest service, the United


21 States Department of Agriculture back in the late 1970s
22 and has gone through many iterations over the last
23 several years to look at the impact of the these sorts of
24 things, from road construction performing practices,
25 utility siting on landscapes. And the work that we do is

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
52
1 based upon a lot of studies that grew out of that initial
2 effort. There's a book by Dr. James Palmer and Richard
3 Smardon about visual impacts that we use as a basis for
4 our work. It's a very common methodology that's used in
5 the evaluation of a wind turbine.
6 Q. Do you believe that the sites that were selected
7 and reflected in the application were appropriate both in
8 terms of where they were and how many there were in order

9 to give the Commission an adequate understanding of the


10 visual impact of the project?
11 A. We do.
12 Q. In terms of the photo simulations, was there any
13 --- are they ---? Could they be characterized as
14 reflecting what some might say is a worst case scenario?
15 In other words, do they --- is there any possible visual
16 aspect that's been intentionally deleted or minimized?
17 A. That's one of the things we always look at in
18 trying to evaluate where you take the photographs from,
19 make sure that you are looking for that, quote, worst

20 case. Sometimes you get down the road, you know, half
21 the turbines might disappear. You make sure that when
22 you're out there doing your field evaluation, that you
23 are in a place where it will show the maximum amount.

24 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

25 That's all we had, Your Honor.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
53
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 Staff, do you have any questions?
3 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4 I just have one kind of curiosity
5 question now.
6 RECROSS EXAMINATION
7 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8 Q. Do you ever go back and verify the simulation

9 that you've done? In other words, go back to the same


10 spot where the photograph was taken from once the project
11 is up and running and compare it to the simulation that
12 was done?
13 A. We just had the opportunity to do that in a
14 project called Stetson Mountain in Maine and we did a
15 series of photo simulations, and we went back and they
16 were --- I wouldn't say they were dead on because you
17 always have micro siting changes during construction. A
18 turbine may move a few feet one way or the other, but,
19 you know, they were --- sometimes it'd be hard to tell

20 which was the photo simulation and which was the actual
21 photograph.

22 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

23 Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Thank you, Mr. DeWan.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
54
1 A. Appreciate it. May I be excused?
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 Sure. Mr. Barnes, I guess, is next.
4 ------------------------------------------------------
5 JAMES D. BARNES, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6 AS FOLLOWS:
7 ------------------------------------------------------
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Barnes. Would you state your


11 name and business address for the record, please?
12 A. My name is James D. Barnes. I'm with Acentech,
13 Incorporated, business address is 33 Moulton Street,
14 Cambridge, Massachusetts.
15 Q. By whom are you employed?
16 A. My firm's name is Acentech, Incorporated.
17 Q. And did you cause to be prepared or was prepared
18 under your supervision an acoustical study of the

19 proposed Pinnacle wind farm?


20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And also in this case did you prepare a copy of
22 your Direct testimony?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If you look at, I believe it's tab six in the
25 notebook, if you have it at the witness stand. Is that a

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
55
1 copy of your Direct testimony?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
4 Your Honor, I would like to have marked
5 for identification purposes the Direct testimony of James
6 D. Barnes as Exhibit JDB-D.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 It'll be so marked.

9 (Exhibit JDB-D marked for


10 identification.)

11 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:

12 Q. Was this testimony prepared by you or under your


13 direction?
14 A. Yes, it was.
15 Q. Do you have any corrections or changes you'd
16 like to make at this time?
17 A. Yes, just one. On my résumé I've listed --- in
18 my testimony I was listed as a past member of the

19 Institute of Noise Control and Engineering. I'm a


20 current active member of that organization.
21 Q. And that's on Exhibit JDB-1 as attached to your
22 Direct testimony?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. With that change, is this testimony true and
25 accurate?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
56
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If I would ask you these same questions today,
3 would your answers in substance be the same?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you intend for this Direct testimony to be
6 your sole testimony in this proceeding?
7 A. Yes.
8 ATTORNEY ALSOP:

9 At this time subject to Cross


10 Examination, I'd move the admission of Exhibit JDB-D and
11 offer Mr. Barnes for Cross Examination.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 Without objection, it'll be admitted.


14 Mr. Trivelli?
15 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
16 No questions.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 Staff?

19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Do you ever --- I just asked a similar question
24 of Mr. DeWan. Do you ever go back after you've done a
25 study with predicted noise levels and compared the actual

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
57
1 levels that occur with the predicted levels that you made
2 in your reports?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What do you normally find?
5 A. Measurements --- some levels are inconsistent
6 with the data that I used for the source levels as well
7 as predicted levels.
8 Q. Do you ever --- have you ever varied your

9 approach because of your findings that were made once you


10 went back and measured the noise?
11 A. My approach, I think it helps inform my judgment
12 looking to the next project.
13 Q. On page 12 of your testimony, you speak to some
14 residences that are to the east of the project and that
15 the predicted levels are louder than the --- or greater
16 than the ambient levels in the area. Can you tell us
17 exactly what that means for those residences? I know it
18 means the project will be heard, but can you tell us what
19 it will mean for those residences in those areas?

20 A. For those time periods when the turbines are


21 operating those residences are downwind, and that's a
22 relatively quiet background in those areas, or even a
23 moderate background for those particular locations. The
24 turbine sounds wouldn’t be heard much.
25 Q. But would you think inside and outside sounds?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
58
1 A. Certainly outside. Inside it really depends on
2 the construction of the home. It's unlikely. Much less
3 so, I would say. Perhaps with windows open, otherwise
4 not.
5 Q. And maybe you can or you can't tell me this, but
6 what --- how often or what percentage of the time do you
7 think those conditions would exist that you spoke of
8 where the noise would be heard at these residences?

9 A. It's difficult for me to say on a statistic


10 basis, but since they --- the prevailing wind is from the
11 west to east, more often than not the sound would be one
12 direction.
13 Q. Do you remember how --- what distance most of
14 those residences are?
15 A. Certainly more than 1,000 feet, 1,000, 1,500
16 feet.

17 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

18 That's all I have. Thank you.

19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 Commissioner?
21 ATTORNEY STAATS:
22 No questions.
23 ATTORNEY MCKINNEY:
24 No questions.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
59
1 Sorry. All wrapped up in my Cross
2 here, didn’t give you the opportunity.
3 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4 Your Honor, you can go first if you'd
5 like, but I need to ask some questions.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 Well, you go ahead, Mr. Stephens.
8 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

9 Thank you.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION

11 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Barnes. My name is Brad Stephens.


13 I represent Allegheny Front Alliance in this case. Your
14 professional experience --- I believe your résumé states
15 that started in 1972 with Johnson Controls; is that
16 correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. I believe on pages --- it's pages seven and eight of

19 your Direct testimony. Can you tell us about the long


20 term ambient sound monitoring locations that you or those
21 under your supervision utilized in the course of the
22 acoustical study? Pages 7 and 8, starting at line 18 on
23 page 7.
24 A. It describes the locations, yes.
25 Q. Is that the only locations where you performed sound

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
60
1 monitoring or those under your supervision performed
2 sound monitoring?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you perform any monitoring at those locations
5 inside of a home or other structure?
6 A. I did not.
7 Q. Looking on page eight, I am down on line 17, your
8 response to the last question on page 8. You state, the

9 measured and all the N values in the observed METS of


10 sound source types the land use has indicated that the
11 study area contains no dominant sound sources, for
12 example, a factory or well-traveled interstate highway.
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. No dominant sound sources; right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Would you describe the vicinity of the project site
18 as rural?
19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you happen to have --- I believe it's volume


21 three of the application, the third binder contains
22 appendix U, which is the acoustical study? If you could
23 turn to that with me, please. Before we look
24 specifically at appendix U acoustical study, however, I
25 wanted you to confirm that --- I think on page eight here

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
61
1 you tell us that the measured long term Ldn ambient sound
2 levels in the vicinity ranged from 48 dBA to 63 dBA; is
3 that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That's the --- when you say ambient sound levels,
6 that's what you're monitoring determined to be --- what
7 you, I guess, would claim the monitoring flushes out is
8 the normal sound level in those locations; correct?

9 A. The monitoring measures all encompassing sound.


10 Basically that's the definition of ambient.
11 Q. Turning to appendix U, the acoustical study --- I am
12 looking at appendix A of that acoustical study. The
13 first page is labeled A-1. You'll see there it's a ---
14 you set forth a table of various common outdoor sound
15 levels. Do you see that in the middle of the page?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if you look down the last entry it says 25 dBA,
18 quiet rural nighttime. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. How can you reconcile with your claim here


21 that 25 dBA is representative of a quiet rural nighttime
22 with your claim that the ambient sound levels range from
23 49 to 63 in what you characterize as a rural area?
24 A. Not all rural areas are equal. There are two
25 different measures. The State of West Virginia rules

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
62
1 require data to be provided as a 24 Ldn actually, for one
2 week logged Ldn. As many people here understand, the Ldn
3 value includes --- it's an energy average of all the
4 different sound levels through a 24-hour period and
5 includes in addition of the nighttime levels. The sound
6 levels that are presented in appendix A here, however,
7 are very short term levels based on instantaneous levels.
8 And all we're looking at in this case is 25 dBA. The

9 sound level is very low, short term sound level in the


10 absence of all the other sounds that are required to be
11 measured within West Virginia for the rules.
12 Q. First, why did you tell us in appendix A of your
13 acoustical study that the quite rural nighttime level is
14 25 dBA if it does not comport with your standards you
15 used in doing your ambient monitoring? I was confused.
16 A. Well, the intent of providing appendix A is to give
17 the lay reader an understanding of sound, and it
18 incorporates definitions of what sound is, talks about
19 overall rating. It gives sort of a range of sounds

20 through so that people can understand. Say when we're


21 speaking, the average speech sound level is 60 dBA, it's
22 three feet away. You get a flavor of what acoustics is
23 about. As you march down through the sections of the
24 paragraphs in appendix A, it does bring the concept of
25 the energy average sound level. It introduces that. It

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
63
1 discusses about Ldn sound level, but it's also based on
2 energy average or LOQ. And it also touches on the
3 guidelines in the West Virginia Public Service
4 Commission.
5 So it's really meant as a piece to educate people
6 about what range of sound levels are. The data that was
7 provided in the report shows that there --- from hour to
8 hour sound levels can vary. You can see within the

9 charts in the figures that there are time periods where


10 there it is quite quiet when the wind may not be blowing.
11 Q. Okay. You talked about --- I believe you used the
12 term standards employed or utilized by the Commission.
13 You're referring to what I would call the siting rules;
14 correct, or the provision of the siting rules that
15 applies to noise studies?
16 A. In what context?
17 Q. 150 Code of State Rules 30; does that sound right?
18 A. Yeah, under the guidelines, the design of the study.
19 Q. Okay. Do you recall language from that applicable

20 provision? And I think you made a direct reference to it


21 earlier that it states that noise events during the night
22 defined as 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. shall be weighted or
23 penalized by 10 dB to reflect the greater perceived
24 impact of noise during the night. Does that sound
25 correct?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
64
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I'm probably going to experience déjà vu here, but
3 could I ask you to define the word noise?
4 A. Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound.
5 Q. So what do you consider to be unwanted sound events
6 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. in your
7 project? Could you identify --- could you give me
8 examples of what are unwanted sound events during those

9 times that you're monitoring?


10 A. I guess I don’t quite understand your question.
11 Q. Well, I'm trying to understand if you in your
12 monitoring considered every element of sound that
13 occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.
14 each day of your monitoring, whether you considered each
15 one of those to be a noise event or by your definition an
16 unwanted sound event.
17 A. It's an ambient sound survey. There was no judgment
18 on my part that any of the sound out there was unwanted,
19 whether it be a dog barking or a bird, leaves in the

20 trees, a car pass by. It was all sound.


21 Q. Okay. Would you happen to know whether residents in
22 a rural area such as the one you characterized for the
23 project site would be bothered or annoyed in any way by
24 rustling of leaves, birds chirping, crickets during the
25 night, things like that?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
65
1 A. I would speculate that they're not bothered by it.
2 Q. Those things were picked up in your monitoring;
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you treated them as noise events; correct?
6 A. Well, people tend to use many times noise and sound
7 interchangeably. The intents of the survey was to
8 capture all the sound. It wasn’t just to capture what

9 would be considered noise by those residents.


10 Q. But you told me essentially, have you not, that your
11 interpretation of the applicable provision in siting
12 rules is that you need to identify unwanted sound events
13 using some methodology?
14 A. If I said that or it was interpreted that way, it
15 wasn’t what I intended. I believe, as in past studies in
16 the state, that the sound surveys include all the sound.
17 Q. Based on your definition of the word noise, we
18 should interpret the siting rules as stating that
19 unwanted sound events between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and

20 6:59 a.m. shall be weighted by ten dB to reflect the


21 greater perceived impact of such noise at night; correct?
22 A. I'd have to look at the specific words and how it's
23 stated.
24 Q. Okay. I'd be happy to share it with you. I don’t
25 have multiple copies as an exhibit, but ---.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
66
1 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2 May I approach the witness?
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Say what it is you're showing.
5 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6 I have shared with the witness a copy of the
7 siting rules. I have the page current to the provision
8 to which I understood Mr. Barnes to be referring.

9 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

10 Q. And I'll just ask that you confirm that that's the
11 provision that we need to be discussing.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So we were talking about the same provision and
14 siting rules; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Have you ever taken inside --- I should say indoor
17 measurements of C-weighted sound levels? I don’t mean to
18 be vague or --- have you done that kind of monitoring

19 inside a home or any kind of any other structure,


20 building, et cetera?
21 A. No. I've collected data that if need be, I can
22 certainly calculate C-weighted value from that. But I
23 have not.
24 Q. You haven't specifically done such monitoring with
25 respect to C-weighted sound?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
67
1 A. No.
2 Q. So you really cannot say what the C-weighted sound
3 levels would be inside of residences in the vicinity of
4 the project?
5 A. I can estimate it. The C-weighted sound level is
6 applied to the outdoors. When people look at a range of
7 C-weighted sound levels and use those in helping design a
8 facility, the C-weight is to be a documented sound level.

9 Q. Okay. I believe your earlier testimony was that


10 whether or not sound from wind turbines is heard within a
11 home depends on the construction of the home? Does that
12 sound like that was your testimony?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. To your knowledge do you know --- could you explain
15 to me how the construction of a home might impact whether
16 or not sounds from a wind turbine is heard within it?
17 A. Well, certainly a home that is more massive in
18 structure. If it's a concrete formed home as opposed to
19 a very light say hunting cabin of light wood

20 construction, obviously would have different


21 characteristics from the sound transmission through those
22 walls and within the home.
23 Q. Seeing as you haven't conducted any monitoring
24 indoors with respect to C-weighted levels, you wouldn’t
25 be able to speak to whether a person in a home in the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
68
1 vicinity of the project would be impacted by those lower
2 frequency sounds; correct?
3 A. We have not visited every home, I guess, within the
4 project area within a one-mile perimeter of the area and
5 decided what the sound transmission characteristics are.
6 But we have looked at various noise reduction
7 characteristics in different homes. That would be ---
8 EPA has done studies and published recommendations as to

9 what the sound characteristics --- or noise reduction


10 characteristics would be for homes. And this is
11 particularly used around airports. People look at
12 different construction of homes around airports and
13 stuff.
14 Q. When did the EPA conduct the studies to which you're
15 referring?
16 A. The bulk of them were done in the 1970s.
17 Q. I guess before 1974; right?
18 A. Yeah. And there was some additional studies in the
19 1970s, too. Effectively most of that work was completed

20 by the early 1980s.


21 Q. I guess that would have been completed by 1982;
22 right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Wasn't it --- isn't it correct that in 1982 the
25 EPA's Office Noise Abatement and Control had its funding

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
69
1 basically eliminated?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. So that office has done nothing since 1982?
4 A. Right. The information they had developed and
5 research programs continue to be still quite useful.
6 Q. So would it be your testimony that they're useful
7 with respect to the noise impact of the industrial wind
8 turbines of the variety we're dealing with in this case?

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know when the specific type of turbine that
11 would be utilized in the Pinnacle project, when that
12 specific model was developed, when it was --- I don’t
13 want to say invented, but when that specific model was
14 cleared for production?
15 A. I don’t know for the specific model, but likely it
16 would have been in the past five years.
17 Q. And that would probably be true for any industrial
18 wind turbine that a developer would be seeking to utilize
19 on a project these days; correct, in the last five years

20 probably?
21 A. I'd say in the last ten years.
22 Q. So none of the studies conducted by the EPA Office
23 of Noise Abatement and Control would have been performed
24 even remotely close in time to when the introduction,
25 utilization of these types of industrial wind turbines

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
70
1 would have come into development; correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. I believe you referred to the EPA standard that you
4 cite and you contend states that the 55 dBA level was
5 found to be protective of human health. Is that a proper
6 characterization of your ---?
7 A. That's right. And that's not taking into account
8 economics or technical feasibility. It's also

9 recommended as a guideline as protective, and it's used


10 for outdoor areas, some rural areas where quiet is one of
11 the uses. Quiet is one of the characteristics we used.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the study of noise, feasible studies of
13 large --- it's evolved quite a bit since 1972 when you
14 started your professional experience; right?
15 A. Portions have. It's matured. People are still
16 people. A reaction to sound and judgment about what
17 makes it noise has evolved a bit, but ---.
18 Q. But people can be annoyed by sounds today just as
19 much as they would have in the '70s; correct?

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I know you're not a physician and you don't have
22 any specific experience with what might be harmful to
23 human health, but are you familiar at all with any recent
24 studies that may tend to indicate that sound levels,
25 sounds emitted by industrial wind turbines, specifically

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
71
1 those lower frequency sounds that, I believe, fall within
2 the dBc type measurements might have an adverse impact to
3 human health in the vicinity of these projects?
4 A. There have been some published studies, but there
5 hasn't to my recollection or my understanding been any
6 peer-reviewed reports that have been accepted to date.
7 Q. Could you identify any of those studies you're
8 talking about, identify the author?

9 A. Well, there's a similar one, one author in New York


10 State. I attended a talk at an international wind
11 turbine conference in 2007 where there was a researcher
12 from Portugal that gave one. That particular paper and
13 the findings that she had presented, I believe, were not
14 really accepted by the community at that meeting. It was
15 a technical conference.

16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

17 I didn’t hear you. What monitor ---?


18 A. They weren't really accepted. I mean, basically

19 discussions followed and talks were not supportive of


20 this issue.
21 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22 Q. Seeing as you haven't performed any indoor sound
23 monitoring particularly with respect to lower frequency
24 sound levels, you wouldn’t be in a position to know
25 whether or to what extent people's health may be impacted

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
72
1 inside their homes from sound from industrial wind
2 turbines; correct?
3 A. Well, in that position and I have witnessed these
4 sites and have taken measurements that support the data
5 that I've been using and creations that I've been
6 working. I have not witnessed any problem.
7 Q. You, I believe, indicated that any of these human
8 health impact studies that were referred to a minute ago,

9 none of these have been peer reviewed; is that correct?


10 A. That's my understanding.
11 Q. Was your acoustical study in this case peer
12 reviewed?
13 A. The one I presented here?
14 Q. Yeah.
15 A. I believe it was peer reviewed --- call it peer
16 reviewed certainly by the technical staff of the
17 Commission which accepted the methods and the findings
18 and the interpretation of what the ambient sound studies
19 should be.

20 Q. If I can back up and ask you to define what you mean


21 when you say peer review?
22 A. Independent professional who is experienced in
23 acoustics that can look at the methods that I had
24 employed and the conclusions that I reached and commented
25 upon those.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
73
1 Q. Do you happen to know whether any member of the
2 Staff here at the Commission has any expertise that might
3 be remotely comparable to a noise expert?
4 A. I would assume that the technical Staff member that
5 was asked to do it would have these qualifications.
6 Q. But you wouldn’t know either way; would you?
7 A. No, I wouldn’t.
8 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

9 I believe that's all I have for Mr. Barnes.


10 Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 Do you have any idea why the sound level ---


13 U.S. EPA sound levels have been unchanged since March of
14 1974?
15 A. I have some opinions.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 Well, you're an expert. Let's hear them.
18 A. Okay. Well, as the previous attorney had noted, the

19 office at the EPA that dealt with noise had its funding
20 basically cut back in 1982. There was basically one
21 person on staff there that probably provides information
22 as need be, but they weren’t in a position to develop any
23 further studies. But I did come on-board and maybe one
24 reason that I was able to sort of get a foothold in this
25 industry is in the early late 1960s and the early 1970s,

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
74
1 both OSHA as well as the U.S. EPA were trying to get a
2 handle as to what the basics were about acoustics and
3 about noise. On the OSHA side, how to protect workers
4 from adverse hearing loss from noise. And the U.S. EPA
5 wanted to come up with some sort of federal guidelines.
6 And there was perhaps some discussion about coming up
7 with some federal regulations for noise. And Congress
8 basically stepped back and said, noise is a local issue.

9 We're going to let the states handle it and we're going


10 to, for the most part, let local --- all noise is local.
11 So the U.S. did set some regulations for particular
12 sources, air compressors and trucks and rail, a few other
13 things. But they specifically felt that the rest of
14 noise should be left to state and local officials. And
15 since that time, there has been additional work done
16 throughout the world, the World Health Organization at
17 European countries where they have looked at the reaction
18 of communities to noise. And there hasn’t been, you
19 know, anything in those studies that has caused the

20 original work from U.S. EPA to, I guess, be nullified.


21 So some of it comes down to dollars, and there's maybe
22 nothing else that's felt to be new for those particular
23 standards.

24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

25 Do you think the '74 standards are

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
75
1 reasonable?
2 A. Well, they're guidelines. I think that people look
3 at overall sound and how people react to sound in the
4 community. Yeah, they're reasonable. FERC uses them,
5 continues to use them for --- in cases that come in for
6 FERC. It's not to say, in my opinion, that it protects a
7 hundred percent of the people, make any regulations that
8 are really tended to.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 I was looking at your testimony on page ten


11 and it was sort of what prompted my questions about the
12 speed of the turbine blades earlier. And you said on
13 lines 15, 16 and 17 on page 10 that we assume that all 23
14 turbines were operating with a hub height wind speed of
15 10.9 miles per hour, the wind condition that produces the
16 greatest sound by this turbine model. My understanding
17 is that the turbines spin at --- and I'm probably just
18 dangerous to have a little bit of knowledge, but at 16 to

19 19 revolutions per minute if ---. Does the sound


20 increase with the velocity of the wind if the turbine
21 blades continue to spin at roughly the same rate?
22 Q. Well, there's maximum points for the wind speed. I
23 think the hub height wind speed where it's maximum sound
24 level is at 10.9 meters per second and in parenthesis,
25 quote, 1 to 24 miles per hour, and so that is sort of the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
76
1 maximum of the --- the condition for the maximum sound
2 output.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Where do get that? Is that from the specs
5 from the manufacturer?
6 A. Yes, those are provided --- they're developed by
7 testing for major manufacturers. Actually, in other
8 parts of my testimony report, I noted what the difference

9 is as it drops off by a dB or so. It says wind speeds


10 are actually somewhat higher.

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 You also testified about moderate industrial


13 turbines, and I assume you're talking about wind turbines
14 are equipped with extensive noise control features and
15 you go on to talk about those. Are those what you would
16 refer to as recent changes in technology or ---?
17 A. Well, they're improvements recently sort of in the
18 past ten years, and they're continuing to --- it's a

19 competitive market, and they're trying to come up with


20 quieter turbines all the time, more reliable.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 As a general proposition, are the turbines
23 that are sold today quieter than they were five years
24 ago?
25 A. Certainly on a sort of per kilowatt or megawatt

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
77
1 basis they are quieter. They're also growing larger,
2 too, to kind of --- to sort of competing forces.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Mr. Alsop, do you
5 also have any Redirect?
6 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
7 Yes, Your Honor, just a few.
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:

10 Q. Let's start out, Mr. Barnes, with two points on the


11 ambient sound monitoring program that you did. You had a
12 discussion with Mr. Stephens about the siting rules and
13 the ten dBA penalty applied. Do you recollect that
14 discussion?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it your understanding that the citing rules
17 requiring monitoring over a week long period call for
18 results expressed as a DNL or Ldn?

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And Ldn is an expression of an average; is that
21 right?
22 A. It's an energy average, yes.
23 Q. And in this instance, the week long period or couple
24 of days that you conducted the study meets the
25 requirements for the siting rules?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
78
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In calling for the energy averages expressed as an
3 Ldn, in calling for that average, it was an average of
4 all sounds that occurred during that period? Is that my
5 understanding of the rules; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And so in the siting rules, as you understand,
8 applied to your study, when they called for a ten dBA

9 penalty during certain hours of the day, in calculating


10 that Ldn you believe it was appropriate to apply that ten
11 dBA penalty during those nighttime hours; is that
12 correct?
13 A. That's correct. That's basically the definition
14 involving a ten dBA nighttime penalty is built into that.
15 Q. Mr. Stephens also had the conversation with you
16 about appendix A and a, quote, quiet rule at nighttime of
17 25 dBA and the ambient sound levels that you recorded in
18 the range for the project. Do you remember that
19 discussion?

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let's just talk about the range of 49 to 63 dBA for
22 this area, where the Pinnacle project's to be located.
23 Were those results surprising to you with respect to the
24 rural area?
25 A. If there was not wind, that would be quite

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
79
1 surprising. Obviously, there'd be some other factor in
2 play, but for this particular area or a similar type of
3 area where you end up having wind and trees on a very
4 regular basis both day and certainly at nighttime, no,
5 not surprised.
6 Q. So I'm assuming that's probably one of the reasons
7 why this is a good resource for a wind project?
8 A. Exactly.

9 Q. And it's not surprising to you in terms of ambient


10 sound levels that you've done on this project?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. The wind reading in most cases doesn’t note day or
13 nighttime. In many other areas that we take measurements
14 in there's less nighttime activity.
15 A. Let's talk about the particular results for the
16 study. If you can turn to page 26 of your report.

17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

18 Are both of your microphones on?

19 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
20 Is it too far away?
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Well, it sounds like you're bouncing between
23 them.
24 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
25 I only have one blue light.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
80
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 That's fine. It's the only function I serve
3 is monitor the microphones.
4 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5 Q. Do you believe that the --- let me take a step back.
6 There are five ambient sound monitors that you used for
7 this project; correct?
8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And were those selected to be representative of the


10 homes of the sounds in the area?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And given that the --- it looks like the dominant
13 feature of the structures around the home --- around this
14 project, for both projects by the residences, were the
15 sound monitoring locations selected to be representative
16 of the ambient sound of the residences around the
17 project?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you believe that the use of these sound monitors

20 resulted in you gaining an understanding of what the


21 ambient sound levels are in this area?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Which way does the wind blow, if you can
24 characterize it, as it relates to the turbines and the
25 ridge?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
81
1 A. The wind data that was provided to me in discussions
2 with Pinnacle Wind Force is --- it's my understanding
3 that the dominant wind direction is from west to east.
4 Q. Mr. Auville asked you a question about the location
5 of some homes that I think you indicated in your
6 testimony gave you some concern. Would you locate on the
7 map where those residences are?
8 A. I see them. They're residences that are located

9 around locations four and five.


10 Q. And for the record would that be as it's located on
11 page 26, the residences A17, A9, A16, A56 and A55?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you did --- after you had done the ambient sound
14 monitoring and then performed your expected predictions
15 using the model, did you have some concerns about those
16 residences?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you relay those concerns to Pinnacle?
19 A. I did.

20 Q. And what's your understanding about what Pinnacle


21 did in response to your concerns?
22 A. My understanding is that Pinnacle contacted those
23 owners and have --- and those owners are now participants
24 in the project. They have an agreement with those
25 owners.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
82
1 Q. Does that help to alleviate your concerns?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. There was a discussion about low frequency noise.
4 For this project you did do predictions for C-weighted
5 predicted noise levels for sound levels for the project;
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So even though you may not have been inside the home

9 measuring them, you were able to make those predictions;


10 correct?
11 A. Yes, outside the residences or locations outside.
12 Q. I'll talk a little bit about low frequency noise.
13 Has the design of the wind turbine changed over time to
14 address concerns that were addressed with previous models
15 as it specifically relates to low frequency noise --- low
16 frequency sound? Excuse me.
17 A. Yes. Certainly the blade design has been improved,
18 but most substantially previous designs that had the
19 rotor downwind of the support structure has basically

20 been superseded for the most part by the upward rotor


21 design, which has greatly reduced the low frequency
22 component.
23 Q. Can you explain a little bit how that helps to
24 reduce it? Is it a flow through --- how the wind flows
25 through the turbine, how that's sort of changed upwind

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
83
1 versus downwind that makes that difference?
2 A. Yes. As the wind flows by the support you'll end up
3 having a weight that's jutted off the back, and you'll
4 have a vortex. And as you periodically have a blade ---
5 if the blade is downwind of that structure, that will be
6 cutting through. And it's basically just a very slow
7 motion sight. You get a high level, but if you end up
8 switching around so that the rotor is upwind of that

9 turbine, you do not have that same interaction.


10 Q. Just go back quickly to page 26 of the noise study.
11 You mentioned that the homes located that we discussed
12 before on the east side of the project, you had a
13 concern. But those concerns have been alleviated by the
14 fact that they're project participants. Do you have any
15 other concerns about any of the rest of the residences in
16 the project area?
17 A. The ones that were closest --- the one that was
18 closest on the west side, I had somewhat of a less
19 concern since the prominent and dominant wind direction

20 is from the west. For the most part those homes will be
21 upwind from those turbines.
22 Q. That one home that's closest on the west, it is
23 under agreement; is that your understanding as well?
24 A. My understanding is that, yeah, the closest one is.
25 Q. Given that those homes are under agreement, does

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
84
1 that eliminate your concern with respect to the
2 residences with respect to this project?
3 A. Yes.
4 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5 I don’t have anything further, Mr. Chairman.
6 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
7 At the risk of beating something that's been
8 talked to death, I just want to make sure that the record

9 is clear.
10 RECROSS EXAMINATION

11 BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

12 Q. On this, what you call the Ldn the long term sound
13 levels you took over an extended period of time for the
14 regs all sounds that came in; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But you didn’t go out and say, well, this is one's a
17 noise and I'm going to do something different with it and
18 this one's not a noise so I'm not going to do something

19 different with it?


20 A. No.
21 Q. So then you just accepted all the sounds that came
22 in during that period of time?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. What is this ten dB penalty that gets put on? How
25 does that work in that calculation, if it does?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
85
1 A. The monitors basically listen many times a second,
2 so it's continuously listening to the level when it
3 calculates both an A-weighted, and we program it to
4 calculate a C-weighted sound. So it's listening all the
5 time. For the daytime hours that occur between 7:00 in
6 the morning to 10:00 at night, it takes all that sound
7 energy and adds it up. And for the nighttime hours from
8 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 in the morning, it also adds all that

9 sound energy up, but it adds a ten dB penalty. And


10 penalty, basically it's an adjustment. It takes into
11 account people's increased sensitivity to sound during
12 the nighttime hours, tries to level things out, if you
13 will, between the impact of sound heard during the
14 daytime and nighttime.
15 And so then it takes all that average sound level
16 --- sound energy, averages it up and comes up with one
17 number, and that's a number that's been used by the FAA,
18 by other federal agencies, by FERC because it takes into
19 account all of the sound level with the understanding

20 that you need sort of a nighttime adjustment.


21 Q. And that's required by the regulations of this
22 Commission, what you just described; is that right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And the ten dB is actually making it seem louder at
25 night than it really is in order to take into what you

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
86
1 discussed in terms of the sensitivity of people; is that
2 correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
5 Thank you.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 Mr. Auville?
8 RECROSS EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

10 Q. In response to some question from Mr. Alsop, you


11 said that you had expressed concerns to Pinnacle about
12 those homes that were closest to the project because of
13 noise. Those concerns have been alleviated because
14 they're now project participants; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What would your recommendation have been had those
17 homes decided not to become participants in the project?
18 A. I would have continued to have expressed my concern.

19 It'd be more difficult to answer that question up here.


20 Q. Is there a distance at some point where you would
21 not become concerned about a non-participating home from
22 a project, this one or in generalities? Is there some
23 distance that you're comfortable, like 1,000 feet is
24 going to generally take care of noise issues in relation
25 to a home?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
87
1 A. I haven't established a bright line to monitor and I
2 do think some things are different, whether it be the
3 local --- sort of the local values much like your U.S.
4 EPA. So noise level really is up to the community to
5 make that decision. If it's just a seasonal wind project
6 where it's pretty much a seasonal issue, and for the most
7 part during that season where people may be living there,
8 then the turbines won't be operating much. So the

9 distances could be much smaller and there would be still


10 not much risk, I guess, to the overall community. So I
11 don’t have a bright line of distance at this point.

12 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

13 Okay. Thank you.


14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 All right. Anything else? Okay. Mr.
16 Barnes, you're excused. Thank you.
17 A. Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 I show it's around 11:25. We should take a


20 break. All right. We've got a conference set at noon,
21 so if we take a break we'll come back for about 10
22 minutes so --- or 15. So why don’t we go head and take a
23 lunch break now and come back here about quarter to 1:00
24 and prepare to resume at that time.
25 LUNCH BREAK TAKEN

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
88
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 All right. We finished with Mr.
3 Barnes. I guess we're at Mr. Llewellyn.
4 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5 That's correct, Your Honor.
6 ---------------------------------------------------------
7 WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
8 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

9 ---------------------------------------------------------
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION

11 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:

12 Q. Good afternoon. Please give your name and


13 business address for the record.
14 A. My name is William Llewellyn. The business
15 address is 27 East Main Street, Frostburg, Maryland,
16 21532.
17 Q. Mr. Llewellyn, how are you employed?
18 A. I'm a project director for CME Engineering.

19 Q. Have you served as project director for CME in


20 respect to the Pinnacle project?
21 A. Yes, sir, I have.
22 Q. Did you cause to be prepared Direct testimony on
23 behalf of Pinnacle in this case?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. I'd like you to look into the white binder there

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
89
1 and see if you can identify what appears to be a copy of
2 that testimony. You might want to pull the microphone up
3 a little bit closer to you, Mr. Llewellyn. Very good.
4 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5 Your Honor, I would like to ask that
6 Mr. Llewellyn's Direct testimony be marked for
7 identification purposes as Exhibit WEL-D.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 It will be so marked.
10 (Exhibit WEL-D marked for
11 identification.)

12 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:

13 Q. Does this appear to be a copy of your testimony,


14 sir?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. Was this testimony prepared by you or under your
17 direction?
18 A. Yes, it was.

19 Q. Are there any changes or corrections that should


20 be made in order to make that testimony truthful and
21 accurate today?
22 A. No, sir.
23 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
24 There is, I'll point out, a couple of
25 changes or typographical ones, I'm sure are my fault,

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
90
1 that should be made. You'll see on pages two --- pages
2 two through six caption above, it says Direct testimony
3 of Paul Kerlinger. Of course, that's not correct. Each
4 of them should read as the first page does bearing Mr.
5 Llewellyn's name.
6 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
7 Q. Mr. Llewellyn, do you intend that this exhibit
8 of testimony be introduced into evidence as your sworn

9 testimony in this case?


10 A. Yes, sir.

11 ATTORNEY CALLAS:

12 Your Honor, I move the admission of


13 Exhibit WEL-D and offer Mr. Llewellyn for Cross
14 Examination.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 All right. Without objection, it is
17 admitted. Mr. Trivelli?
18 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

19 No questions.
20 COMMISSION ALBERT:
21 Mr. Stephens, you're up.
22 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
23 Thank you, Your Honor.
24 CROSS EXAMINATION
25 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
91
1 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Llewellyn.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. My name is Brad Stephens. I represent Allegheny
4 Front Alliance in this case. I mainly just wanted to ask
5 you about one area of your testimony and that is with
6 respect to the NPDES General Construction Stormwater
7 Permit. I may have inverted a couple of words there. I
8 hear it stated different ways, but what is the status of

9 that permit as we sit here today that Pinnacle has


10 applied for?
11 A. The draft permit has been issued by West
12 Virginia DEP. Public notice was to be published this
13 week for a comment period.
14 Q. Okay. Do you have any idea how long that
15 comment period is?
16 A. I believe 30 days, if I'm not mistaken.
17 Q. Okay. And there would be other tasks that the
18 West Virginia DEP would need to carry out even following
19 the conclusion of that comment period in connection with

20 the permit; correct?


21 A. Correct.

22 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

23 I'm about to distribute two exhibits.


24 I'll do them one at a time, of course. First, I'll
25 represent to Mr. Llewellyn this is a printout obtained

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
92
1 from the DEP website on October 23rd. I'll ask Mr.
2 Llewellyn about it, but I'll represent to him that it
3 reflects as of that date the status of the permit we're
4 discussing. The second exhibit I'll represent to him,
5 and I'm sure he'll recognize it, it's a fact sheet
6 outlining the process in connection with this type of
7 permit. First, the Application Milestones sheet I
8 referred to is a printout on October 23rd. I would ask

9 that it be marked Alliance Exhibit Eight.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 Nine.
12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13 Nine. Okay.
14 (Alliance Exhibit Nine marked for
15 identification.)
16 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 And that will make this next exhibit
18 --- I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit Ten.

19 (Alliance Exhibit Ten marked for


20 identification.)
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 We marked for identification the
23 Application Milestone as Alliance Nine and the fact sheet
24 for DEP's Department of Environment Protection Division
25 of Water and Waste Water as Alliance Exhibit Ten.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
93
1 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2 Thank you, Your Honor.
3 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4 Q. When I left off before introducing the exhibits,
5 we were discussing where in the process Pinnacle is for
6 this NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit. Does this
7 first sheet, Alliance Exhibit Nine --- does this
8 accurately reflect to the best of your knowledge the

9 status of the permit?


10 A. No, sir, I don't believe it does.
11 Q. How does this not accurately represent ---?
12 A. I'm sorry. It does in fact. I see where the
13 draft permit was prepared on 10/20. Yes, sir, it does.
14 Q. Okay. But as we look down to just directly
15 below where you had cited, you see draft permit prepared,
16 do we not see nine Application Milestones still required?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Okay. And so that's nine discrete tasks that
19 the West Virginia DEP has identified that they will need

20 to carry out before the permit will be finalized if it's


21 to be; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And I don't intend to go into much detail, but
24 I'll ask Alliance Exhibit Ten, which I represented to you
25 was a fact sheet --- are you familiar with this document

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
94
1 at all?
2 A. I've seen this document before, yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that it reflects
4 the --- I guess the details of what West Virginia DEP
5 expects in connection with the construction stormwater
6 permit such as the one Pinnacle is seeking? In other
7 words, does it appear to be the most up-to-date version
8 of such a fact sheet?

9 A. I believe it is to the best of my knowledge.


10 Q. All right. Like I said, I don't think I want to
11 pour over it and take up a lot of time, but would you
12 agree with me that this fact sheet describes and sets
13 forth a process which is of a review by West Virginia DEP
14 that's much more detailed and lengthy than the one that
15 this Commission would engage in with respect to the
16 project's impacts to water resources?

17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

18 How would he know that?

19 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 Well, to the extent ---.
21 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22 Q. I'll ask the witness, to the extent you're
23 familiar with the siting rules of the Commission as they
24 pertain to hydrology or impacts to water resources, would
25 you agree with me that this fact sheet describes a review

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
95
1 process that is much more detailed and involves much
2 greater scrutiny than that based on the Commission under
3 the siting rules?
4 A. I believe that's an accurate statement, yes.
5 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6 I believe that's all I have for you,
7 Mr. Llewellyn. Thank you.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 All right. Mr. Trivelli?

10 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

11 No questions.
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 Staff? Commissioners, do you have any
14 questions?
15 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
16 Mr. Llewellyn, could you define for me
17 the word environmental?
18 A. The word environmental? Being of the

19 environment.
20 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
21 Thank you. No further questions.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 In your testimony, you say CME has been
24 involved since soon after its inception. What inception?
25 When was that, do you know?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
96
1 A. I started with CME in 2004, and we were involved
2 at that time.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 So it was some time prior to that. All
5 right. And on page four of six, you have an extensive
6 list of the permits that are required, and my question
7 was, as we sit here today, are you aware of opposition or
8 the need for any additional studies opposition to any of

9 the ones that are outlined here other than in this


10 proceeding, obviously, or the need for any additional
11 studies that aren't set forth in that testimony?
12 A. I'm aware of nothing that hasn't already been
13 presented.

14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

15 And in your testimony at page six, you


16 say subsequent revision of the application was made in
17 April and WV DEP is expected to complete its review by
18 June 1. And obviously, that hasn't occurred, or has it?

19 A. Yes, sir, it has. That would have been the


20 subsequent review and revision of that plan that took it
21 to the point of actually approving ---.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 And that's what you testified about
24 earlier?
25 A. Yes, sir.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
97
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 All right. Okay. Thank you. That's
3 all I have. Any further questions?
4 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5 No, nothing to follow up with, Your
6 Honor.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 All right. Thank you, Mr. Llewellyn.

9 You're excused. I don't show that you moved the


10 admission of your Cross Examination Exhibits. Are you
11 being coy or what are we ---?

12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

13 Yes, I'm being a little --- how about I


14 do that now? I'm going to move the admission of Exhibits
15 Alliance --- Alliance Exhibits Nine and Ten.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 All right, sir. Objection?
18 ATTORNEY CALLAS:

19 No objection.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 All right. They're admitted. Jeffrey
22 Maymon, is that who's next?
23 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Yes, Your Honor, we'd call Jeffrey
25 Maymon.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
98
1 ---------------------------------------------------------
2 JEFFREY H. MAYMON, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
3 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
4 ---------------------------------------------------------
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7 Q. Good afternoon. Would you please state your
8 name and business address for the record, please?

9 A. Jeffrey Maymon. It's 241 East Fourth Street,


10 Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland.
11 Q. And what is your occupation?
12 A. I'm a senior project manager for archeology with
13 a company called Goodwin & Associates.

14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

15 Is that mike on? Is the blue


16 light ---?
17 A. Yes, it is. I work for a company called R.
18 Christopher Goodwin & Associates.

19 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 Q. Mr. Maymon, would you look in the white binder
21 there? I think it's tab nine. And look behind that and
22 do you recognize the testimony there?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. Is that the Direct testimony that was previously
25 filed in this case, your Direct testimony?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
99
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3 Your Honor, I'd like that testimony at
4 tab nine to be marked for identification as
5 Exhibit JHM-D.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 It will be so marked.
8 (Exhibit JHM-D marked for

9 identification.)

10 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

11 Q. Mr. Maymon, is that your testimony prepared by


12 you or under your direction or supervision?
13 A. Yes, it was.
14 Q. Are there any changes or corrections or
15 additions that you would like to make to that testimony
16 today?
17 A. Yes. I'd like to add the tab that's on --- we
18 received review letter from SHPO in June, and I continue

19 to consult with SHPO to resolve hopefully resource


20 issues.
21 Q. Just to be clear for the record, in page seven
22 of your testimony, there's a question, has WV SHPO
23 responded to the archeological surveyor report, and your
24 answer was no ---
25 A. Right.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
100
1 Q. --- as of that date. So what you're advising
2 the Commission is that since the date of your --- that
3 testimony was prepared you have received response from
4 West Virginia SHPO?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. With that, is there anything else that you need
7 to correct or change?
8 A. No.

9 Q. With that supplementation, is the testimony you


10 have --- you believe it to be true and accurate to the
11 best of your knowledge and belief?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if I were to sit here today and go through
14 and ask each of the questions contained in that
15 testimony, would your answers be substantially the same?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Do you adopt that prepared testimony, and it's
18 been marked JHM-D, as your testimony in this case?
19 A. I do.

20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

21 Your Honor, subject to Cross


22 Examination, we move admission of Exhibit JHM-D and make
23 this witness available for Cross Examination.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Without objection, it will be admitted.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
101
1 Mr. Trivelli?
2 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3 No questions.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 Staff?
6 CROSS EXAMINATION
7 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8 Q. What exactly did the WV SHPO tell you in that

9 letter that you got? Was it June?


10 A. Yeah, it was June. They indicated that they had
11 concerns about the archeological sites. Although we
12 identified nine archeological sites, they had concerns
13 about eight of them. Since that time, Pinnacle has
14 worked to redesign and provide more information on those
15 sites and they've provided that information and avoided
16 four of them ---.

17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

18 Avoided or ---?

19 A. Avoided four of the archeological sites.


20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 In your opinion or in SHPO's opinion?
22 A. I believe in SHPO's opinion. In fact, recently
23 that's been concluded in a Memoranda of Agreement.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Sorry.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
102
1 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
2 You're fine.
3 A. And so they are all in agreement that those four
4 are avoided. One of the sites was found to be destroyed
5 by logging, timbering activity. And there were three
6 sites left yet to be resolved. There's a protocol in the
7 MOA that sets forth the protocol that provides for
8 consultation back and forth to resolve those issues. I

9 have --- in verbal conversation with SHPO, I believe


10 those are resolved at this point, and we should be
11 getting a letter soon.

12 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

13 Okay. Thank you.


14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 All right. Mr. Stephens?
16 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 Thank you.
18 CROSS EXAMINATION

19 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Maymon.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. My name is Brad Stephens. I represent Allegheny
23 Front Alliance in this case. Just so I understand the
24 scope of your review of archeological sites, did it
25 extend beyond areas which covered ground that may be

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
103
1 disturbed by construction of the project or was it
2 limited to that area of probable disturbance of ground?
3 A. The survey extended quite a bit larger than the
4 area that will be disturbed. That was to provide some
5 flexibility in terms of design. So we surveyed an area
6 between 400 and 800 feet wide up and down the top of the
7 mountain.
8 Q. Okay. And I take it you had a good bit of

9 dealings with Ms. Kuranda in the scope of work on this


10 project?
11 A. Some.
12 Q. Okay. So it's fair to say that the geographic
13 or land scope of your analysis is much narrower than
14 hers?
15 A. For archeology it really is the direct impacts
16 and the direct effects. Since the resources tend to be
17 underground, that's what we look at.

18 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

19 I think that's all I have for you.


20 Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 I'm just curious. Large recoveries,
23 you're talking about your professional experience and
24 education --- you're talking about large recoveries in
25 West Virginia. What is a large recovery in West

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
104
1 Virginia?
2 A. A large data recovery?
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 I don't know. I have managed a wide
5 range of cultural research projects ranging from small
6 phase one and archeological surveys to large recoveries.
7 A. It's just that data recovery. I'm sorry. Data
8 recovery is basically salvage of a portion of an

9 archeological site that's been determined eligible for


10 the national register or state register.

11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

12 And what would that involve?


13 A. It's what you see on National Geographic. It's
14 excavation of a larger area, trying to get much more
15 information about it and basically salvage that
16 information.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 The shovel test each measured a minimum

19 of 50 square centimeters. Did you mean 50 centimeters on


20 a side or 50 square centimeters?
21 A. Fifty (50) on a side.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Okay. So that would be 2,500 as
24 opposed ---
25 A. Right.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
105
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 --- to 50?
3 A. Right. Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 All right. Because I was sitting there
6 thinking ---.
7 A. They're much bigger.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 All right. I think I know the answer


10 to this. What's the term flake? Is that something ---
11 Indian arrowhead or something?
12 A. Not even. It's a piece broken off during the
13 manufacturing of stone tools, you basically chip off
14 flakes to make an arrowhead or what have you.

15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

16 So it's the residue from a chipped off


17 arrowhead?
18 A. Exactly. It's the trash.

19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 And stills, S-T-I-L-L-S? You say
21 possible historic stills.
22 A. We're not sure what they are. Those were areas
23 where someone had dug out some rocks and pilled them up
24 around these things. We're speculating --- the only
25 thing we could come up with was that they were, you know,

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
106
1 backwoods distilleries of some sort.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 Oh, stills in ---?
4 A. Yeah, still --- backwoods still.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 Interesting.
7 A. But it was a ---.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Now you've got my attention. I thought


10 that was some archeological term. I didn't even think
11 corn whiskey. Okay. I have nothing further.

12 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

13 We have no more Direct.


14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 All right.
16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17 I ask this witness be excused.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 You may be excused.


20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21 We would call Kathryn Kuranda.
22 ---------------------------------------------------------
23 KATHRYN M. KURANDA, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
24 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
25 ---------------------------------------------------------

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
107
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3 Q. Kathryn --- I mean, Ms. Kuranda, would you
4 please state your name and business address for the
5 record?
6 A. My name is Kathryn Kuranda and my business
7 address is 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick,
8 Maryland.

9 Q. And where do you work and what do you do?


10 A. I'm senior vice president for architectural and
11 historian services for R. Christopher Goodwin &
12 Associates, a cultural resource management firm.
13 Q. And would you please turn to tab ten in the
14 notebook that I think is in front of you ---
15 A. Uh-huh (yes).
16 Q. --- and identify for the record the testimony
17 there at tab ten?
18 A. It appears to be my testimony.

19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

20 Your Honor, I would ask that the


21 testimony that's been identified be marked as Exhibit
22 KMK-D.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 It will be so marked.
25 (Exhibit KMK-D marked for

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
108
1 identification.)
2 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3 Q. Ms. Kuranda, was this testimony prepared by you
4 or under your direction?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you wish to make any changes or
7 corrections or additions to your testimony?
8 A. Not at this time.

9 Q. All right. Is it true and accurate to the best


10 of your knowledge and belief?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If I were to ask you questions that are
13 contained in that testimony, would your answers here
14 today be essentially the same?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do you ask that this testimony be submitted
17 as your sworn testimony in this proceeding?
18 A. Yes, I do.

19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

20 Your Honor, subject to Cross


21 Examination, we would ask that Exhibit KMK-D be admitted,
22 and we make this witness available for Cross Examination.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 All right. Without objection, it is
25 admitted. Mr. Trivelli, any questions?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
109
1 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2 No questions.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 Staff?
5 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6 No questions.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 All right. Mr. Stephens?

9 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

10 Thank you, Your Honor.


11 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Kuranda.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. In determining the --- what is it called, area
16 of potential effect? Do I have the term right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You pronounce that APE or do you say A-P-E?

19 A. A-P-E.
20 Q. A-P-E. I didn't want to be uncouth, so I'll say
21 A-P-E. I believe at least in appendix W to the
22 application, I don't think you necessarily need to look
23 at it unless you feel the need to refer to it, but one of
24 the pieces of correspondence to SHPO states that the APE
25 will be refined through computer modeling and field

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
110
1 verification. What kind of computer modeling?
2 A. We take into account typography of the area, the
3 outline of the area as well as vegetative cover and those
4 two factors were discussed with the West Virginia State
5 Historic Preservation Office. We further field verified
6 that viewshed corridors were identified through that
7 computer modeling appropriate to the satisfaction of
8 SHPO.

9 Q. And that was done in-house by someone with


10 Christopher Goodwin & Associates?
11 A. Actually, we have in-house GIS capabilities.
12 Q. So was there a certain distance beyond which ---
13 in terms of miles or meters or yards beyond which the APE
14 did not extend?
15 A. In consultation with the State Historic
16 Preservation Office, it was determined that they were
17 interested in a file-mile radius in West Virginia. A
18 scope of work was proposed and discussed with them.
19 There was something in writing, and they agreed that it

20 was appropriate.
21 Q. Okay. But you would agree with me that there
22 are portions of the State of Maryland that would be well
23 within a five-mile radius of the northernmost extent of
24 the project?
25 A. I believe there are portions of Maryland, but

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
111
1 they were not all reviewed pursuant to West Virginia
2 Code.
3 Q. Would you agree with me that the towns or cities
4 of McCoole, Maryland and Westernport, Maryland are within
5 that five-mile radius?
6 A. I haven't checked on that. I don't know.
7 Q. Would it assist you if I pulled out one of the
8 viewshed maps and we take a look at that?

9 A. I'll take your word for it.


10 Q. Okay. Then you'll agree with me that those
11 towns are within a five-mile radius?
12 A. If they're indicated within a five-mile radius,
13 then I take your word for it.
14 Q. Okay. Would you also agree with me that there
15 are numerous sites either listed on the National Register
16 of Historic Places or eligible for National Register
17 listing that are within the city limits of McCoole,
18 Maryland and Westernport, Maryland?
19 A. I'm not familiar with the previous

20 investigations that have been undertaken in Maryland.


21 They are not part of our investigation.
22 Q. Fair enough. But would you agree that there are
23 resources listed on the National Register or eligible for
24 such listing?
25 A. I have no direct knowledge of that.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
112
1 Q. Think about that. Let me ask, have you done
2 these kinds of studies, these historic resource studies
3 in the State of Maryland?
4 A. Yes, we have.
5 Q. And just the same type of study I believe for
6 the Dan's Mountain Wind Energy Project? You did the same
7 kind of work in connection with that?
8 A. It was similar in methodology. The scope was

9 determined in consultation with the Maryland Historical


10 Trust as a state historic preservation office. And they
11 limited their concerns to a number of previously
12 identified sites within their inventory that had yet been
13 evaluated for significance under the National Register
14 criteria.
15 Q. Would you agree with me that there are locations
16 within the State of Maryland from which the Pinnacle
17 project would be visible if it's constructed?
18 A. I believe that is true.
19 Q. I ask because you said you performed an in-house

20 visibility analysis and that was sort of the starting


21 point in connection with the ABE; correct?
22 A. Within the State of West Virginia. That was
23 pursuant to discussions with the state office in
24 accordance with the methodology and scope of work that
25 was developed in consultation and reviewed.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
113
1 Q. Understood.
2 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3 Your Honor, I'm about to distribute
4 what I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit 11. And we
5 won't have a fight about this, but I'll represent to Ms.
6 Kuranda that the information contained on it was obtained
7 from the Maryland Historic Trust website on October 24th,
8 2009. But I'll ask that this be marked Alliance Exhibit

9 11.
10 (Alliance Exhibit 11 marked for
11 identification.)

12 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

13 Q. Have you had a chance to glance over that, Ms.


14 Kuranda?
15 A. Yes. And I had an opportunity to look at it
16 yesterday, too.
17 Q. Good. To the best of your knowledge seeing that
18 you appear to be familiar with Allegany County, Maryland,

19 does this look like it's, to the best of your knowledge,


20 a listing of national registered eligible and national
21 registered listed resources in the towns of Westernport
22 and McCoole, Maryland?
23 A. What this appears to be is a data search of
24 Maryland inventory historic properties. I have --- it
25 does not indicate whether these resources have been

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
114
1 evaluated for national register significance. The
2 Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties is the
3 statewide database that includes any information that has
4 been collected on resources that may be under the purview
5 of MIHP.
6 Q. Okay. But you wouldn't be in a position to deny
7 whether any particular resource listed on either of these
8 pages isn't on the national register?

9 A. There is insufficient information here.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you


12 said.
13 A. There's insufficient information here.
14 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15 Q. Okay. How does the Maryland Inventory of
16 Historic Properties differ from a listing that the
17 Maryland Historic Trust would have of national registered
18 listed and national registered eligible sites?

19 A. The National Register of Historic Places is the


20 Nation's inventory of resources that have been formally
21 nominated for listing on the national register as having
22 significance in integrity in accordance with the
23 criteria. It's maintained by the National Park Service,
24 and those determinations are made by the keeper of the
25 register, who is an employee of the National Park

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
115
1 Service. The national --- Maryland Historical Trust
2 serves as Maryland's historic preservation office. As
3 part of their mission, they collect inventory data on
4 resources that may meet this criteria. Data is collected
5 on --- can be collected a number of ways. It can be
6 collected subject to projects such as this on resources
7 that don't meet the criteria as well as some that do.
8 After this point, the inventory is collected, there's

9 generally an analysis that's undertaken in accordance


10 with the National Park Service standards and
11 determination of eligibility. Concurrence of
12 determination of eligibility are made in concert with the
13 respective state historic preservation offices for
14 determination of eligibility. Actual listing is the
15 purview of the keeper of the register.
16 Q. So is it fair to characterize the Maryland
17 Inventory of Historic Properties as the starting point
18 from which an eligibility determination or listing
19 determination can be made?

20 A. It collects --- it contains many of the data


21 that are used, the raw data that are used, as well as
22 data on resources that are actually listed.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. But they're different --- they're designated in
25 different ways.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
116
1 Q. Okay. Well, then the sites you see listed on
2 the last --- Exhibit 11 that I shared with you ---?
3 A. This appears to be your basic site numbering for
4 --- by county and it appears perhaps a particular survey
5 area or a potential district, but I don't know what
6 action was taken on those.
7 Q. But this listing --- any particular resource on
8 this listing in Alliance Exhibit 11, the fact that these

9 resources are on the Maryland Inventory of Historic


10 Properties certainly does not indicate that any of the
11 resources are not actual registered eligible?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Thank you. And you've obviously had prior
14 dealings and correspondence with the Maryland Historical
15 Trust; correct?
16 A. We deal with that agency extensively.
17 Q. It seems so. Did you have any dealings or any
18 correspondence with the Maryland Historical Trust within
19 the scope of your work in connection with this Pinnacle

20 project?
21 A. No, we did not. They did not have review
22 authority.
23 Q. How is it that you determined that they did not
24 have review authority?
25 A. Because the project was being licensed in the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
117
1 State of West Virginia and being reviewed by the West
2 Virginia State Historic Preservation Office. That office
3 certainly had the --- they identified resources that were
4 appropriate to look at in the surrounding states to a
5 certain degree or another.
6 Q. But aren't all of the pertinent criteria for
7 determining eligibility for national register status or
8 for listing --- aren't essentially all those criteria

9 embodied in the Code of Federal Regulations?


10 A. That's true. Those are the ones that are
11 accepted on a professional level nationwide.
12 Q. Nationwide?
13 A. Nationwide.
14 Q. So there's no distinction made with respect to
15 which state office may be charged with administration of
16 --- or investigations of national register eligibility in
17 their respective states? They're all working under an
18 umbrella?
19 A. Within their respective states, correct. That

20 is all pursuant to the National Historic Preservation


21 Act.
22 Q. Understood. If you could turn with me, please,
23 to page nine of your Direct testimony. I'm at the first
24 full paragraph that starts with WV SHPO. Do you see
25 where I am?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
118
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. WV SHPO recommended that the identified effects
3 be mitigated through stipulations defined in a Memorandum
4 of Agreement negotiated among Pinnacle Wind Force and the
5 WV SHPO. So what you're testifying to there, I believe,
6 is that the West Virginia SHPO itself made this
7 recommendation unilaterally, that a Memorandum of
8 Agreement should be negotiated between Pinnacle Wind

9 Force and SHPO?


10 A. Yes.
11 Q. It wasn't Pinnacle that proposed entering into a
12 Memorandum of Agreement. It was SHPO itself?
13 A. I don't --- the standard operating procedure
14 with an adverse effect that is identified in a project,
15 to seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate those
16 effects. And those measures are memorialized in the
17 Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement.
18 That's standard throughout the industry.
19 Q. So you're saying it's just an industry standard,

20 but not a matter of legal obligation on any of these


21 parties, the Memorandum of Agreement?
22 A. The Memorandum of Agreement memorializes that
23 Pinnacle has taken into consideration the effects to
24 historic properties in identifying and submitting a list
25 of those.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
119
1 Q. I realize this testimony was --- you authored
2 this testimony, I believe, dated May 26 of this year.
3 Where does Pinnacle stand on negotiating or, I guess,
4 finalizing this Memorandum of Agreement?
5 A. The Memorandum of Agreement was signed last
6 week.
7 Q. Do we have a copy of that here today?
8 A. Not in our possession.

9 Q. Okay. So the Commission won't have any benefit


10 of being able to look at that in its review of this case;
11 right?
12 A. I'd have to leave that to Counsel.
13 Q. Well, then you told me that the Memorandum of
14 Agreement sets forth any mitigation measures that would
15 be taken to mitigate the impacts on these resources.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Since we don't have that, you don't know if and
18 to what extent those impacts would be mitigated; correct?

19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

20 Your Honor, if I may interrupt, we have


21 a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement. We'd make it
22 available for Commission.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 That's fine. I mean, let's get it up
25 here. Have you seen this?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
120
1 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2 No, Your Honor.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 How do you want this marked? Company
5 Exhibit Two. I guess we'll do next in order.
6 (Company Exhibit Two marked for
7 identification.)
8 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

9 That'd be fine.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 Do you want to take some time to look


12 at it?
13 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14 I'd like a couple minutes perhaps. I
15 don't know if it's an appropriate time to take a break.
16 It seems we just returned from lunch.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 Always an appropriate time to take a

19 break.
20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21 Your Honor, to clarify the information,
22 it was signed yesterday morning, but it was available
23 prior to that.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 That's fine.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
121
1 SHORT BREAK TAKEN
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 All right. Mr. Stephens, you've had a
4 chance to look at Company Exhibit Two.
5 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6 Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry. What are
7 we terming this exhibit?
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Company Exhibit Two.

10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

11 Company Exhibit Two.


12 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13 Q. Ms. Kuranda, if we look at page two of the
14 Memorandum of Agreement that's been marked Company
15 Exhibit Two. The first two whereas paragraphs, they
16 refer to the Mineral County Historical Society and the
17 Mineral County Historical Foundation.
18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Would you know whether either or both of those


20 entities has expressed support for this project?
21 A. I know they issued correspondence to West
22 Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, and made
23 their views known. I think they declined to either
24 endorse or object to the project.
25 Q. Okay. And they ---.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
122
1 A. Dealing specifically with effects to listed
2 properties, not the project as a whole.
3 Q. Okay. But in any event, they're not signatories
4 to this agreement; right?
5 A. It was not appropriate because they don't have
6 responsibilities under the agreement. Generally,
7 signatories on a document of this type have defined
8 responsibilities under the stipulation.

9 Q. But under another scenario, would not either or


10 both of those entities perhaps be recipients of the
11 Historic Preservation Grant that's discussed further down
12 this page, if they were signatories?
13 A. They're --- I don't think that --- could you
14 rephrase? I'm not sure I understood that.
15 Q. Okay. Let me ask it a different way. Would
16 either or both of those entities, the Mineral County
17 Historical Society or the Mineral County Historical
18 Foundation --- might they be considered as the
19 appropriate entity or entities to administer the funds

20 contained within the Historic Preservation Grant


21 discussed further down under Roman Numeral One on that
22 same page?
23 A. I believe the anticipated administrator of that
24 grant is --- will be through a local community
25 foundation.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
123
1 Q. And I believe the agreement describes that as a
2 local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Looking back at your Direct testimony, the same
5 page we looked at before, page nine, ---
6 A. Uh-huh (yes).
7 Q. --- where it started talking about the
8 Memorandum of Agreement. The third sentence in that

9 paragraph we looked at before, it says this MOA will


10 define measures to mitigate the adverse visual effects to
11 the 18 historic properties within the APE. I assume
12 those 18 you're referring to are ones that we've
13 determined, I guess, in concert would be adversely
14 impacted by the Pinnacle project?
15 A. Correct. And that was --- we issued technical
16 reports to the West Virginia State Historic Preservation
17 Office and they commented on those findings.
18 Q. Could you point out to me in the Memorandum of
19 Agreement here where it is explained how measures will be

20 taken to mitigate the adverse visual effects to those 18


21 historic properties?
22 A. The fourth, whereas on page one references 18
23 buildings and there is an attachment that provides a
24 table of those resources, attachment one. And the --- on
25 page two, the now therefore clause concluding the whereas

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
124
1 clause.
2 Q. Okay. I guess I'm not seeing where any
3 mitigation measures are provided for. Do you see
4 anywhere in the agreement where that is provided? Or
5 perhaps I should step back and ask, what types of
6 mitigation ---?
7 A. Page five --- excuse me, page five, the
8 concluding paragraph, it reads execution of this

9 Memorandum of Agreement as it exists with Pinnacle Wind


10 Force, LLC has taken into account the effects of the
11 undertaking of historic properties and has mitigated such
12 effects to the satisfaction of the West Virginia Division
13 of Culture and History.
14 Q. Okay. But the Memorandum of Agreement does not
15 explain how such mitigation would be achieved; correct?
16 A. I'm not sure what you're asking.
17 Q. Well, let me ask you it a different way than I
18 asked a minute ago. How would the adverse visual impact
19 on these 18 historic resources --- how might that be

20 achieved? How might that be physically performed by


21 human hands and equipment?
22 A. The adverse effects?
23 Q. How might it be mitigated?
24 A. The mitigation was identified in the
25 stipulations of this agreement as being offsite

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
125
1 mitigation. And the document in the paragraph that I
2 read references that to the satisfaction of the West
3 Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, compliance
4 with the terms of this agreement are evidence that
5 Pinnacle Wind Force has taken into account the effects of
6 the undertaking on the 18 historic properties and has
7 mitigated that effect through the implementation of the
8 stipulation.

9 Q. So let me ask you about offsite --- I believe


10 you said offsite mitigation.
11 A. This is the mitigation that was determined as
12 appropriate by the West Virginia State Historic
13 Preservation Office and Pinnacle in consultation to
14 mitigate the effects to --- the visual effects to those
15 18 resources.
16 Q. Okay. Explain to me in what manner that offsite
17 mitigation would be carried out and what --- which, if
18 any, of those 18 historic properties that might mitigate
19 impacts for?

20 A. I'm still not clear about your question.


21 Q. Okay. Define what you mean when you say offsite
22 mitigation.
23 A. Mitigation that would basically take into
24 consideration the effects and provide compensation for
25 those effects to offset those effects to the culture

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
126
1 resource.
2 Q. I'm still searching for what might be achieved
3 that would be considered offsite mitigation.
4 A. The establishment of historic preservation grant
5 fund that would promote and encourage historic
6 preservation within the community under the supervision
7 of the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that
8 it meets the secretary's standards for historic

9 preservation.
10 Q. But that doesn't do anything to remedy the
11 adverse visual impact to those 18 historic properties we
12 discussed; correct?
13 A. This was found to be the mitigative measure
14 that ---.
15 Q. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you,
16 that offsite mitigation does nothing to mitigate the
17 adverse visual impact directly to those 18 historic
18 sites?
19 A. In my opinion, it does and can --- by evidence

20 of the signature of this document and negotiating this


21 document, these terms --- regarding these terms, the West
22 Virginia State Historic Preservation agrees.
23 Q. How would the offsite mitigation efforts you
24 described alter the way in which the turbines of the
25 Pinnacle project would be viewed from any one of these 18

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
127
1 historic properties that would be adversely affected?
2 A. I don't think that's the nature of the
3 mitigation.
4 Q. You would agree with me that it won't do
5 anything to change how the turbines are visible from
6 those 18 sites; correct? That's all I'm asking.
7 A. I agree.
8 Q. And you don't have any expertise in acoustical

9 studies or sound monitoring or anything that would enable


10 you to comment on whether the acoustical study performed
11 by Pinnacle's witness, James Barnes, was legitimate and
12 accurate; would you?
13 A. No, I don't, but I believe his findings were
14 submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office at
15 their request and they issued a letter in April of this
16 year that said that they found that noise would not be a
17 consideration of effects to historic properties.
18 Q. But you wouldn't know whether the West Virginia
19 State Historic Preservation Office has anybody on staff

20 that has expertise in acoustical studies or sound


21 monitoring that could make that determination?
22 A. The staff of the West Virginia State Historic
23 Preservation Office has expertise on determining effects
24 to historic properties.
25 Q. That's not what I asked. I asked does --- would

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
128
1 you know either way whether ---?
2 A. Acoustics is --- noise is considered a potential
3 effect to historic properties. It's among the direct
4 effects that one considers.
5 Q. I understand that. But you would not know
6 either way whether West Virginia SHPO has on staff ---
7 A. I don't know. No, I don't ---.
8 Q. --- someone with that kind of expertise;

9 correct?
10 A. No, I would not.

11 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

12 At this time, I would move the


13 admission of Alliance Exhibit 11 into evidence, and I
14 believe that's all I have for you, Ms. Kuranda.
15 A. Thank you.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 Without objection, it will be admitted.
18 You want to move Company Exhibit Two?

19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 Yes, Your Honor.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 We'll admit Company Exhibit Two as
23 well. Anything further? Staff?
24 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25 Just a couple.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
129
1 CROSS EXAMINATION
2 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3 Q. When you were developing the APE with West
4 Virginia SHPO, did you all discuss the fact that this
5 could potentially impact Maryland? Was that part of your
6 discussion?
7 A. It did not come up to the --- in conversation to
8 the best of my recollection.

9 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

10 That's all I have. Thank you.


11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 Any questions?
13 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
14 No questions.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 Well, I had written --- I had written a
17 note to myself when you were describing your activities,
18 I put it as being natural --- or cultural resources

19 management from a national practice in the full spectrum


20 of preservation disciplines. I wrote what do you people
21 do that you get paid to do? I wasn't being flip --- but
22 I just --- what is it that you do?
23 A. We do underwater terrestrial archeology,
24 architectural history, history and preservation planning.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
130
1 Okay. And your preservation plans
2 result in what?
3 A. We do preservation plans for military
4 installations, for government facilities. The Naval
5 Academy, for example, we just finished one in Maryland.
6 We do them for communities and localities where it would
7 have a set of resources that they consider significant
8 and want to work within preservation.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 And what kind of recommendations would


11 you make incident to that work, just generally? I'm not
12 looking for --- I'm trying to think categorically what
13 contents would you do.
14 A. We would --- it depends on the project
15 obviously. But we would identify types of undertakings
16 that may require consultation with their state office.
17 We would identify resources that may be eligible for the
18 national register or for local designation. We identify

19 incentive programs that could be enacted for --- to


20 heighten public interest and knowledge of the database
21 and the resource studies and encourage their
22 preservation.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 Under the scope of the work proposed by
25 Goodwin, item number two, you say develop the historic

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
131
1 context appropriate to the assessment of built resources
2 within the APE. And again, I wrote what's that mean.
3 A. Okay. A historic context is basically an
4 overview of history that identifies the important things
5 that had been in play in a particular area so that you
6 can anticipate the range of property types that might be
7 found there. And generally we develop that before we do
8 a field investigation so we know that, you know, this is

9 an agricultural area where they planted tobacco during


10 the 18th Century. We're likely to find tobacco farms.
11 And the resources that would be associated with those
12 would include the full range of agricultural properties.
13 So it's enough to make informed decisions so that we're
14 not spinning our wheels.

15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

16 At page five of your testimony down at


17 line 19, you say the phase two investigations included
18 intensive field survey evaluation and effects

19 determinations for 21 properties that may have views of


20 the project. Are those 21 properties in part the --- or
21 are the properties listed on attachment one to the memo
22 of understanding? Are they contained within that?
23 A. Yes. And the other three were cemeteries, which
24 are generally excluded from designation as historic sites
25 because they're thought to have a screen of protection on

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
132
1 their own.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 So these are --- these are not ---
4 these are properties that you all raised with SHPO as
5 being within what you discovered in your examination of
6 the project?
7 A. Correct. The way we worked this was that we did
8 a preliminary investigation in the whole five mile area.

9 We made recommendations and actually had staff out in the


10 field with us for a couple of days to verify those ---
11 our findings were appropriate. Based on the field
12 determination and our investigation, we recommended 21
13 resources for further investigation, and those included
14 three cemeteries that the SHPO was interested in getting
15 data on even though they would not qualify as historic
16 properties.

17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

18 Okay. The three cemeteries and the

19 other properties listed?


20 A. Correct, the 18.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 And then you said you make an effects
23 determination. What is that? Is that saying you try to
24 assess the impact of the project on them?
25 A. On the historic properties. And there are

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
133
1 generally two kinds of effects that are recognized,
2 direct effects when property is going to be physically
3 altered or removed by a project.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 Were any of the properties direct
6 affected --- or effected?
7 A. No direct effects. No direct effects. And then
8 there are also indirect effects, and that may change the

9 character of the resource that would qualify it for


10 designation introducing either visual, noise or other
11 types of atmospheric effects that would diminish its
12 integrity.

13 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

14 Were any of those --- were any of these


15 facilities --- were there effect determinations made as
16 to any of these facilities, other than --- you said there
17 were no direct. Were there indirect?
18 A. Yes. There will be views of the turbines from

19 the 18 historic properties. SHPO found those to be


20 adverse, hence the negotiation of the Memorandum of
21 Agreement.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Okay. And the satisfaction that SHPO
24 has is that money will be paid into this trust fund?
25 A. Correct.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
134
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 And that satisfies their concerns about
3 the indirect effects on these?
4 A. Correct.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 All right. And there's actually a
7 report --- your phase two report that was tendered to
8 SHPO?

9 A. There were two reports.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 Phase one and phase two.


12 A. Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14 All right. And you said you had no
15 discussions with SHPO about Maryland or the impacts in
16 Maryland?
17 A. We did not initiate discussions, and to the best
18 of my memory, they didn't bring anything up in the

19 written comments.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 Are you aware of any other comments
22 they may have had with others about that?
23 A. I have no knowledge.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kuranda.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
135
1 A. Thank you.
2 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3 Just a few questions, Your Honor.
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6 Q. Ms. Kuranda, I believe you've indicated through
7 the testimony and the question and your answers that you
8 have experience in this sort of undertaking, both in

9 Maryland and in West Virginia; correct?


10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And you worked with the respective historical
12 preservation agencies in both states?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. I just want --- I think we've covered this, but
15 I want to make sure the record's clear. The Pinnacle
16 project is located in West Virginia. It's a West
17 Virginia project. So what does that dictate as far as
18 who you consult with to do the evaluation and
19 investigation that you did?

20 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

21 I'm going to object, Your Honor. It's


22 sort of a grey area, but I think he's asking her for a
23 legal opinion on this.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 State your question again.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
136
1 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2 Q. Ms. Kuranda, to perform an investigation and
3 evaluation on the project in West Virginia, in your
4 opinion as an expert, who would you consult with?
5 A. We would consult with the West Virginia State
6 Historic Preservation Office.
7 Q. And is that who you consulted with?
8 A. Yes, it is.

9 Q. And in the course of that consultation, to the


10 best of your recollection, did anyone at West Virginia
11 SHPO request or even suggest that you consult with
12 counterparties in the State of Maryland, the Maryland
13 Historic Trust?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And was that unusual in your experience?
16 A. It is not unusual for projects that are being
17 reviewed under state legislation.
18 Q. And likewise, I think it was mentioned that you
19 were involved in a similar investigation for a project in

20 Maryland, and that's Dan's Mountain.


21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Do you know whether the Dan's Mountain Project
23 is or would be visible from any point in West Virginia?
24 A. I believe it would be visible.
25 Q. Who did you consult with to determine the APE

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
137
1 for that project, Dan's Mountain?
2 A. The Maryland Historical Trust as the state
3 historic preservation office.
4 Q. And do you recall whether the Maryland Historic
5 Trust directed or suggested that you consult with West
6 Virginia SHPO on Dan's Mountain?
7 A. They did not.
8 Q. And would you have expected them to?

9 A. I would not.
10 Q. Are there situations in your experience where a
11 project such as this might require consultation with
12 agencies from two different states?
13 A. There are, and if they're being reviewed
14 pursuant to state legislation, SHPO certainly has the
15 discretion to invite people to submit comments or
16 agencies to submit comments that may be out of state.
17 Q. Are there things with so called federal nexus
18 that can arise with federal funding? Would that trigger
19 a need to consult?

20 A. If a project is defined as federal undertaking,


21 that is, it is federally funded, licensed or permitted,
22 it is --- must comply with the requirements of Section
23 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended.
24 That requires the federal agency to take into
25 consideration the effects on historic properties, whether

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
138
1 they're built or are archeological. It's a defined
2 consultation process with the state historic preservation
3 offices, interested parties as well as the Advisory
4 Council on Historic Preservation, which is a federal
5 agency. The compliance with Section 106 is --- does not
6 recognize state boundaries and the areas of potential
7 effect are determined in part to reflect the impacts of
8 the projects.

9 Q. So if this had been a federally funded project,


10 for example, it's conceivable that you might --- and you
11 did this sort of analysis and investigation, that you
12 might have investigated properties in Maryland?
13 A. Quite possibly, yes. It would have been
14 appropriate to involve more than one state historic
15 preservation office if there had been federal involvement
16 and there was an undertaking.
17 Q. Now, with regard to the Memorandum of Agreement,
18 to your knowledge, does that document resolve all the
19 issues that West Virginia SHPO has or had with regard to

20 the Pinnacle project for both architectural and


21 archeological issues?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that's the same Memorandum of Agreement that
24 Mr. Maymon referenced in his testimony?
25 A. Yes.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
139
1 Q. So is there any further action required from
2 West Virginia SHPO for this project?
3 A. No further action is anticipated.
4 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
5 That's all I have, Your Honor.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 All right. Anything further?
8 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

9 I don't think so, Your Honor.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 All right. Fine.


12 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13 Your Honor, I have ---
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 I'm sorry.
16 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
17 --- one small minor question.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 Sure.
20 RECROSS EXAMINATION
21 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22 Q. You said that it's typical in the industry for
23 parties to enter into these Memorandum of Agreement with
24 preservation offices. Is mitigation normally a part of
25 that agreement, some sort of mitigation?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
140
1 A. The purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement is to
2 identify ways to avoid, limit or mitigate effects to
3 historic properties.
4 Q. In your experience, is monetary --- a monetary
5 mitigation a typical mitigation or are there other
6 methods?
7 A. The methods are negotiated based on the nature
8 of the project and are designed to be commensurate with

9 the impact.
10 Q. What kind of other mitigations have you seen
11 other than a monetary mitigation?
12 A. They range from documenting historic resources,
13 national register nominations, public outreach efforts,
14 rehabilitation requirements, moving historic structures.
15 It's a full gamut of things, but it's very --- they're
16 designed to be very specific to the project. So it's not
17 a cookie cutter agreement that you pull off the shelf.

18 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

19 Thank you.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 All right. Thank you.
22 A. Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 You're excused.
25 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
141
1 We would ask that Ms. Kuranda be
2 excused, Your Honor.
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 She may.
5 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6 That's all the witnesses we have, Your
7 Honor.
8 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

9 Your Honor, very quickly, I was going


10 to say I had previously asked to be marked Exhibits ---
11 Alliance Exhibits Three and Four. The Alliance is not
12 going to move those two exhibits into evidence. One was
13 the Order from the Virginia State Corporation Commission
14 we discussed yesterday, ---

15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

16 Right.
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18 --- and the other was a letter from the

19 Chief of the National Battlefield Protection Program, but


20 we have no interest in moving those into evidence.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 All right. Have you completed your
23 case then?
24 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25 Yes, Your Honor.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
142
1 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2 Your Honor, there's only going to be
3 --- we have one witness. With the agreement of parties
4 and the Commission's Order that Mr. Snyder's testimony
5 could go in, and I would like to get that marked and move
6 that in ---.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 That would be fine. Sure.

9 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

10 I'd like this marked as Building Trades


11 Number Two.
12 (Building Trades Exhibit Two marked for
13 identification.)
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 All right. Mr. Trivelli has tendered
16 the prepared Direct testimony of Darwin Snyder and had it
17 marked for identification as Building Trades Two. By
18 agreement of the parties and by prior Order of the

19 Commission, we agreed that Mr. Snyder's testimony could


20 go into the record. Anything else? All right. Staff?
21 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22 Staff calls Dixie Kellmeyer.
23 ---------------------------------------------------------
24 DIXIE L. KELLMEYER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
25 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
143
1 ---------------------------------------------------------
2 DIRECT EXAMINATION
3 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4 Q. Could you state your name?
5 A. Dixie Kellmeyer.
6 Q. By whom are you employed?
7 A. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia.
8 Q. And how long have you been employed there?

9 A. Ten years.
10 Q. What are your duties with the Commission?
11 A. I'm a utilities analyst manager in the utilities
12 division.
13 Q. What does that entail?
14 A. Our main work is rate cases, but we do all types
15 of certificate cases and approve agreements between
16 utilities when they do consent to enter into certain
17 agreements and so forth.
18 Q. Did you prepare prefiled testimony in relation
19 to your assignment to this case?

20 A. I did.
21 Q. Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
22 A. Yes.

23 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

24 I'd like to have that marked as Staff


25 Exhibit One.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
144
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 It will be so marked.
3 (Staff Exhibit One marked for
4 identification.)
5 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6 Q. Do you have any changes or corrections to that
7 document at this time?
8 A. I do. On page four, line number nine, in the

9 middle of that line Grant should be Mineral. Line 14,


10 Grant should be Mineral, and line 17, first word, Grant
11 should be Mineral.
12 Q. With those small typographical changes, do you
13 wish to adopt that testimony as your testimony today?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Have you seen what has been marked as Joint
16 Exhibit One, the stipulation?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are you familiar with that document?
19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And are you in agreement with the contents of


21 that document?
22 A. Yes, I am.

23 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

24 At this time, I would move Staff


25 Exhibit One into evidence and tender Ms. Kellmeyer for

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
145
1 Cross Examination.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 All right. Without objection, the
4 testimony of Ms. Kellmeyer will be admitted as Staff
5 Exhibit One. I guess we'll keep the same order. Mr.
6 Trivelli?
7 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8 No questions, Your Honor.

9 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:

10 No questions, Your Honor.


11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 Mr. Stephens?
13 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14 Thank you, Your Honor.
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Stephens.

19 Q. I think I just want to ask you about one area of


20 your testimony. If you could bear with me, I think we
21 actually started on page three. Do you have any
22 recommendations, and really the substance of your
23 response to that question, I think, is more on page four
24 and it concerns decommissioning the project; correct?
25 A. Correct.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
146
1 Q. You state here that you recommend that a report
2 of a qualified third party should provide an analysis and
3 set the fund amount for a decommissioning fund to cover
4 the dismantling of the turbines and towers and land
5 reclamation. Is that ---
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. --- basically reflected there? Okay. And you
8 state that the report should be updated thereafter as

9 mutually agreed between Pinnacle and the Mineral County


10 Commission but no less frequently than every five years
11 thereafter; correct?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. You further state the fund amount will vary over
14 time depending on changes in the estimated market or
15 salvage value of the project, estimated cost of
16 dismantling and removing turbines in the expected ongoing
17 life of the project; correct?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. You haven't had any communication with the

20 Mineral County Commission, have you, during the course of


21 this case?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So then you don't have any idea as to what the
24 Mineral County Commission would prefer to have done in
25 terms of a decommissioning fund; correct?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
147
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. So that Mineral County Commission could envision
3 a completely different scenario than the one you've
4 suggested here in terms of decommissioning; correct?
5 A. I guess so.
6 Q. Do you recall Alliance Exhibit One that I
7 distributed yesterday? It was a --- it was the bill
8 passed by the Allegany County of Maryland Commission. Do

9 you remember --- were you present for the discussion


10 involving the decommissioning fund that sets forth ---
11 that is set forth by that law or ---? I'll happily show
12 you the part I'm talking about, but do you recall that
13 exchange?
14 A. I mean, I recall it. I'm not --- you know, I
15 haven't studied that document.
16 Q. That's fine. How about I just show you where
17 I'm talking about?

18 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

19 And for reference purposes for the


20 benefit of the rest of the parties, I'm looking at page
21 six of Alliance Exhibit One the section entitled
22 Decommissioning Fund.
23 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24 Q. And don't you see in the first subpart of one I
25 believe there of Section D, Decommissioning Fund --- what

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
148
1 amount does the Allegany County Commission set forth in
2 that law to be provided per turbine in an installation
3 such as the Pinnacle project?
4 A. $150,000.
5 Q. Per turbine?
6 A. It says for each wind energy device.
7 Q. If you'll turn back, I believe it's page two of
8 that document, it has definitions. And I think you will

9 see industrial wind energy device or wind energy


10 conversion device defined. And I'll just ask you to look
11 at that definition and see if it --- if you understand it
12 to be talking about one particular industrial wind
13 turbine of the type that we would see at the Pinnacle
14 project?
15 A. I notice it says using a turbine.
16 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that they're
17 talking about per industrial scale wind turbines such as
18 the ones that would be involved with the Pinnacle
19 project?

20 A. That's my understanding from reading that.


21 Q. Okay. I'm going to get that exhibit out of your
22 way now. I think previously you were involved in the
23 Beech Ridge case in terms of --- in the scope of
24 decommissioning; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
149
1 Q. And I believe you concurred with the findings of
2 a decommission expert that was hired by Beech Ridge
3 Energy, LLC. Is that generally accurate?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what amount --- did that expert set forth a
6 specific amount per turbine to be provided for in a
7 decommissioning fund?
8 A. I don't recall. I believe I recall that, I

9 believe, Beech Ridge has filed an expert report on


10 decommissioning. If my memory serves me correct, I
11 believe the report concluded that the salvage value was
12 sufficient to decommission the site. But I believe Beech
13 Ridge agreed to provide a fund in the amount --- a
14 certain amount per turbine. I don't recall how much.
15 Q. Okay. Stepping back to your recommendation in
16 this case, there wouldn't be anything stopping you from
17 recommending a fixed amount to be provided upfront per
18 turbine, could you --- would there be?
19 A. Are you asking me if I would make a

20 recommendation per turbine?


21 Q. Would there be anything stopping you from
22 recommending say, for example, $50,000 per turbine be
23 provided by Pinnacle upfront for the project?
24 A. Well, the thing that would stop me from doing
25 that is I'm not an expert in that field. I wouldn't know

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
150
1 how much to recommend per turbine. And that's why our
2 recommendation is that, you know, an expert be hired to
3 determine that.
4 Q. Well, let me ask you based on your familiarity
5 with these types of projects and seeing as you have the
6 Beech Ridge case at least under your belt and that
7 experience with respect to what may be appropriate and
8 what may be inappropriate in terms of an amount

9 sufficient for decommissioning, would $150,000 per


10 turbine probably safely encompass what it would take per
11 turbine to dismantle the turbines and reclaim the site?
12 A. I don't know. I don't have any expertise in
13 that area. That's why I suggested that an expert be
14 retained to determine that. I don't even know if --- or
15 at least I doubt that it would take the same amount of
16 money to decommission different turbines. That's not my
17 area. As I listen to these cases, we've had cases and
18 the turbines are one size in one case and another size in
19 another case. I assume there would be some difference in

20 the cost of decommissioning different types. And I don't


21 know how similar the turbines in Beech Ridge are to the
22 ones in this case.
23 Q. Would there be an amount --- if it's not
24 $150,000 per turbine, would there be an amount --- a
25 monetary amount with which you would be --- feel

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
151
1 comfortable recommending would be set forth ---?
2 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3 I'm going to object at this time. He's
4 already asked this question and she's already answered.
5 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6 I actually agree. I think you've asked
7 it in at least three different ways, and she's told you
8 she's not an expert, and you continue to ask her to give

9 you an amount.

10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

11 Understood, Your Honor.


12 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13 Q. Do you intend to have any communication with the
14 Mineral County Commission between now and the date by
15 which the Commission must make its decision on Pinnacle's
16 application?
17 A. No.
18 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

19 I think that's all I have for you, Ms.


20 Kellmeyer. Thanks.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Anybody? All right. Do you have any
23 questions?
24 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
25 No questions.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
152
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 Ms. Kellmeyer, you mentioned the
3 stipulation and indicated you were familiar with it. Let
4 me ask you some questions. Do you have a copy of it?
5 A. I do somewhere here.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 I had some questions about the
8 undertakings with respect to the study. Should I direct

9 those to the engineering witness, the bat studies


10 and ---?
11 A. Yes, sir.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 CPA certification doesn't cover bats?


14 A. No. I don't want to go anywhere near them. I
15 did have a bat in my living room once, though.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 Close enough. All right. Other than
18 the two conditions that relate to certain of the towers

19 and the distance they need to be from roads and that sort
20 of thing and the --- I guess it's the setback issue and
21 the --- what was the other one, one other issue? Are all
22 of the conditions set forth in appendix A the same as in
23 prior orders except for the two exceptions that were made
24 in the stipulation? Do you know?
25 A. To the best of my knowledge.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
153
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 Yes, the micro-siting and the proximity
3 of certain of the turbines to Green Mountain Road, I
4 guess.
5 A. Oh, those were not my areas.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 Well, that and bats we'll leave alone
8 then.

9 A. Okay.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 All right. Thank you, ma'am.


12 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
13 Thank you, Your Honor. Just a few
14 questions.
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17 Q. Hello, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18 A. Hello, Mr. Callas.

19 Q. Do you have any reason to think the Mineral


20 County Commission would not be willing to participate in
21 the manner prescribed in the decommissioning provision
22 that you've recommended to the Commission?
23 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24 I'm going to object to that, Your
25 Honor. She's already testified she's had no

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
154
1 communication with the Mineral County Commission, so how
2 would she know that?
3 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
4 I'm asking her given what she knows
5 about the interests of the county commissions in the
6 decommissioning of facilities whether she thinks it's a
7 reasonable assumption to think that the Mineral County
8 Commission would be disinterested in participating in

9 this way.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 I think that's a fair question. You


12 can answer whether or not based on her experience in
13 several of these projects they would have an interest in
14 setting up a fund.
15 A. I believe they would want to participate in that
16 process and have input into that process. You know, it
17 directly affects their county and their constituents and
18 so I believe they would want to be apart of it.

19 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
20 Q. And, in fact, we know since they've filed
21 letters to the Commission indicating that the Commission
22 has voted to support the project, so they have some
23 interest on this; is that correct?
24 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25 Objection, Your Honor. We don't have

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
155
1 letters in the record from each of the members of the
2 Mineral County Commission expressing support for this
3 project. I understand that two were filed with the
4 Commission yesterday, but there's certainly nothing in
5 the record, and we have no evidence before us that all
6 three commissioners' support this, and that seemed to be
7 indicated in Mr. Callas' question.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 I thought Mr. Friend indicated that


10 letters had been filed, at least in his testimony.

11 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

12 That may very well be, but I have no


13 knowledge of --- what seemed to be embodied in Mr.
14 Callas' question was that --- or implied in it, was that
15 each of the members of the Mineral County Commission had
16 individually expressed support for this Pinnacle project.
17 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
18 I did not say that. I said that ---

19 well, to be fair, Mr. Friend said in his testimony that


20 the letters that had been submitted to the Commission by
21 way of public comment yesterday by Mr. Helmick's
22 appearance, expressed in each of those letters that the
23 Mineral County Commission had voted two to one to support
24 this project. And that does, in fact, evidence the fact
25 that the Mineral County Commission has been very involved

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
156
1 and, in fact, has taken efforts to support this project.
2 I didn't say that the letters themselves had been in the
3 record, but Mr. Friend's testimony about it certainly
4 was.
5 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6 I'm okay with that as long as the
7 record reflects that we don't have letters before the
8 Commission expressing support by each and every member of

9 the Mineral County Commission.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 Not by each and every member, but I get


12 copies of everything that's filed, and I've got --- you
13 know, obviously I have them, but ---.
14 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15 Understood. Fair enough.
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 Okay. They were filed as protest
18 letters, so --- I mean, not protest, but they were filed

19 not as evidentiary filings.


20 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
21 Q. Ms. Kellmeyer ---.
22 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23 I know you'd rather me sit, but I'd
24 really like to stand.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
157
1 Knock yourself out.
2 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
3 Q. Mr. Stephens asked you a number of times about
4 the decommissioning provisions that were discussed and
5 approved in Beech Ridge. He did not ask you about two
6 more recent cases before the Commission in which the
7 matter of decommissioning has been addressed; did he?
8 A. No.

9 Q. And what were those two more recent than Beech


10 Ridge cases?
11 A. AES Laurel Mountain and AES New Creek.
12 Q. Does the recommendation embodied in the
13 stipulation of the decommissioning issue essentially
14 identical to the recommendations made to the Commission
15 and that the Commission approved in each of those two
16 cases?
17 A. The recommendation, I believe, is identical to
18 what the Commission --- was contained in the Commission's
19 Order in Laurel Mountain. Staff's recommendation in

20 Laurel Mountain may have been somewhat different. I


21 believe we had one issue that was discussed at the
22 hearing. So this is I believe directly from the
23 Commission's Order in the Laurel Mountain case.
24 Q. And in New Creek?
25 A. I'm not sure when I wrote this testimony if the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
158
1 order in New Creek was out, but I believe it to be
2 --- them to be the same.
3 Q. In fact, would you suspect that that's where the
4 Grant County came from?
5 A. I suspect so.
6 Q. Do you know of any material differences between
7 those projects and this project that would lead the Staff
8 or any --- staff to make a different recommendation as to

9 the manner decommissioning should be handled than was the


10 case in New Creek?
11 A. I'm not aware of any difference that should make
12 a difference in our recommendation.
13 Q. Do you think that there's a benefit to the
14 public, in particularly those who are involved in
15 preparing site certificate applications, to know how the
16 Commission handles at least one issue that's involved in
17 these cases and see it repeated and be the same over and
18 over again?

19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

20 I'm not sure what you're saying there.


21 But go ahead and answer the question.
22 A. Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER STAAT:
24 Mr. Chairman, I am sure what he's
25 saying.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
159
1 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
2 Q. Do you think there's some benefit to folks who
3 file site certificate applications to know in advance
4 what's going to be expected of them on at least one issue
5 of significance?
6 A. I think it's helpful for the people that are
7 going to file these applications to know what --- what
8 the Commission expects and needs, you know, contained in

9 the application.
10 Q. Mr. Stephens referenced a $150,000 per turbine
11 decommissioning amount. Is it possible that that amount
12 or any other amount that you might specify in advance of
13 the fullness of time taking into account removal costs
14 and salvage values might end up being either far too much
15 or far too little to decommission a single turbine?
16 A. I think that's, you know, very possible.
17 Q. Has this Commission ever established a set
18 amount per turbine for a decommissioning fund in a case
19 in which you've been involved?

20 A. No, sir.

21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

22 Not yet.
23 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
24 I wasn't going to ask that question.
25 I'm done. I'm done.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
160
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 That was said in jest obviously,
3 consistency theory. All right. Is that all you have?
4 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5 Yes, sir.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 All right. Mr. Auville?
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

10 Q. Ms. Kellmeyer, is it your understanding that ---


11 you made a recommendation to the Commission of how the
12 decommissioning fund should work. Is it your
13 understanding that all of the parties are available to
14 make whatever recommendation of the Commission that they
15 see fit?
16 A. Yes.
17 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
18 Thank you.

19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 Thank you, Ms. Kellmeyer.
21 A. May I be excused?
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Yes, yes.
24 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25 Staff will call Donald Walker. Donald

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
161
1 Walker.
2 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3 All right.
4 ---------------------------------------------------------
5 DONALD E. WALKER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6 AS FOLLOWS:
7 ---------------------------------------------------------
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

10 Q. Could you state your name for the record,


11 please?
12 A. My name is Donald E. Walker.
13 Q. And by whom are you employed?
14 A. I am employed by the Public Service Commission
15 of West Virginia.
16 Q. And in what capacity?
17 A. I am a technical analyst for engineering.
18 Q. And how long have you been with the Commission?

19 A. Just under two years.


20 Q. As part of your assignments, tell me a little
21 bit about what you do with the Commission.
22 A. I review applications for certificate of
23 projects, also review and handle complaints --- utility
24 complaints, electrical engineering complaints of
25 utilities.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
162
1 Q. As part of your duties with the Commission, did
2 you profile Direct testimony in relation to this case?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
5 A. Yes.
6 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7 We'd have that marked as Staff Exhibit
8 Two.

9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

10 It will be so marked.
11 (Staff Exhibit Two marked for
12 identification.)
13 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
14 Thanks.
15 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16 Q. Do you have any changes or corrections to that
17 document?
18 A. Yes, I do. I have one change on page four, on

19 lines six and four, 2001 should be changed to 2007.


20 Q. And with that one correction, is it your desire
21 to adopt that testimony as your testimony here today?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Are you familiar with what has been previously
24 marked as Joint Exhibit One?
25 A. Yes, I am.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
163
1 Q. Do you agree with the contents of that exhibit?
2 A. Yes.
3 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4 At this time, I would move Staff
5 Exhibit Two into evidence and tender Mr. Walker for Cross
6 Examination.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 All right. Without objection, Mr.

9 Walker's testimony will be received in evidence. Mr.


10 Trivelli?

11 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:

12 No questions.
13 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
14 No questions.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 Mr. Stephens?
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18 Thank you, Your Honor.

19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Walker.
22 A. Hello.
23 Q. I believe in some responses to discovery
24 requests filed by Allegheny Front Alliance Staff provided
25 names and résumés for those participating in Staff's

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
164
1 review of the Pinnacle application. Is that your
2 recollection?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Okay. And I believe those people would be
5 yourself, Ms. Kellmeyer, obviously, with respect to the
6 number crunching, Mr. Ellars, Mr. Perdue. Have I left
7 anyone out?
8 A. Earl Melton.

9 Q. Earl Melton. Okay. And all these gentlemen


10 including you --- we're going to exclude Ms. Kellmeyer.
11 We don't want to make her feel left out, but she's
12 dealing with different issues. Yourself, Mr. Ellars, Mr.
13 Melton and Mr. Perdue, all of your backgrounds are pretty
14 narrowly tailored to --- what would you say, electrical
15 engineering? Is that a fair assumption, or civil
16 engineering perhaps in the case of Mr. Ellars?
17 A. Actually, I believe Mr. Ellars is also
18 electrical engineering.
19 Q. So electrical engineering probably embodies the

20 experience and education pretty well of these people as


21 it applies to their duties with the Staff?
22 A. I believe the education has quite a range of
23 engineering principles, but engineering --- electrical is
24 the major focus, I think.
25 Q. Okay. So neither you nor any of these other

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
165
1 gentlemen would have any expertise in hydrology or
2 impacts to water resources; correct?
3 A. I'm not sure whether I can answer that for the
4 other --- other folks that we're talking about. My
5 experience is mostly in the electrical component.
6 Q. Okay. Well, to the extent you sounded like
7 you're familiar with the backgrounds of the other
8 gentlemen, so would you have any reason to believe that

9 any of those three people have any expertise in hydrology


10 or impacts to water resources?
11 A. I know that they have submitted their views and
12 résumés, so they speak for themselves.
13 Q. You wouldn't have any reason to believe they
14 have such experience; correct?
15 A. I have no reason to believe they don't, either.
16 I'm sure that through working in this area of the Public
17 Service Commission they've had quite a few experiences in
18 different areas.
19 Q. Let me ask the question differently. But you

20 would have any reason to think you or any of those three


21 gentlemen could go to work for the West Virginia
22 Department of Environmental Protection in reviewing
23 general construction stormwater permits?
24 A. I know that I am a professional engineer. I
25 know that Mr. Ellars is, and I believe that he is

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
166
1 licensed in civil engineering, I believe. So I would
2 think he probably would be able to do that.
3 Q. But not the other three of you; correct?
4 A. Pardon me?
5 Q. Not the other three of you? When I say you, I'm
6 using it as shorthand so I don't say all your names each
7 time, Walker, Melton, Ellars.
8 A. Okay. I'm not sure of Earl's credentials, but I

9 know he's a licensed engineer.


10 Q. Would any of you four --- we'll come up with a
11 placeholder, I'll call it your four people --- you four
12 staff members, how about that? And I'm talking about
13 you, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Melton and Mr. Ellars. Fair enough?
14 A. That's fair.
15 Q. You four staff members, nobody among that group
16 has any expertise in acoustical studies or sound
17 monitoring; correct?
18 A. What I will say is that is really not our
19 expertise, but that is also not our function at the

20 Commission.
21 Q. So would it be fair to say you had to take for
22 granted what an applicant provides in that regard with
23 respect to an acoustical study?
24 A. No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that we
25 could research. We review the studies and review them to

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
167
1 ensure that they're within reasonable industrial
2 qualifications, and that's how we review the information,
3 yes.
4 Q. Okay. Has any of the testimony elicited during
5 this hearing --- I'm making an assumption here. Let me
6 ask you first, have you been present for all of the
7 testimony elicited so far in this hearing?
8 A. Yes, I have.

9 Q. Has any of that testimony elicited changed your


10 mind about any of the opinions you initially set forth in
11 your pre-filed Direct testimony?
12 A. No, it hasn't.
13 Q. Just one minute, Mr. Walker. Could you turn
14 with me to page 17 of your Direct testimony? This is in
15 the midst of, I believe, the Staff recommended
16 conditions, mainly general construction and operational
17 phase certificate conditions; is that --- does that sound
18 right?
19 A. Could you give me a line number?

20 Q. Okay. Well, by saying in the midst, because I'm


21 specifically looking at item five is on line 344,
22 page 17.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you agree with me that's under the heading
25 general construction and operational phase certificate

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
168
1 conditions that starts on page 16?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. And do you say this condition would set forth
4 the applicant will consult with representatives of
5 Commission Staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and West
6 Virginia Division of Natural Resources, collectively the
7 technical advisory committee on the scope, development
8 and implementation of post construction studies to

9 commence within a reasonable time and in any event no


10 later than one year, go to the next page, following the
11 commercial operations phase of the project and then you
12 go on to prescribe the specific tasks with --- that the
13 technical advisory committee would be consulted on. At
14 the risk of beating a dead horse, at this point, any of
15 you four staff members have any expertise in the impacts
16 of industrial wind turbines on bats?
17 A. I believe that's why we have the technical
18 committee set up, so we can have the expertise and rely
19 on those to do that for a living.

20 Q. So I guess if we go back to line 344 and 345,


21 the Staff would essentially be relying on the U.S. Fish
22 and Wildlife Service and West Virginia Division of
23 Natural Resources for that type of expertise; correct?
24 A. I believe that would be a resource, yes.
25 Q. The Staff would be relying on those two agencies

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
169
1 for that type of expertise because that type of expertise
2 is not present among the four Staff members we were
3 talking about; correct?
4 A. I would say that, yeah, we're not --- we have
5 not been --- speaking for myself, I have not been
6 dedicated in that area, no.
7 Q. So would your answer be the same with impacts
8 from industrial wind turbines to birds including raptors

9 and migratory birds?


10 A. That would be the same answer, yes.
11 Q. Okay. Did you work at all on the Beech Ridge
12 case?
13 A. No, I didn't.
14 Q. Are you familiar at all with the Beech Ridge
15 case?
16 A. I'm not intimately, no.
17 Q. Would you have any reason to dispute that the
18 Commission prescribed a condition similar to the one
19 you're recommending here, but that it provided for

20 inclusion of a technical advisory committee of a


21 statewide environmental organization with 500 plus
22 members and in existence for at least 10 years? Would
23 you deny that the Commission recommended --- or
24 prescribed that as its condition?
25 A. I don't have knowledge of that, so I can't

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
170
1 confirm or deny that.
2 Q. So your answer would be the same for any other
3 group that I would suggest to you the Commission had
4 recommended to be a part of the technical advisory
5 committee in that case?
6 A. Having to do with Beech Ridge, yes.
7 Q. Okay. Mr. Walker, if we could turn to page
8 three of your Direct --- or I'm sorry, page four of your

9 Direct testimony. The question that's posed, is the


10 project's justification of needs satisfactory. Are you
11 with me on that one?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Near the end of that page there, that last line,
14 77, sentence starts the load --- that's referring to the
15 load forecast report. Evidentially that's the 2009 PJM
16 Load Forecast Report; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. We go on to the next page and you explain, you
19 know, what that report is and what it states. The Staff

20 in the PATH case, which I understand you're working on;


21 right?
22 A. I am working --- yes.
23 Q. You're working on the PATH case; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And in the PATH case, the Staff is ---

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
171
1 has engaged outside consultants to work with the Staff on
2 the PATH case; correct?
3 A. We have for transmission purposes, yes.
4 Q. Okay. Are you familiar generally with the scope
5 of work of those consultants in the PATH case?
6 A. I believe there is a need for transmission
7 lines.
8 Q. Okay. In the universe of things they're

9 analyzing, those consultants, is one of them the 2009 PJM


10 Load Forecast Report?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. So as of today's date, the Staff has not taken a
13 position on whether the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report is
14 valid; correct?
15 A. We have not made any recommendations or taken
16 any positions as of this time. It's still early in the
17 case.
18 Q. But suffice it to say, Staff hasn't made any
19 decision or taken any position whatsoever as to whether

20 the assertions set forth in the PJM Load --- the 2009 PJM
21 Load Forecast Report such as the ones we see in your
22 testimony are accurate and reliable; right?
23 A. I believe we're looking at a couple different
24 points here. For the PATH case, which this is not what
25 we're here for, is looking at transmission. We're

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
172
1 looking at generation in this case, which is really
2 totally different, and I'm not sure if I see the
3 connection that you're trying to make.
4 Q. Okay. Let me pose the question to you this way.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Would you agree with me that either --- it's
7 going to be one of three things for the 2009 PJM Load
8 Forecast Report. Either all of the claims and assertions

9 set forth in it are true, B would be some of the claims


10 and assertions are true, and then C would be that none of
11 the claims and assertions are true in that report. Is
12 that fair to say that it's going to be one of those three
13 events? That's what the Staff would determine?
14 A. The Staff has hired an outside consultant to
15 make those determinations for us.
16 Q. Okay. Well, then I'll substitute the Staff
17 hired consultant. The outside consultant would find that
18 one of those three scenarios was the case with respect to
19 the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in the PATH case;

20 correct?
21 A. Could you list the ---?
22 Q. Sure. Option A --- or scenario A would be all
23 of the claims and assertions in the report are true, B is
24 some, but not all of them are true, and C is none of them
25 are true. It's going to be one of those three things;

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
173
1 correct?
2 A. You didn't leave much else out, so that's about
3 it.
4 Q. So it has to be one of those three things;
5 correct?
6 A. I couldn't --- I couldn't think of any other
7 combinations.
8 Q. Okay. So as we sit here today, we don't know

9 which of those three scenarios it is in terms of what the


10 Staff consultant would determine; correct?
11 A. When looking at transmission, yes, you are
12 correct.
13 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this. How can the load
14 forecast be true with respect to transmission but not
15 true with respect to generation? Describe that to me.
16 A. Generation can be built in various other areas.
17 They can be built locally. They can be built --- more
18 generation within West Virginia, more generation towards
19 the west. So if there are more generation in those areas

20 that are requesting load --- or having a load, that would


21 determine whether there is transmission lines that are
22 needed or not. Generation is different, typically with
23 turbine --- wind turbine generation because there is also
24 this need for this generation other than ---.
25 Q. Okay. I understand that, but I don't see how

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
174
1 that changes the fact that one of those three scenarios
2 we discussed is going to be the case or not be the case.
3 I'm failing to understand how it matters whether we're
4 discussing generation or we're discussing transmission.
5 At the risk of asking the same question again, I'm trying
6 to clarify my understanding of the distinction you seem
7 to be making.
8 A. Generation is what we are looking at in this

9 case, this particular case. The other case which you're


10 referring has to do with transmission, getting power from
11 one location to another location. This particular
12 certificate involves only the need for this type of
13 generation. We're not looking at transferring it from
14 one location to another. We're looking at it as the need
15 that it can be used for other power companies in
16 replacement of coal fired generation possibly. Another
17 part of that is this has no bearing on ratepayers. If
18 they can't --- if this company cannot sell the energy,
19 it's not out of the ratepayer's pocket. Whereas, in the

20 other transmission case you were talking about, there is


21 an issue there. So this is totally --- they're totally
22 different cases. I'm having trouble making the
23 connection that you're probably having the trouble making
24 the connection with what I'm testifying ---. I really
25 don't see a connection between these two.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
175
1 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2 Hold on a second. I know that
3 Commissioner McKinney has to leave. I'll make the same
4 offer that we made yesterday, and that is --- I guess it
5 was yesterday. That is we can continue with two or we
6 can adjourn 'til tomorrow morning.
7 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
8 I'm going to vote for continuing with

9 two.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERTS:

11 All right. That's fine.


12 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
13 My apologies. I have a doctor's
14 appointment.
15 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16 Q. Again, at the risk of asking the question ---
17 posing a question to you that I've already posed to you,
18 one of the three scenarios that I presented you with just

19 minutes ago --- one of those is going to be determined to


20 be the case by the Staff's consultant in its review of
21 that 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report; isn't that correct?
22 A. Without going into that case too far, there's
23 --- there are other issues involved with that other than
24 just the PJM case.
25 Q. Let me ask you whether one of those scenarios

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
176
1 can be true in the PATH case and not be true in this
2 case, and if your answer is yes, why is that?
3 A. I believe I answered that previous to this, that
4 there are two different types of issues that we're
5 looking at. The one is generation. The other is
6 transmission. So it's not dependent upon whether our
7 consultants agree or disagree with this study.
8 Q. I'm not asking whether the Staff is doing the

9 same kind of work or the same kind of work with outside


10 consultants in this case that it is in the PATH case.
11 I'm just asking how can it be --- how can any one of
12 those three scenarios I discussed with you be true for
13 the purposes of the PATH case, but not be true for the
14 purposes of this case?

15 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

16 He's already answered this question


17 multiple times.
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 Yes, I think that's the case. I think


20 you just ought to move on. You can argue it in a brief.
21 You can do what you want, but he's answered it at least
22 three or four different times. It may not be to your
23 satisfaction, but it's to the best of his ability
24 particularly.
25 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
177
1 Q. Does the construction and operation of the
2 Pinnacle project have any bearing on whether scenario A
3 that I set forth to you, scenario B or scenario C would
4 be true or false?
5 A. I have no way of knowing that without the study
6 and analyses.
7 Q. Is it your testimony that the Staff is taking
8 the position that it's okay to take the 2009 PJM Load

9 Forecast at face value for this case, but to scrutinize


10 it through an outside consultant in the PATH case? Is
11 that the Staff's position?
12 A. I know ---.

13 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

14 It's the same. He's already answered


15 this question in one way or another. He's already told
16 him that it's two different looks. One is a look at need
17 for generation. One is a look at need for transmission.
18 They're two different statutes. They're two different

19 looks. He's already answered this line of question


20 multiple times.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Well, it's a slightly different
23 question, and I think we'll let him finish the question
24 and the answer and then move on. I think we're beating
25 this to death.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
178
1 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2 Perhaps, Your Honor.
3 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4 Q. Do you need me to rephrase the question for you?
5 A. Sure.
6 Q. Okay. Is it the Staff's position that it's
7 acceptable for the Staff to take the 2009 PJM Load
8 Forecast and the claims and assertions set forth therein

9 at face value in this case, but in the PATH case subject


10 it to scrutiny mainly through an outside consultant?
11 A. No, that's not the case. No.
12 Q. Okay. And has the Staff engaged the same
13 outside consultant or another consultant to scrutinize
14 the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in this case, the
15 Pinnacle case?
16 A. Not for this case, no, they haven't.

17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:

18 Thank you. I believe that's all I

19 have, Mr. Walker.


20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 Commissioner?
22 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23 I have no question.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 All right. The Staff witnesses that

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
179
1 you worked with in this case have had --- have
2 participated in other wind turbine cases; have they not?
3 A. Yes, they have.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 And the same issues raised in those
6 cases were raised in this case?
7 A. Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 You've recommended and there have been


10 some things suggested as being matters for inclusion in a
11 stipulation about the ice shedding and setback distances.
12 Is that --- I was trying to get an appreciation for what
13 your --- why the necessity --- is it simply an abundance
14 of precaution, or is it that this is becoming more
15 frequent or ---?
16 A. I don't think that it's an --- it's not an
17 overabundance of caution, I'm sure. This has been an
18 issue that's been going on for a long time, and it's just
19 really coming to the forefront to our knowledge in the

20 past year or so. And this is why we've decided that it's
21 important to have this included, particularly with this
22 case because of the situation of the closeness of the
23 turbines to the road, Green Road and also the
24 transmission line that we're concerned about.

25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
180
1 I had also circled the requirement for
2 posting warning signs around the O&M building. What's
3 the necessity for that?
4 A. That may be an overabundance of precaution, but
5 it's just another --- it's another level of protection.
6 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7 Okay. And while I understand you're
8 not a bat expert or been involved in these proceedings

9 with respect to bats, I take it that the suggestion


10 that's been arrived at with respect to post --- three
11 years of post construction and what will be done was a
12 consensus with the Staff and with the parties to the
13 stipulation?
14 A. Yes. I worked with all of the other co-workers
15 that were here previously and along with some of the
16 legal staff and felt that it was important to include.

17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

18 The provision of the stipulation with

19 respect to the post construction studies doesn't really


20 require three years of construction studies; does it?
21 A. It requires at least one year and with
22 reevaluation according to the committee.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 Who would make that determination,
25 whether to proceed to the second and third year of

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
181
1 studies?
2 A. That would be a consensus among those that are
3 involved in that committee.
4 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5 And that would be? Would that be the
6 Fish and Wildlife, DNR and Staff?
7 A. Yeah. I was trying to find that paragraph, yes.
8 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

9 Okay. I'm sorry. I see it now.


10 That's page six under item 12, there's a committee.
11 A. Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

13 And that would simply be you would try


14 to work it out, I take it, and if all of you don't agree,
15 who decides then?
16 A. Well, there's --- we're going to have a lot of
17 experts there and they will be able to determine how to
18 proceed after they get all the data in. I think that's

19 probably up to the committee members to really figure


20 that out.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Thank you, Mr. Walker. Other
23 questions?
24 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25 I have a few follow up.

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
182
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3 Q. Since he was just asking you about it, the post
4 construction studies, this recommendation is slightly
5 different than it was in the last two cases; is that
6 correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Can you explain how that is or ---? In this

9 case, it's up to three years with a decision after the


10 first year to move on. Before it was one year and then
11 there was a decision to be made at that point whether
12 additional years would be added on; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. So this is a little stronger than it has been in
15 the previous two cases?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would you object if someone suggested other
18 members be added to the technical advisory committee?
19 A. I have no objection to that.

20 Q. The Chairman asked you about the setback issues.


21 That's an important issue amongst the members in the
22 engineering division; is that correct?
23 A. It's very important.
24 Q. And it's something that you all would like to
25 see on a going forward basis?

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
183
1 A. This is something that we'd really hope that
2 future wind projects would incorporate, at least the one
3 and a half times that we have stipulated in in my
4 testimony.
5 Q. And to not beat a dead horse on this issue, go a
6 little bit about the 2007 ---.
7 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8 The courtroom is littered with dead

9 horses.

10 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

11 Q. About the 2007 PJM Load Forecast, let's talk a


12 little bit about engineering wise the difference between
13 forecasting the need for generation and the need for
14 transmission. There's a multitude of factors that impact
15 the need for generation, plants going in and out of
16 service; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You can refer to that, if you'd like. There's

19 plenty of definitions there. So whether overall demand


20 is going up or down, the need for generation may be going
21 up simply because plants are retiring, going out of
22 service, that sort of thing?
23 A. Having read over this, yeah, all kinds of
24 things.
25 Q. The need for a transmission line is a completely

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
184
1 different look engineering wise; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Okay. And can you talk a little bit about what
4 that would entail, or do you know?
5 A. I've pretty much given you the information that
6 I can give you as accurately as I can at this point.
7 Q. And you mentioned a little bit about the need
8 for this type of generation --- this type of --- you mean

9 renewable generation?
10 A. Renewable generation.
11 Q. There's a need for renewable generation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And why is that, most states require it?
14 A. Yeah, governmental regulations are now coming to
15 that --- going in that direction.

16 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

17 Thank you. That's all I have.


18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

19 All right. Anything further? Thank


20 you, Mr. Walker. You're excused. Is there any other
21 testimony to come before the Commission on this matter?
22 All right. Actually, I was looking for the Procedural
23 Order. I assume that the --- I don't recall a change in
24 anything other than this order indicates that --- excuse
25 me, initial briefs will be due on Monday, November the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
185
1 16th. Reply --- and I assume that's initial --- it is.
2 Initial simultaneous briefs due on Monday, November the
3 16th with reply briefs due on November the 25th, and the
4 Commission will issue its order on or before Monday,
5 January the 11th. I don't think there's any open issues
6 that I'm aware of. Looking over my sheet, it indicates
7 that all exhibits have been admitted into the record with
8 the exception of Alliance Exhibits Three and Four which

9 were withdrawn by Mr. Stephens.

10 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:

11 Your Honor, I'm not sure if Joint


12 Exhibit One was moved.
13 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
14 It was.
15 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16 Sorry.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 I show it as having been admitted, but

19 if it wasn't, it is. And if that's all there is, then


20 we'll consider the case as having been completed and we
21 will proceed with the --- that schedule.
22 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23 Your Honor, a point of clarification,
24 if I might. I don't have the order to establish the
25 procedural schedule in front of me, but is it the

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
186
1 Commission's desire that along with the initial briefs we
2 tender proposed order?
3 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4 I'm never opposed to a proposed order.
5 If you want to submit a proposed order, certainly we
6 would be willing to see it and look at it. Just make you
7 serve it on other parties.
8 ATTORNEY CALLAS:

9 Thank you.

10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:

11 All right. Thank you very much.


12 * * * * * * * *
13 HEARING CONCLUDED AT 4:00 P.M.
14 * * * * * * * *
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
187
1
2 CERTIFICATE
3
4 I hereby certify, as the stenographic reporter,
5 that the foregoing proceedings were taken
6 stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to
7 typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this
8 transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of

9 my ability.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

25

Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.


(814) 536-8908
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
hry
CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia.

Prepared Direct Testimony of Michael Jin

Q: Please state your name, occupation and business address.

A: My name is Michael Jin. I am the Research Director for the Center for Labor &

community Research (CLCR), 341 1 w. Diversey Avenue, chicago, rL 60647.

Q: Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your current

job responsibilities.

A: I have a masters degree in sociology from the New School for Social Research in

New York and have been a Certified Public Accountant since lgg7. Ihave been

the Research Director since 2001. (See Exhibit A hereto)

l.
As a Research Director, my major responsibilities include
overseeing the

research projects involving clients, such as the


city of chicago and the state of
Illinois. I am also doing studies by myself like this one.

Q: What is the purpose of your current testimony?

A: The \Mest virginia state Building and construction


Trades council, AFL-cIo
commissioned a study conducted by the center for
Labor and community

Research (CLCR) that evaluated the probable economic


impacts of the proposed

construction of a wholesale electric generating facility


in Mineral county, rù/est

Virginia.

Q: In your work at GLCR do you routinely conduct similar economic


impact
studies using economic simulation software?

A: Yes. I do.

Q: Please briefly describe a few of the studies that you have produced.

A: I have done this kind of study more than a dozen times. For example,
I did a study
for UFCW regarding the economic impact of changing health insurance
for the
workers in a seven county area in southern California. This study
showed that if a

certain amount of disposal income were taken away due to an increase


of co-pay
for health insurance from the workers, what would happen to the local
economy

because of this lost consumption. Another study I did involved a case of the Brach
candy company plant closing, which demonstrated how many additional jobs

)
would be affected if the company closed the plant with an employment of 1,200

workers.

I have also done other studies for the West Virginia Building and

construction Trades council, AFL-cIo in west virginia public service


commission proceedings including AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, case No. 0g-

0109-E-cs; Appalachian Power company, case No. 06-0033-E-cN; Liberry Gap

wind Force, LLC, case No. 05-r740-E-cs-cN; and, AES New creek, LLc,

Case No. 08-2105,8-CS.

Q: In the course of your work have you ever used the IMpLAN simulation

software?

A: Yes. IMPLAN is the product name of the software produced by MIG, Inc. I have

used it for many occasions.

Q: Have you received specialized training in the use of the IMPLAN software?

A: Yes.

Q: would you please explain the concept of economic impact analysis?

A: Within an economY, ffiy single action by any individual or firm unleashes a series

of subsequent transactions. For example, if you contract for the construction of a

new house, your builder hires and pays a crew, buys material, and makes a variety

of other expenditures. The crew members use their earnings to buy groceries and

pay other bills. The grocer uses his receipts to pay his employees and to restock

J.
inventories and the process goes on and on. In this way, policy decisions
that

involve specific economic activities also can initiate a widely-felt cascade


of
transactions. It is rarely instructive to evaluate the impacts of
an individual

purchase' but because of their magnitudes, policy decisions


can substantively

affect the level of regional economic activity. Through the use of


well-tested

tools, economic impact analyses attempt to sum up the total


economic effects

associated with these policy decisions.

Q: How is it possible to estimate the total impact of so many disparate

transactions?

A: In the short-run, resources are often used in fixed proportions within


the

production of goods and services. The construction of a two-thousand


square-foot

house requires a certain number of laborers, a predictable


amount of concrete, and

a readily knowable quantity of lumber. Similarly, an average household


with a
$30,000 annual income will consume a predicable amount of groceries. we
spend a great amount of time both identifring and quantifring these types of

relationships across the economy.

The variety of productive relationships between various industrial


sectors,

along with information describing outputs and govemmental


activities are

summarized in matrixes that are combined in mathematical simulations


of the

overall economy. Moreover, these simulation models provide the capacity


to

anticipate the effects of economic activities or events that have not yet
occurred.

For example, it is possible within the model to increase the value


of residential

4.
construction expenditures above current levels in order to determine how
such an

increase would affect various facets of the regional economy.

Q: Please describe the specific activities that take place within the context of an
economic impact analysis.

A: The proper conduct of a defensible economic impact study


consists of several

steps. The first, and often most difficult, task is to accurately represent
the event

or activity that is triggering the more broadly-felt set of economic


changes. Most

simulation software packages require that data inputs be configured


in specific

ways. However, available representations of real-world economic activities


very
often fail to conform to the me¿rsurement or format requirements
of software
producers. Moreover, many economic activities are difficult
to quantify in any
form. If data inputs do not accurately represent the event that is at the center
of
the aggregate change, there is very little chance that subsequent calculations will
provide any usable impact estimates.

once data inputs have been prepared, they must be properry processed

within the simulation software. In most cases this involves little more
than

correctly adhering to well-documented instructions. Still, there are


decisions and
judgments that must be made and, consequently,
opportunities for error. Next, if
possible, it is often instructive to test the results for robustness
by varying one or

more input parameters. This sort of exercise should yield stable


and predictable

changes in estimation results. Finally, it is very often necessary to post_process

5.
estimation results. Results may be aggregated, disaggregated or otherwise

modified for çase of interpretation.

Q: what is the nature of the results from this form of impact modeling?

A: The form and content of the results vary from one software packageto another.

However, nearly every package includes estimates of changes to incomes, outputs

and employments and these are typically reported by industry or industrial sector.

Results a¡e also routinely segregated into direct, indirect, and induced effects.

More elaborate software packages may also yield estimates ofpopulation

migration, changes to regional investment, or even fiscal impacts.

Q: Please describe the economic impact anarysis conducted by CLCR for the
Building Trades Council in this matter?

A: All economic development has a "multiplier" effect. This is because new business

activity, such as a major construction project, requires purchases from numerous

other industries, which in turn buy goods and services from still other businesses.

Also, the workers and small business owners who receive new income from the

project go out and buy goods and services. so, any major new project will have
a

much greater economic impact on the state than just the direct investment by the

project's developer. To determine the impact of this project on the state of West

virginia cLcR used IMPLAN's input-output modeling software.

6.
Q: Please briefly summarize the economÍc impact estimates that your study has

estimated will occur due to the construction of the Wholesale Generating

Facility in this matter.

A: If the completion of the project needs $l3t million and approximately I l3 craft

workers on an averaged full+ime equivalent awualizedbasis as the


company has

estimated, this project would generate additional $19.2 million in sales and 166

additional jobs for the state economy. (See Report, attached hereto
as Exhibit B)

Q: Overall how would you characterize the economic impact of construction of

the Electric wholesale Generating Facility in this matter?

A: The construction of the project will result in a substantial positive impact on the
local economy and local employment. The construction will also have a positive
impact on the state economy. These positive impacts will be the result
of
substantial increases in sales, taxes, business activities and jobs. The positive

impacts are set out in detail in my report.

Q: Does that conclude your testimony.

A: Yes.

7.
Xiaochang (Mike) Jin
Center for Labor & Community Research (CLCR)
3411 W. Diversey Avenue
Chicago, IL 60647

As Research Director for Center for Labor & Community Research, Jin has a Master's
Degree (1991) in Sociology from the New School for Solial Research
in New york City.
He completed all the requirements for the Ph.D. in Sociology at the New
School except
for the dissertation.

Prior to coming to Chicago, Jin worked at the headquarters of the International


Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union in New York as a researcher between 1989 and 1993.
His main
responsibility was to track the change in the garnent industry in New york
as well as the
entire nation. He conducted several studies on the economicimpact of
company closures.

Since joining CLCR in 1993, Jin's research has become more focused
on economic
qtpt. In the past years, his study on the impact of the food and candy industry on the
Chicago economy has successfirlly led to thã establishment of the roó¿
¿ Canay
Institute. He has conducted dozens of economic impact studies for government
agencies
and non-profit organizations.

Mike Jin also holds a Certified Public Accountant certificate and has worked
as a
consultant for the Mayor's Ofïice of Workforce Development in Chicago,
focusing on
labor ma¡ket related issues.
EXHIBIT

Center for Labor


Corn munity
Research

The Estimated Economic Impact of


Pinnacle Wind Power project
In West Virginia

By Mike Jin

August 28,2009
The Center for Labor & Community Research has examined the economic
impact of the
proposal to build a wind turbine electric generating station in NewPage
area of Mineral County
in West Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force, iLC, th. ãeveloper of the prõject, estimates
that the
construction will cost $131.0 million and be completed in nine montnõ
by about 150 workers.

To determine the impact of this construction project on the state of West Virginia,
CLCR
input-output model software developed by t'he Û.S. Forest Service and maiñtainóO
5ed_tlp Uy
The Minnesota IMPLAN Group.

All economic development has a "multiplier" effect. This is because new business
activity, such as a major construction project, réquires purchases from numerous
other industries,
.*ht:h in tum buy goods and services from other-businårr.r. Also, the workers and small
businçss owners who receive new income from the project go out and
buy goods and services.
So any major new construction project like this witl have a much greater
eJonomic impact on the
state than just the direct investment by the project's developer. thã fonowing
are our estimates
of the impact for the proposed construction project (All the estimates are on ãn annualized
basis):

'New business sales generated: Construction companies involved in building wind turbines
and transmission lines will have $ 1 3 I .0 million in révenues. They will
spend riost of this $ 13 I .0
million on the large equipment that is usually not manufactured in the state. However, these
construction companies will spend some of project revenue to purchase
small equipment and
services, such as freight transportation, electricil supplies, from the state firms, givìng
these
West Virginia firms $11.0 million in sales. Also, the workers employed
by theionstruction
companies and suppliers to the project will create new expenditures in the
retail, banking, real
estate and other industries, giving these industries an additional
$8.2 million in sales. thi total
business sales generated by this project for the state will be at least
$19.2 million.

Output Impact of the Proposed power Station


(In miltions)

Indirect 11.0
Induced 8.2

Total Impact $ 19.2

Source: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input-out model developed by the


U.S. Forest Service and 2007 west Virginia economic Data
compiled by IMPLAN.

' New jobs created: Besides the I l3 average yearly construction jobs the project
will create,
there will be 166 additional jobs generated_in West Virginia. They will be in
manufacturing,
trucking, wood products, business and professional services, retail and wholesale
industries. The
employment impact of the project will be 279 additional west virginia jobs.
Job Impact of the Proposed power Station

Direct 113
Indirect & Induced 165

Total 279
Soutce: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input'out model
developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia
compiled by IMPLAN. economic data

'New wages: Based on the data released by-West Virginia Division of Labor, the weighted
aveT$9 prevailing wage of construction workers oo thìr project,
including benefits, in2009
would be $40.20 per hour in Mineral County where the project
is located. The total
compensation package for the workers wouid be
$9.4rniUiåo over a nine month period. other
workers will receive $4.8 million. The total wages and benefits
coming from the project will be
Sl4'2 million. If the project hires local construciion workers, the local'economy
would
experience a tremendous stimulus due to the input of this
$r4.2million.
Payroll Impact of the proposed power Station

Direct $ e.4
Indirect & Induced 4.8

Total s 14.2
Source: Projection is based on the IMPLAN input-out model
developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic
compiled by IMPLAN. data

'rncome for the self-employed: The project would also yield profits for the West virginia self-
employed subcontractors and small buiinésses hired by trt"
conitruction companies. The
estimated profits for these small businesses will be
$t.O mittion. It is very titäty that these
businesses will spend this amount to expand their operation
and to support theii families.

' Corporate profÏts: The owners of incorporated businesses in West Virginia will have $2.g
million in pre-tax profits.

'New taxes generated: The proposed wind power generating station will create $4.3 million in
tax revenue on an annualized basis. The federal government witt
receive $3.0 million in ta<es,
made up of Social Security, Medicare, and persoìral and
corporate income tax. The state of West
virginia and local govemment will receiur $t.g million in ta,res, made
up of $0.3 million in
personal income taxes, $0.1 million in corporate profits
tax, and $0.9 million in employment tax,
various fees, licenses and property taxes pàid uy ine variouÁ
construction companies and material
suppliers.

the proposed project may result in the following economic impact


-ln :u-, on the state of
West -Virginia on an annualized basis:
Estimated Economic Impact of Proposed Power Station

Direct Indirect & Induced Total

Sales (in millions) t9.2 t9.2


Jobs r13 t66 279
Compensation for workers (in millions) 9.4 4.8 14.2
Compensation, Self-employed (in millions) 1.0 1.0
Profits for Corporations (in millions) 2.8 2.8
Tax Revenues:
For Federal Government (in millions) 3.0
For State Government (in millions) 1.3

Methodolory: The Pinnacle V/ind Force LLC, the developer of the project, states that the
completion of the project may create at least 150 full time jobs over ã périoa of 9 months. To
adjust the job impact created by these new positions, we take the number of 150, divide itby 12
and then, times 9 to reflect the actual impact that these new positions would create on the
annualized basis. The average prevailing wage and benefits, reported by the West Virginia
Department of Labor for the state in 2009, includes all the crafts in the construction industry.
Given the nature of the project, the construction may require a higher number of high skilleã
crafts than that of low skilled ones. Therefore, the projected amount of workers compensation in
this study is adjusted to the possible composition of the labor force for the project. The value of
construction per construction worker and the ratio of purchased goods to total construction are
adjusted based on the IMPLAN economic data for V/est Virginia for 2007. The distribution of
proprietors' income, corporate income and indirect business taxes are derived from the other new
non-residential construction sector of the state in 2007.
I
B; L çtdst
Ë
e
ó
zE
À
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

cAsE NO. 09-0360-E_CS


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a siting certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an
Electric
Wholesale Generating Èacility and Related
Transmission Support Line oiless than
200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities
in

Prepared Direct Testimony of Darwin


L. Snyder

a. Please state your name and busÍness address.

A. My name is Darwin L. snyder and I arn the president


of the North centrar
west Virginia state Building and construction
Trades Council, AFL-cIo and
the Business Manager of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical workers
("IBEW") Local 596. My office is rocated
at r00l North l2th street,
Clarksburg, WV 26301.

a. Please state your education and experience.

A. In 1980, I became a member of the IBEW Locar 596 and began working
as an
electrician on construction projects throughout
west virginia including at the
Harrison power plant.
I was elected Business Manager of IBEW Local 596 in 1993. I became

the President of the North central west virginia state Building


and

construction Trades council, AFL-cIo in 2000. I also serve


on the National

Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee.

a. Please descrÍbe the nature of the North centrar west virginia state
Building and construction Trades council, AF,L-cIo as it rerates to this

case.

A. The North Central West Virginia State Building and Construction


Trades

council, AFL-cIo and the west virginia state Building and


construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, represent construction workers
in North Central
west Virginia including Mineral county. on behalf of the two
labor
organizations' we entered into a Memorandum Agreement
with U. S. Wind
Force, LLC which also covers the pinnacle wind Force project.
The
Agreement ensures to the greatest extent reasonably possible
that the workers
used in the construction of the wholesale electric generating facility will be

local workers. The Agreement is attached to this testimony


as Exhibit A.

a. can you tell me how many rocar workers wiil be working on the
construction of the facitity?

We have reviewed the company's manpower estimates for


the construction, and

based on those estimates, as well as my experience with other electric


generating facilities we agree that approximately l 13
craft workers, on an
averaged full-time equivalent annualized
basis, will be needed for the
construction of the project. That's a lot
of work for a lot of our members.

a' In your experience how would you characterize the construction


employmenú as it relates to the local area?

A' The size of the project and the amount


of construction employment needed
will have a very positive impact on the local economy and local emproyment.

a. Does that conclude your testimony?

A. Yes it does.
EXHIBIT

MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT

This Memorandum Agreement is entered into effective


the 28ú day of M ay,2001,by
and among Mt. Storm wind Force, I .Lc and
u.s. \tr/ind Force, LLC, (hereinafter collectively ,,wind
Force") the North central west Virginia Building
and construction Trades council, AFL-cIo and
the west virginia state Building and consrruction
Trades council, AFL-cIo (collectively referred
to as the "Building Trades") regarding construction by
wind Force of a wind power electric
generatingfacility and related interconnectingtransmission
lines in Grant andruckercounties, West
Virginia.
For purposes of this Memorandum Agreement
the "wind Force wind power electric
generatingfacilityand relatedinterconnectingtransmission
lines in Grant and ruckercounties, west
virginia" (hereinafter "Facility") shall mean all site preparation,
infrastructure, buildings, structures,
equipment and appurtenances used or associated
with the generation of electric power and as detailed
in wind Force's Application for a certificate of
convenience and necessity currently pending before
the west virginia pubric service commission (case
No. 0l-1664_E_cN).

It is hereby understood and acknowledged that the


undersigned parties have agreed
as follows:

A' Wind Force will select one or more Engineering procurement


and
construction contractors ("EPC contractor") to construct
the Facility. wind Force shall require
such EPC Contractor(s) to enter into a project
labor agreement with the Building Trades for labor
used in the construction of the Facility. The agreement
shall be in a form acceptable to both the
respective EPC Contractor(s) and the Building
Trades;provided however, such agreement shall be
in the form similar to the Building Trades' standard
Project Labor Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit I' The parties agree that the General superintendent,
superintendent, clerical, professional,
and supervisory ernployees of the EPC Contractor(s)
will not be members of any bargaining unit(s)
(i'e' those employees of the EPC contractor(s) for
whom the Building Trades will collectively
bargain) and these employees will not perform
any work traditionally performed by Building and
Trades craft persons. The parties agree that the
EPC contractor(s) and the Building Trades shall
negotiate in good faith over the project rabor agreernent
tenns.
B' The Building Trades shall support, and act in the best
interest of, Wind Force
in all aspects of the development and construction process of the Facility
or any other facility
developed by wind Force, including, but not limited
to, supporting the Facility and any future
facility public hearings or meetings and in the application process
at
for all permits necessary for the
construction and operation of the Facility and any future
facility. The Building Trades agree not to
contribute in any manner, directly or indirectly, to
any delay in the permitting process for or
construction of the Facility or any other facility developed
by wind Force.

C. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding


upon, the
successors, assigns of the parties and any and
alr entities that may purchase, lease or otherwise
acquire all or part of the Facility or V/ind Force.

D' Failure to enforce or the waiver of any provision of


this Agreement or any
breach or nonperfonnance by any Party shall not
be deemed a waiver by the any party of the right
in the future to demand strict compliance and performance
of any provision of this Agreement. No
modifications to orrecission of this Agreement
may be made except by a written document signed
by authorized representatives of all parties.

E' The parties undertake to act in good faith in relation


to the performance and
implementation of this Agreement and to take
such other reasonable measures as may be necessary
for the realization of its purposes and objectives.

F' This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts,


each of which shall
be deemed an original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.

G. The parties further agree that in the event that Wind


Force proposes to
construct a facility or facilities in \rr/est virginia
simila¡ to the Facility that is the subjecr of this
Agreement that the provisions and terms of this
Agreement shalr appry to the construction of that
facility or those facilities.
IN wITNEss WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, acting under
the authority of the
respective governing bodies, have caused
this Agreement to be duly executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original.

US Wind Force, LLC

Mt. Storm Wind Force, LLC

By:
Name:

Name:
Its:

State Buildi and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO

By:
Name:
Its:
PROJECT I-.ABOR AGREEM ENT

This Agreement
trr'¡¡L rù
is çurçreu ul[ ttris
entered into day of 2002, by and
between
NoRTH CEI{TRAI wEsT r¿ncnu su&DÑä & coNsr*o"i"öJ'*"
TRÀDES cot'Ncrr Ax'L-cIo ( hereinafter
', collectìvely called the Union or Unions),
for the purPose of estatlishing harmonious labor r.lutilo, in the performance
construction work as defined in Attachment of
e orthe nro¡r.t Labor Agreement (pLA),
both of which are attached hereto and made
. p;h;r*f
The parties to this Agreement, in consiår..ti*
by reference.
covenants herein contained, mutually agree -utouipiå*ir., *ro
as follows: "rtné

l'The Project Labor Agreement.is to be


signed by the council, the union, ârid
those companies *ho b".or" r-u..rrrful
as a bidder.
2. The
agrees that in the Bidding

**:,*,.^:::.:1111,.191_yf *.T.r"r"th;p,'..iffiiö:ää,i,ffiinå:,
negoriatioiîri::T::::T3i""li*¡,r,;1'.¡,;;äffi
äffi äIIöä;
i; *::îi':fl T:9.* ll:i ::' i"u"i Àe""#J;ri #iii'r to succ ess tur
ilå:îff"'g:::totheconstn¡*io"*o*il;nåi"îffúï,"å'#äi;ä:::
Labor Agreement.
4' The union and the council agree that there
disruptive activity f:r *y_putpo* by sha[ be no picketing or other
t¡. urrior," tt. co*"il or any emproyee
represented by the council or unionduring
trreierm o-r*¡i, Agreement.

This Agreement sha'become effective


on the
shall remain in effect until the complJili;;päj..r(Ð _ day of _, 2002 and
iJ#,ri'ro A.
" "*achment
rhe parties herero have ser their
of ÏyT;;rio*oF, hands this _ day

NORTTI CENTRAL WV BUILDING


&
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COuNcrL,
BY: AÌL.CIO

BY: BY:
Darvin L. Snyder, prcr¡¿"nt
ARTICLE ONE
PANPOSE

The Parties to this Project Labor Agreement


acknowredge that the
construction of the is inrportant to the development of the
, its community and to

i:jil:: 11.:f.' *".


o.^"d for tñe t¡,n"r
rhis Agreement i1'1åø.it" ;;h#,hr, ö"orive
,i::itt¡:: îl:lq._
establishment of a framework for labor-managemenr
effort
lryvrct¡Yg ft¡-t
9:T*,*"
stabilþ. cooperation and

The Contracto(s) and the Unions agree that


the timely construction ofthis
Project will require substantial nr¡rnbers oi.rproy.es
from constn¡ction and
supporting crafrs possessing skills and qualificatiåns
that a¡e vital to its completion.
They will work together to furnish skillèd, em"ient
crafrsworkers for the
constn¡ction of this project.

Furttrer, the Paties desire to mutually est¿blish


and stabilize wages, hours
and working conditions for the craftrvork"r,
oo this constn¡ction project, to
encourage close cooperation between the
Contracto(s) and the Unions to the end
satisfactory, continuous and harmonior¡s relationship
F ."
Parties to this Agreement.
will exist between the

Therefore, in recognition ofthe special needs


of this project and to maintain a
spirit of harmony, labor-management peace,
and stability dr:ring the term of this
Agreement, the Parties agree to estauùsh
eáèctive and binding methods for the
settlement of all misr¡nderstandings, disputes,
o, gri"rr*ces which may arise.
Further, the contractor(s) and alt contractors
ojwhatever ,¡"ì, oi)e not to
engage in any lockout, and the (Jnions agree
not to engage in any strike, srow-
down' or inteftuption or other disruption
of or interference with the work covered
under this Agreement.
ARTICLE T\ryO
Scope olAgreemcnt

Section 1' This Projgct Agreement shall apply and is tinited


to the recognized and
accepted historical definition of new consûr¡ction
work under the direction of and
performed by ttrc Contractor{s), of whatever tier,
which may include the project
Contractor, whohave confracts awarded for sucír work
on th, project Such work
shall include site preparation work and dedicated
oËsite work.

The Proiect is defined as:


Any oyd øll siteprepørøtíons and constructíon of alt
huíldìngs, equipment ond
associøted ímpnvemenß wíth respect to the

It is agreed
- $ut th. hoject Contractor shall require all Contractors of
whatever tier wh have been áwarded contracts for work covered
by this
Agreement, to accept and be bound by the terms
Labor Agreement bytxecuting the Letter ofAssent
;;diri;;f
rtd rhis project
(Attachrnent A) prior to
cornmencing *$'- The Project Contractor shall assure compliance
with this
fgrlment by the contractors. It is fi¡rtlrer that the terms and conditions of
this Project Agreement shall supersede and "grü
oierride terms and conditions of any and
all other national, area, or local collective urrg"ining
agreements. It is understood
that this is a self-conüained, stand-alone,
egr.ãro.rrt and that by virtue ofhaving
become bound to this Project Labor AgreeÃent,
neither project contractor nor the
contractors will be obligated to sign aãy ot¡r.lo.ul
are4 or national
agreement

Section 2' Nothing contained herein shall be construed


to prohibit, restrict or
interfere with the performance of any other
operations, worlÇ or fi¡nction which may
occur at the Project site or be associated
with the development of the project.

section 3' Thb Agreement shall onlv be binding on


the signatory pa¡ties hereto
and shall not apply to their parents, affiliates
or subsidiaries.

section 4' The owner and/or the Project conüactor


have the absolute right to
select any qr:alified bidder for the awa¡d
of contracts on this project without
reference to the oristence or non-existence
or*ry ugrrements between such bidder
and any Parfy tothis Agreement; provided,
however, only such bidder is willing,
ready and able to become aparty to, and
comply with this project Labor Agreement,
should it be designated as the successful
biddår.
3
Section 5' Items specifically excluded from the scope ofthis
Agreement include
but are not limited to the following:

1'
The right to strike or walk offdue to non-payment
of wages or benefits by
any Contractor at the project.
2' Theright to strike or lockout due to refi¡sal of eitlrer the
Union(s) or the
Confactor(s) to abide by this Article.

Section 6' The provisions ofthis Project l¿borAgreement


shall not apply to
and nothing contained hãrein shall be
corutrued to
ffiersonnel'
c
evered bv rhis ä"ffi
of the Project are irspected and õonstuction
;i:iÏ:ï:,i:i"*ffi, ï,tå:'
tested úy the nojecttontractor or
contractors and accepted by the owner, th" Pt;j;;t
Agreement will not have fi.¡rther
force or effect on such items or areas, except
when the project Contractor or
contractoN are directed by the owner to engage
in repairs, modifications, check-
out' warrant¡l ft[rctions required by its contrãct-with
t]r" o*rr". during the term of
this Agreement.

secdon 7'
It is understood that the owner, at its sole option,
rnay tenrrinate, delay
and/or suspend any or all portions of the projecrat
any time.

section 8' It is understood that the liabilit¡ of any employer


and the liability of the
separate unions under this Agreement
shall ú. rcu.ol and ,tot joint. The unions
agree that this Agreement doãs not
have the effect of .reatirrg any joint employer
statw between or among the owner, contracto(s),
or any employer.
ARTICLE THREE
section 1. The contacto or"ffiffi',iffi as rhe sole and excrr¡sive
bargaining representatives of all t*n employees
within their reqpective jurisdictions
working on the hoject within the scope ôrtir¡ Agreement.

ARTICTE FOUR
The Project conüactors #ffii##,"ffå'$**rever tier retain tun and
exclusive atrthority
PItr manâgem:nt of their operations. Exceptas
otherwise
limited by tenns of this Agreemint, the conûactors shall direct trri.
at their prerogative, including, but not limited
working forces
to hiring, promotior¡ transfer, layoff
or discharge forjust cause. No rules, customs,
*poitires shall úe permitted or
observed whichlimit or restrict productiot, or'lirit
or restrict tlre working efforts of
employees' The contractors shall r¡tilize t¡. roti.fficient
method or techniques of
consûuction' tools or other labor saving devices.
There shall be no limitations upon
the choice of mderials or desigq nor shall tJrere
be any limit on production by
workers or restrictions on the full use of tools
or equiprnent. There shal be no
restrictior¡' other than may be required by safety
regulations, on the nu'ber of
employees assigned to any,r"*-o, to any
rrrui...'

ARTICLE FT\18
Referral of Employees

section I' The contracto(s) agree to recognize


and be bound by the local unions,
hiring procedures as outlined in eãch craft's
tîqp..tiu. collective nargaining
Agreement and shall notis the appropriate
union either in writing or by telephone
when workers are required.

section 2. selection of appricants for refer¡ar to jobs


sha[ be on a non-
discriminatory basis and shall not be based
membership, by laws, rules, regulations,
or,, o, *,
way affected by, union
aspect or obligation ofunion membe*hip,
"
constitutiãnal provisions, or any other
policies or requirements. There shall be
no discrimination against any employee
;; illl.*; for employment because his or
her membership or non-membership in the
sexr age' or national origin of such employee
üo; o. ¡r".¿ upon race, color, creed,
or applicant.
Section 3' In the event the referral facilities maintained
by the unions are unable
to fill the requisition of the connaglors for employees
within a forry-eight (4g) hour
period after such request is made, (Saturdays,'sundays
and rroüdays excluded)
applicants for such requisition may be empioyed
from*y ,o*.r..
$ection 4' The selection and nuurber ofForemen and/or
General Foremen shall be
the responsibility ofthe contractor, it being r¡ndentood
that in the selection of such
employees the Contnactor will give fir$ co;ideration
to the q*fin"¿ workers
available in the local area. Forãmen and/or
General Foremen shall take orders from
supervisors designated by the contractor. Foremen
and/or General Foremen will
not absent themselves from the area where their
crews are working unless presence
is required elsewhere, and shall be held t rpo*iule
for all work perfonned by
employees under their supervision. Ttre connactor
may require Foremen to be
working employees.

section 5. In:"r:r of employnent positions requiring special sk¡rs


or
qualifications, the contractõr will notify
the uniáå ofthe q¡alificarion tests or skills
required' and the u¡ion may refer any qualified
applicant. The contractor shall be
the sole judge of all applicants qualifications.

section 6' The union shatl not refer employees employed


at the project site by
any conhactor to othgr nor ttr"u tt, union engug" in oth"r activities
-employment,
which encourage work force turnover or absenteeism.

section 7' Employees who voluntarily quit or who


are terminated for caus¡e may
be eligible for re-emplolmrent at the nó¡ect,
.o¿ trr. referral facilþ may refer such
former employees to the Project for re-h''e,'ú;;
sooner than sixty (ó0) days after
such termination.

Section 8' An employee or applicant required to satisfactorily


demonstrate his or
her ability to perform certain tasls througrr
an examination or test (e.g., welding
tests), shall be paid for that time requireJto
take ,h" .*u- or test, provided the
employee or applicant successfulry passes
the exam or test.

section 9' It is expressly understood and agreed that language


as contained in
Aticle 5 shall not be construed to have estabîshed
an exclusive referral system for
any union(s) where.one-has not previously
existJ where an exclusive referral
system has not previously existeà, the
stiput"tioro in the Local collective Bargain-
ing Agreemenrs perraining to percenrag.J
shalr apply.
"i.ipr"y.es
ARTICLE SIX
Appr e ntic e s /Tr aine es /H e lp e r s /S u bj o ur nøy m e n

Section 1' Recognizing th need to maintain continuing


support ofprograms
designed to develop adeçrate nunobers of compaent
workers in the Corsûn¡ction
Indutry, the contractol will employ apprentic;r i" the
respective crafrs to perform
such work as is within their capãbilitieì'and which
is cr.rstomarily performed by the
crafr in which they are indenn¡red.

section 2' The contractor will refer to the Local collective


Bargaining Agreement
for apprenticeship wage rates and applicabl.;d;.

ARTICLE SE\'EN
Wages and Benefits

section 1' The agrlicalle wage rates and other contributions


for the dr¡ration of
each particular project of the
shall be the established
wage rate and other.on*O*
-: the existing Local
collective Bargaining Agreement and as sunrnarized
by each signatory union.
section 2' ft"iontractor agrees to recognize and install wage
rates, including
apprentice classifications where applicabl.L¿
ofbona fide fringe benefits such as-lpensioq
*rlr. contribt¡tions to a trust or tnæt
t."ith and welfare, vacation, affiuity
apprenticeship and training filnds, uùtaing
tr.a.r p"r capita, etc.) as may have been
duly negotiated within the historically,.ãgoir.J
ior.r ¿ùrea.
section 3' when the contractor contributes Êinge
benefits payments into local,
regional or national tn¡st funds, the contracto.
to be bourd to all lawful tenns
and conditions oftrust agreements, âod "g;",
all amenãments thereto. The contractor
fi'rther agrees to accept i* representatives
4t in the administration of such funds, the
Contractor Tnætees serving.rr.it funds. F,rfth";;re, the contractor and
may establish other trust firnds by mutual union
agreement when necessary.
ARTICLE EIGHT
Work Rules
section 1. Employnrent begins and ends at the project
site.

Section 2' There shall be no limit on production by workmen


nor resûictions on
the full use of tools or equipment. CralLworkro *iog
tools shall perform any of
the work of the üade and shall work uder trr. r,rp.*ili";;;A;.on foreman.
there shall be no restrictions on efficient use of maurpower
other than as may be
required by safety regulations.

Section 3' Workers shall be at their place of work at the starting


time and shall
remain at their place of work performing their assigned
tasla t¡n¿ä the supervision
ofthe contracto¡ until quittini time, The Parties reaffirm
theirpolicy of a fair day's
work for a fair day's wage. It is understood and agreed
that the Contractor shall
allow a reasonable arnourt of time prior to the end
ofthe work day for clean-up
purposes' Adequate sanitary facilities and drinking
water shall also be provided at
or near the job site.

Section 4' All


e-quipment assigned to the projects shall
be under the control ofthe
contractor' The contractor shJl have flt" ;gñ;determine
how many pieces of
equipment an individr¡al shall operate providãd
that no individual shall be required
to operate more than trvo pieces ofmajor equipment
in a given aay 1i.e., A_B-A).
However, in an emergency, after agreement witt,
t¡. Business Representative, tlree
pieces of such equipment may be operated.
Foremen shall, in an å*"rg"rr"y,
operate any equipment assigned by the contactor
and there shall be no restriction
on foremen in the use ofthe tools ofhis craft
be from the crafr normally operating tf,.
in such emerg.n.f, rh. for"-* shall
.quipi.ni.
section 5' The Contractor may utilize the most efficient
methods or techniques of
constn¡ctioq tools, or other labor-saving devices
to accomplish the work. practices
not a part of the terrns and conditions ofthe
Agreement will not be recognized.

section 6'It is agreed that overtirne is undesirable and not


in the best interests of
the induüy or the craftsworkers; therefuI.,.
excep-in unusual circumstances,
overtime will be worked. where unusual circuuutances
do exist, however, the
contactor will have the right to assign specinc employees
arr¿o, crews to perform
such overtime work as is ræcessary to accomplish
the job. The steward will work
when one or more members of that crafr or
work crew are required to work
overtime' In order for the Stewa¡d to work such
overtime, the steward mr¡st be
qualified to perform the work being undertaken
required by qualifications, a temporary steward
during the overtime period. If
may be appointed.

SectionT. There will be no rest periods, organizsd coffee


breaks or other non_
working tirne established during wðrking t o,"1. -

Section 8' slowdowllr¡' standby crews and featherbedding


practices will not be
tolerated.

section 9' seniority shall not be recognized or applied


to employees working on
projects rmder this Agreement.

section 10' The contractor shall establish


such reasonable project rules as the
contractor deems appropriate. These rures
will be reviewed at-the pre-job
conference and posted at the project site
by
J trr" v!
--- ðonouctor, and may be a¡nended
thereafter as necessary.
ARTICLE NINE
ssction r. Dnring *"*I::!#;K#::#if":y#n e no work srrikes,
picketing, work stoppages, slow downs
o, otn rãisrup1ive activþ for any reason by
the unior¡ its applicable Local union(s)
tt;temployee, excepr as outlined in
Article Two, section 5' 1 and 5.2, andthere "r rLu t" no
Iockout by the contractor.
Failure of any unioq Locar union(s)
or ,o .rors any picket rine
established at the Project site, except ",oproy.,
as outiined in Article Two, section 5.1 and
5.2, is a violation ofthis Article.

section 2' The union and its applicable Local


union(s) shall not sanctior¡ aid or
abet, encourage or continue any work
stoppage, ,o{kr, picketing or other
activity at the contractot t ptoj..t site disruptive
prevent or to terminate any such acfvitr.
*Ïthäí un¿ertate all reasonable means to
No employee shall ,ngug. in activities
which violare this Arricre. Any employãe
øro p"ïìfþates in or ãrrão,r*g.s any
activities which interfere withthe normal
operation of the project sha¡ be subject
discþlinary action, in9luding discharge, to
*d ifjustifiably discharged for the above
reasons' shall not be elþble for re-hile-on
t¡ríto.¡.ct for a period of not less than
ninety (90) days.
Section 3' Neither the Union nor its applicable Local Union(s)
shall be liable for
acts of employees for which it has no responsibility.
The Internâtional Union
General President or Presidents will imml¿iately
instuct, order and use the best
efforts of his office to cat¡se the Local UnionG)L
union to cease any violations of
this Article. An International Union .o.ptyini *itn
mi, obligation shall not be held
liable for unautfiot'aedacts of its Local Únion] The principaiomce
or officers of a
Local Union will immediately instuct, order and
use the best efforts ofhÍs or her
office to cause the employees the Local Union represents
to cease any violations of
this Article' A Local union complying with this
åbügation shall not be liable for
unauthorized acts ofemployees it reprcsents.
The faihne of the Contractor to
exercise its right in tty instance tttuu not be
deemed a waiver of its right ir any
other instance.

Section 4' In
þ w-en! of any work stoppage, strike picketing
or other disruptive
activity in violation of this Article, the Contrictor
may suspend all or and portion of
Project work affected by such activity and the
ðonmctor s discretion and without
penaþ.

section 5. There sha[ be no strikes, picketing, work


stoppages, slowdowns or
other disruptive actiyig the Project siie during the term of this Agreement.
lffecting
Any union or Local union(s) *tti.tt ffir-l*r oipatirþates in a work stoppage in
violation ofthis Article, or which r:c.ogryze¡
or rupporrs the work stoppage of
another union or Local union(s) which is violatioå
ofthis Article, agrees as a
remedy for said violatior¡ to pay liquidated
O"m"g., in accordance with Section 6.
section 6' In lieu of, or in addition to, any other action
at law or equity, any party
may institute the-following procedure when
a breach ofthis A¡ticle or of Article
Twelve is alleged, after the union(s) and/or
Lo.ai union(s) has been notifies of the
fact.

(a) The parry invoking this procedure shal notify


the parties agree shall be the permanent
Arbitrator under this procedr¡re. In the
event that the permanent Arbinator is unavailable
at any time, he shall appoint his
alternate' Notice to the Arbitator shall be
by trr.rnost expeditious means available,
with notice by facsirnile, telegram or any other
effective written me¿uls, to the parry
alleged to be in violation and the involved
International union president and/or
Local Union.

10
(bì receipt of said notice, the Arbitrator named
. 9pT
shall set and hold a hearing within
above
twenry-foi'ti+¡hours if it is contended that the
violation still exists.

(c) The A¡bihator sha[ notis the parties by facsimile,


telegram or any other effective written *."*, oi*r. place and time he has chosen
for this hearing. said hearing shall ur roo,ptËtø
party or parties to attend said hearing shalliot
in one session. À aiu" of any
delay the hearing of evidence or
issuance of an Awa¡d by ttre Arbitraior.

(d) The sole issue at the hearing shall be whether


or not a
violation ofthis
'{¡ticle orArticle )oI has in fi;t occr¡rred. The Award shall be
issued in writing
{thin three (3) hours ateitnr riorr of the hearing, and may be
issued without
T9ffio} *y party desires an opinion, one shall be issued
within fifteen (15) days, but Ifits issuance shall not delay compliance with,
enforcement of , the Award. The Arbitrator or
this A¡ticle' and zuch Award shall be served
r"y or¿.t cessation ofthe violation of
o"äu parties by hand or registered mail
upon issuance.

(e) such Awa¡d may be enforced by any cot¡rt


of competent
jurisdiction upon the fiting of this
Agreement and all other relevant documents
referred to hereinabove in ttt fo[owing
manner. Facsirnile or expedited mail or
personal service ofthe filing of such.úo..r.*
pro.r.dings shall be given to the
other party' In the proceeding to obtain
t.*p"-..fu order enforcing the Arbitrator s
Award as issued under section 6 ofthis "
Atti.b;;i parries waive *,ã .igtrt to a
hearing and agree that such proceedings
u. ex parte. such agreement does not
waive any parfy s right to participa^te in-y
a hearing for a final order of enforcement.
The court s order or orders enforcing trre
erbiËtor s Award shall be served on all
parties by hand or by delivery to their
last known address or by registered mail.

(f) Any rights created by statute or law governing


arbitration
proceedings inconsistent with the above-prorrá*q
or which interfere with
compliance therewitb are hereby waived
by p*ri;; ro whom they accrue.

(g) The fees and e4penses ofthe A¡binator


shalr be bome
by the party or parties found in vioùtiorl
or in the .u.n no violation is found, such
fees and expenses shall be borne
by the rrro"i"g p"rry.

11
(h) Ifthe Arbinator determines that a work stoppage
has
occurred in accordance with se91io1 6(d)
above, the union(s) and its applicable
Local union shall, within eight (s) hoù'of
rec.þt th. À;*J;direct all of the
employees they represent on the hoject "f return to
to immediately work. I the ü.ade
involved does not return to work.by tt.
U.S"dg ofthe next regularly scheduled
shift following receipt of the Arbitrator r
applicable Local union have noJ comptied
,ffi and the union(s) and/or its
wirh section
union and/or the Local union shail påy rh. r.rr;ften 3 of thiì Á¡ticle, then rhe
thousand dorlars
($10,000.00) as riquidated damages
ro the affecred owner,
additional ten thousand dollars (Cto,ooo.ooli"r ;ñ'"ll pay an
ruft for each shifr thereafter on
which the trade has not returned to work.
rf," eruit rh"ltilãi":*isdicrion ro
deterrrine compriance with this section
and section 3"tor
ofthis Article.
(Ð lfthe
Arbiûator determines that the contractor
is in violatior¡,
the contractor shail, eight (g)
tthin horns orr.ceip ofthe Award, direct the
necessary remedial acrion. If rhe Conhacror fails å tak"
action by the beginning of the next rfgularly ;h;;;;rrry remedial
scheduled shift frlt;*i"g receipt of the
Arbitrator's Award, the contractor shã[
puy tn" ,,r. of ten thousand dollars
($10'000.00) as liquidated da'ages
to the áffected orryner, and sha[ pay
additional ten thousand dollars (úo,ooõ.õtË;htft an
the remedy has been made.
for each shifr thereafter unril

section 7' The procedures contained in section


6 ttfough 6(i) shall be applicable
to alleged violatioru ofthis Article
and Articr. È1"u.r,, (section 3).
alleging violation olTy Disputes
gther provision rhir;;ement, incháing
disputes alleged.to be in jnstification, "f any underþing
.apru"ution"or mitigation of any violation of
HT"le'
shall be resolved under rh.
d;;. "a¡uoi."tion
procedr¡res of Arricle

ARTICLE TEN
secrion 1. LaborÆVf
^*r^?;io;Jffi"fltevances
(a) This Agreement is intended to provide
crose cooperation
between managefnent and labor;
therefore, ¡"i", L"borÆvfanagement
shall be forrned as soon as possible " committee
followingm. ¿ut of this Agreement. The
comminee shall exercise oversight
ofthe pt"Ã;hced *¿"imi, Agreemenr.
is empowered to resorve. any aisfute Ir
over themeaning and application
Agreement. The committeã wili schedure of the
,.g,,ì* *d periodic meetings.
12
(b) The Committee shall consist of an eqr¡al number
of Contnactor/owner
Union Representatives, not to exceed thee (3) penons
3!
union memben will represent the interesrs ofthà Áib¡¿tory
oo side. The
"*r, and the
úo*,
Contr¿ctor/owner members shall represent the interests
ofthe signatory
Contactors. owner/Contractor representatives shall
u. uppoinilîby the owner
reprcsentatives signatory to this Agreement,
and the u*o"irpt"*ntatives shall be
appointed by the signatory Building Trades representatives.

section2. The contractors, unions, ârid the employees,


collectively
and indivi yalae the importance to all parties to maintain continuots and
unintemrpted performance ofthe *g1k o{the
itoi"t, and agree to resolve disputes
in accordance with the grievance-arbitration provisions
set forth in this Article.

section 3. Any question or dispute arising orÍ of a¡rd during


the
term of this Project Agreement (õther thrt;;;
considered a grievance and subject to resolution
j,nir¿ictionaiarp,rt rl shall be
under tlt f"ld"ri;; proceú'es:

Stgp
1- (a) When any employee subjecr to the
provisions ofthis Agreement feels
he or rír"Ëuggri"rr.d by a vioration ofthis
Agreemen! he or she, tlrough his or her local
uñn bt¡siness representative orjob
steward, shall, within five (5) working
days æertrre occ.uïence ofthe violatior¡
give notice to the w-ork;site iepresentativð
ofthe involved contractor stating the
provision(s) alleged to have bèen violated.
rne ¡,¡siness representative ofthe local
union or the job steward and the work-site
rcpr.r*t"tive ofthe involved contractor
and the Project contractor shall meet
and endeavor to adjust the matter within
(3) working days- afrer timely notice three
has been giu,; The representarive of
contractor shalr keep the.mãeting minutes the
*¿1nuù respond to rhe union
representative in d|g (copying the Project contractor)
at the conclusion ofthe
meeting but not later than twenty-fow
the matter withinrtre prescribe¿ p":"gì
lzi¡tro* trr"r.after. If they fail to resolve
(48) hours therelfer, pfsuesd
,úgb"ùú parry may,within forty_eighr
2 of thec-¡.uan . hocedt¡re, provided
grievance, including a short desc'rþtion the
thereof, ttã ¿u,, on *rri.i, the grievance
occurred, and the provision(s) of the
Agreement ru.g.o to have been violated.

(b) should the Local or the project contracror or any


-union(s)
Contractor have a dispute with the other
p t;,-¿-if"ner conferring a settlement is
not reached within tl'ee (3) working
dar, tnl airputr may be re¿ucã¿ to writing
and proceed to step 2 in the same
manner as outlined herein for the adjustnent
employee complaint. of an
13
invorved c *ffi ,n"u 3!,ffffiïi'"iäî"îfri:#'åî,ff
dispute to this. second step to arrive l"ËL, r
at a satisäárory settlement thereof " "
Meeting
minutes shall be kept by the contractor.
If the parties fail to r.*r, an agreement,
ff trTi:"?,:ï:iåiïÍ,îüi:if; .ï;;;å*..;th*.ää",i",i"ist.l,
StT 3'- (a) Ifthe grievance has
been submitted br¡t not
adjusted under slep 2, eitheí patty-mairequest
in uniting within seven (7) calendar
days thereafter, that the griev;ce
upon by thern' The conhactor
ue suumiueì io * Arbit uto. mutually agreed
and the involved union,rruil
select an arbinatol
?t't
ifthey are unable to do so, they shall "tt".pt mutually to
Arbitration Associatign to ptóuia" request the American
them \ilirh; ist of arbitrators
Arbitrator shall be selected. The from which rhe
rules of the eJe¡can Arbitration
govern the conduct of the arbitration Association shall
hearing.'nt" decision orttre-eruitrator
final and binding on alr parries. Th: shall be
borne equally be the contractor F;;Lreä*.,
and the invoþJJlocal
of such Arbitration sha, be
union(s).
(b) Failure of the grieving party to
adhere to the
time limits est¿blished herein shañren{"iã;úi;;*.e
limits established herein may be n'll and void. The rime
ex"ng"d
involved at the partic.ular tt"p ""Iñy written
*rr.r" the extension is "onsent
agreed
orrn" parties
shall have the authority to måke upon. The Arbitrator
decisions-;;; issuä pÃ".:r"i ro hirn or her,
#ï:îïåÏ;*"ltiil,tiä#*î";;;hólL'n¿' ä¿¿ to or derracr from anv

4' The project contractor and owner shalr


section
be notified of alr
upon their request, be permiu;d
:,"ï"#iåÏË?,i1i.î:r:1"[, ," parricipare in

ARTICLE ELEVEN
Juris dictional Disputes

section I'The assignment of work will


be solely the responsibility
contractor performinÀ tn work of the
involved; and ,u.i work assignments
accordance with the Plan for
the settlement or¡,rrir¿i.tional
will be in
Consûuction IndusUy (the plan Disputes in the
þr any plan.
successor

14
Section 2'All jurisdictional disputes between or among
Building and
constn¡ction Trades unions and employees,
frtti.. ," trrñr-egr..i,"n' shall be
settled and adjrsted according to trr" prãs.niþun
esta¡lished by the Building and
constr¡ction T¡ades Departne{ o.l other plan or method of procedure that may
be adopted in -1ny
future-by the Buildini and cãnsmction Trades Deparrnenr.
F"
Decisions rendered shall be final, bindñrg
*Jro*rwive on the contractors and
Unioru parties to this Agreement

Section 3' AII jnrisdictional disputes shall be resolved


without the
occurrence of any strike, work stoppage,
conhactor s assigrrment shall ue adirered to
or slow-do* orrrry;*., and the
until the dispute is resolved.
Individuals violating this section shall ue
suu3ect to immediate discharge.

section 4' Each contractor will conduct a pre-job


conference with the
appropriate Building and construction
Trades cotrncil prior to commencing work.
The Project contractor and the owner
will be of all such conferences and
may participate if they wish. "J"ir.¿

ARTICLE T\ilEL\1E
Union Securíty

section l. Alr emproyees coveryd b1 this Agreemenr


now in the employ of
the conhactors sharl rJmain members
in the ri,ri", drning the term of this
Agreement' ârd all workers herefrafter
emptoyø by the contractors shall become
members of the uTo-n s-even (7) days
ut", tr,. ãate oftheir employment and shall
remain members of the union ¿*i"s
the term- oîtrris
-- *! Agreement. (ïhis claue shall
be applied to the extent permitted
by law.¡

section 2. A contractor shall not discharge any


employee for non-
membership in the union: (a) if he,
tr* r."rã*Itá gro*as for believing thar such
membership was not availabie to
9" "-ptoy..;; ih. s¿rme terms and conditions
generally applicable to other members,
believing that membership was denie¿
or $¡irilh* reasonable grounds for
or tàtí,inutr¿ for reasons other than
faih¡¡e of the employee tó tender the periodir the
required as a condition of acquiring
¿"., *¿ initiation fee uniformly
or retaining membership.

15
ARTICLE TITIRTEEN
Union Representation

section l' Authorized representatives ofthe


uniorx and their Local unions
shall have access to the hó¡ect,.provided
ttrey Jo not interfere with the
employees an4 fi'¡rther p*"i¿"¿, work of the
that suffirlsenatives ftlly
visitor and secnrity rules estabristre¿ comply with the
r"itn d"i..t.
section 2. Each union which is a par{y to
this Agreemenf or its applicabre
Local unior¡' tþ! have the right to àesignate a
workingjoumeyman as a steward.
such designated stewa¡d tttuu-u. u q*rftãJ**r.",
craft and shall.not exercise any supervisory perfomring the work of that
functions. Each stJwa¡d shall be
concerned with the emproyees
of his o, hei o*r L.ptoyer and
employees ofany other employer. not with the

Section3' wrrere the owner s personnel


close proximity to the construction
r"y be working on the project in
representatives' stewards, and
activiti.ñ. urrions agree that union
individual *orL,n.n will not-interfere
in roy rnanner
or with tr'. *or[*r,i.h i,
b"i"s;;rr";d
ä*$:3ffil"iîonnel by the

o"Tt:"lEorvaRrEEN

section 1' The standard work day shall


consist of eight (g) hours of work
7:00a'and 5:3þm wiüt one-half between
standard work
hour ili ;ias an unpaid period for lunch.
contracror and {1vs hor'rs may be changed lyo-Lr consent by and berween rhe
y::" part_iesiignatory
to this Agreement. The standard
week shall five (5) days of worËcommencing work
Nothing herein shalr be construed oriMonday *J.;di"g on Friday.
work per day or forty (40) hours "r
gr-;Ë.;;"ny .rptoyee eiehr (g) hours of
of wãrk p.i*rJlr.
section 2' AnY^employee reporting for
work and for whom no work is provided
shall receive p"{ (z) rrår¡rs trr. appticaute
has been notified Pt-*" ?l rare for so reporring r¡nless he
before trt"
the proper authoritier.lot to "*¿
orrritrr"iirr;;g shifr or before he left home by
report. r.rg r.roni"g p"y is due
was absent the preceding *ott to an employee who
day unless'he haã'notified the
desire to be absent' fut/ctafrt"ãl.e(r) contractor ofhis
provided and starts ruorl shail
*rt" .rp"i
-ti"n- ro, work and for whom work is
receiu. not t.r, rour (4) hours pay at the
16
applicable rate, and if such craftrvorker
is required to continue work after four (a)
hours' he shall receive eight (s) hgurs pay
aritr applicable rate, except thar if the
craftrvorker is not put to work or is hiä
ótr¿u. to weather conditions, he shall be
paid a minimr¡nn of two (2) hours ofactual
time on the job site. The provisions of
the Section are applicable wrrery.ü:
1ot volunrarily quirs or lays offor is
out by reason of¿.strike' o1¿ùs provided dnt"tàe
i" Åttirr. Fourteeq section 3 of this
Agreemen! in which case he rh"n u. p"i¿
ø, tt L ach¡al time worked.
section 3' It will not be a violation ofthis Agreement
when the contractor
considers it necessary to shut down-to
thi possible loss ofhrunan life because
of an emergency situation that could "yoid
*dan8;tË üf" and safety of an employee. In
such cases' employees will be compensateJonly
for the actual iime worked. In the
case of a sitr¡ation described above
whereuy tnãcontractor requests employees
"st¿nd by", the employees will be paid for to
the ,,stand by* time.

shifts may be established when considered.necessary


#;. by the
(a) shifr hor¡rs and rates will be as fotows:

Firstshifr: t¡eT (!) trgurs pay for eight (g) hours prts
%hour
unpaid ft¡nch period.

second shift E:*, (g) ho'rs pay eight (g) hours worked prus
Yzhow unpaid lurch {or
period. In addition,
¡-
employees shall receive a ten(10)
percent premium
on the hourly wage.

(b) where three (3) shifts are est¿blished,


the first and second shifrs
shall be compensated as set forth
pay for seven (7) hor'ns worked pl,s.%,ho*
"-bou..
r¡.
t¡irJ snin srran recei,,re eight (g) houn
premium of nventy (20) percentïn il;r*.rt
period and shall receive a
the houd| *A;
shifr shall be established and conrinue
for a minimum
consecuriu" orlr. of five (5)

(d) Ifonly two shifts are to be worked, the


contractor rnay regulate
starting times of the two shift operations
daylighr hours.
to p.r-iit"
-ar,i-um utilization of

17
section 5' Recognized holidays shall be as follows:
Nav year,s day, Memorial
Døy, July Fourth, Labor Døy, irrtrry^,
Dry ("pn",ar), Thanksgiving Day, the day
afre' Thanksgtvíng, and chi¡stmas Dry.
uå¿Lr no ciróumsaor.î shall any work
perfornned on Labor Day excepting be
in ó*.r or.r.rgenjy involving life
In the event a holiday falls on a sruraa¡ orproperty.
tn rouã*ing Monday shall be observed as
the holiday' m:t lolidays shall be holorea in keeping with Federal Law. rhere
shall be no paid holidays.- If employe.,
receive the appropriate overtime rate
* tî**¿ ro-work on á t ou¿ay, they shalr
as established in the Local collective
Bargaining Agreements, but in no case
shan such overtime be morie than doubre
staight time. the

section 6' Hotidays in lieu ofthose reported in


section 5 above may be
established by agreement of the
Labor&ianage;; committee and installed at
Contractofs projects. rhe

section7 wtr-enþ five day, eight (g) hou work


week is in effect, forty (40)
hours per week shall constin¡tå
*.trï"*,
in the event the job is down fot "rtw
rrr"r¿ay through Frida¡ inclusive.
r.ason beyond the contractot's control,
saturday rnay, at the option ofthe then
conor.tot, i" worked as a makeup day; straight
time not to exceed eight (8) hours
orforty t¿ol rr",* per week. Individuals
receiving a forty (40) hor,' work weeþ not
scheduled for saturday for ress
t"ì*t-*"ugh Frida¡ will not be
fu-.tgh, (g) h",^. ar no,rr"ir,.*..r, of fo4y
(40) hours per wegk will be paid
at the-ratè árri-. and one-halfl
shall be perforrned on a votuntary saturday work
basis.

section 8' Eight(s)


lous per day shall constirure a sþnda¡d work day and forty
(40) hours per weeþ Monday
tltoirgrt F id"t, rh.il consrih¡te a regular
work' A designated o1e-hali1¡ rto¡,, week,s
ylgaid lunchperiod shall be scheduled ar the
midway point of the scheduleà wort
shift.

t8
ARTICLE FIFTEEN
Subcontractíng

subconüactors will sr¡bcontnact-any work


to be done on the hoject except to a
peñ¡orl firm or corporation who is
or agrees to become party to this Agreement.
Any contnactor or subconûractor tro*irt
oo,n" no¡ect shall, as a condition to
working on said Project become rigr"t;t
ofthis Agreement.
ilãã p"rr"t- all work under rhe rerms

ARTICLE SDffEEN
Safety and Heahh

section l' Employees must use diligent care perform


to their work in a safe
Illrinner and to protect themselves and-the
property- oftheir Fai¡¡re to do
so may result in immediate dismissal. "*a;;r.
section 2. In order to protect the safety and heatth
of erqployees, alr
parties 4gree to comply with the
regulations relating to job safety,
gnrjgarir"pÑJo* of state and federal laws and
nðua
specific Project safety rures p.rúíirn"a
*d*r" *ort practices, as well as those
btrr,.-pr"ject contractor.
section 3' At the discretion ofthe owner, the contractor
may institr¡te a
reasonable substa¡rce abuse policy
whichr,;ñ4rde pre-hire, reasonable cause,
and post-accident testing.

section 4' It shall be the exclusive responsibility


of each contractor to
assure safe working conditions
ør rp-emnr"y.*äg compriance by them
safety rules contained herein or with any
established út rrrJon*ctor.
Agreement will make the union or Notling in this
any of its Lcal unior¡s liable ;;
or to otherperso* in the event trrat
inj'ry o, * employees
occun¡.
"..i¿"n

19
ARTICTE SEVENTEEN
General Sæings Clause

Ifany futicle orprovision ofthis Agrcement


inoperative or unenfot shall be decla¡ed invalid,
i.br" by any competent authority ofthe executive,
legislative' j'dicial or adminisn ti"r branch of tne re¿eral
the hoject contractor or any state government,
and the union.hdÑñJthe
provision durÍr€ the period ofits operation of such Article or
invalidity *årn"ll rubstitr.üe by mtrnral
its place and steaj' consent, in
T.{d:le oiprovision whict r"il meer the objections
validity and which will be in accórd to its
with the intent and pupose of the Article
provision in question Any final or
determination that any provision
violates any law or is othenvis" of this Agreement
not uinainjana e#orceable, shall
the validþ ofthe remaining prouirio* have no effect on
orñis ffiment.

ARTICLE EIGIITEEN
Term of Agreement

This Agreement shall þs effective


as of the
20-' and shall remain in fi¡lt r"t __ the day of
Project construction describe¿ - -*
"-*¿i#fi*i"g enrire period ofthe
arti"l"
in . Section_, hereof.
This Agreement may be amended
or supplemented onry by the mt¡tual
consent of the parties hereto,
reduced to ,*itd;"ä a,rry signed by eactr.
tn wiure;lwhereof, the parties have
executed this Agreement this
Day of .20

20
ATTACHIVTENT A

All conhacton of whatever tier (except those constmction


contractors who have
directlysigned the Agreement) shall execr¡te the iollowing
Letter ofAssent prior to
conmencing work:

(C onhactor Lettertread)
(Nasre of Ovmer)
Office of Owner Representative
Attn:
Re: C onstn¡ction Proj ect Agreement
Dear Sin
Pursr¡ant to Article II, section r, paragraph
3, ofthe above-reference
Agreement, the undenigned contractor¡ereby
comply with all terms and conditions of said þ", that it will be bor¡rd by and
ñ*¡-." Labor Agreement, and any
amendments thereto.
This Letter ofAssent will remain in effect
for the duration ofthe Agreement,
and any extensions, after which thisyrdgrstanding
will automatically terminate,
except as provided for in Articre II, section
6, ofãre Agreement
Sincerely,
(Na¡ne of Contractor or
Subcontactor)
By:
Tirle:

21
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF \ryEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

cERT,rrlcArry of S4RVIçE
The undersigned counsel for the West Virginia State Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, certifies that service of the foregoing Prepared Direct
Testimony of Danvin L. Snyder has been made by depositing a truè and exact copy
thereof in the u.s. Mail, postage prepaid, on the 3d day of septemb er,2009 to the
following:

Christopher L. Callas, Esq.


Stephen N. Chambers, Esq.
Jackson Kelly PLLC
1600 Laidley Tower
P. O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322

Auville, Esq.
John
WV Public Service Commission
201 Brooks Street
P.O. Box 812
Charleston, WV 25323

Bradley W. Stephens, Esq.


Stephens Law Office, PLLC
235 High Street
#51 8 Monongahela Building
Morgantown, WV 26505

The Law Office of Vincent Trivelli, PLLC


178 Chancery Row
Morgantown,'Wv 26505
(304) 29t-s223
Applrcatron Actrvrtres Page I ot I
tå -Erãñ-
A Áìt\ia¿r,cs
Appl ication Milestones Ë'q
=
H
PINNACLE WIND FORCE LLC
New NPDES Storm Water Construction WVRI04335
(14) Application Milestones Completed
OFFICE MILESTONE DATE COMMENT
Application Received /
OWR 03t17t2009 Application created by CLTAYLOR
lnitiated
Admin. Corr lntermission topo map and lat and long needed for
OWR 03t26t2009
Begin ponds.
Admin. Corr lntermission
OWR 04108t2009
End
Administratively Comp.
OWR 04t08t2009
Letter Sent
SWAdministratively
OWR 04t08t2009
Complete

OWR Other lntermission Begin Consultant will be submitting revised


04t09t2009
plans before review.
OWR Other lntermission End 0411512009 Revised applications rec'd.

OWR Other lntermission Begin Technicall corrections sent by email to


06t12t2009
applicant and preparer.
OWR Other lntermission End 09t11t2009 Response rec'd.

OWR Other lntermission Begin Technical Corrections sent by email to


09i30/2009
applicant and preparer,
OWR Other lntermission End 10r09t2009 Response rec'd.

OWR Other lntermission Begin Additional technical corrections sent by


10t14t2009
email.
OWR Other lntermission End 10t20t2009 Revisions rec'd.
OWR Draft Permit Prepared 10t20t2009

{9) Application Milestones St¡ll Required


OFFICE MILESTONE
OWR Permit Fees AllCurrent
OWR FinalAction (lssued)
OWR Public Notice Letter Sent
OWR PCS Review at Draft
OWR PCS Review before lssue
OWR Public Notice Date
OWR Draft Permit Approved
OWR End of Public Comment Period
OWR PN Affadavit Received

http://www.wvdep.org/lVebApp/_dep/search/Applications/activities.cûn?application_id:... l0lnn\\g
I
a .{tt.r".¿¿
å Lo
ô
et
zu
G

'-:;
€:'

cfeË
sf.,\'l'E ot" \\1851' \'lRG I \- t.\
D E I'A R'I i\'I lìN]' O Ir EN V I IION Nl li N1'¡\ I . PRO'|- IìC'l' I O)i
DIYISION OF \\'Å'TETì ,\ND \\',\STII II,\\.\(;ETIE\'T'
601 57lh Strcct SE
Charlesto¡r. W\/ 25304-23.15

F.\CT SI'l EET. R¡\'fl()\..\LE ;\\ t) l\F()lì\,fA'f ION I-Oll


(ìENER;\L NPDES PERivllT IrOR CONSl'RUCl'lON STORVIWi\]'Elì

This fact sltcct explai¡rs the r:cu, Constructiolr Stor¡rlu'atcr(ìcneral I'cntrit \,V\/011592.1, issuerl
trrl Novcnlbcr -j. 2t107.

l. NÅil'IE ¡\ND ÂDDIIESS ()F;IPPLIC¡\N'l'

An a¡l¡rlicartt is arty cstal'¡lislrnrenl \\,ith eliscliarges conrposcd e¡llirclr, of' stontì\\'¿ttr:r


associated u'ilh irtdu.stt'ial activity (constructiorr) agrcciltg to bc regulated unrlcr the tcnns ol'tlris
Gctlcr¿il Pcrrnit (crcc¡rt as ntrlcd hcrci¡l). ('oustruclion astivilies arc, detj¡re-tl as ll¡ltl rlisturbing
opt-rt'atiotts such as gmbbirrg. gradirrg ancl c.xcar,¿rtilrg opr:rutitrns cluring sitc devcltlp¡ltent I'or
resitlclrtial. crl¡trmsrci¿tl or irtdustri¡l ¡rurpo.scs rxccpt lìrr o¡rcr:rtions thtt rcsull in thc tlisturllance
crt' lcss tiratl olle acrc of trltal l¿rntl ürca rvhich irrç llùl ¡rarl ot' ¿ larger Lìorìlìl()r1 pllrr rif
clcveltl¡rmctll or salu. A coulnron plan of dcr,clopnrcrrt is a contigu{)us colts{¡'uetion ¡rrojcct n'llere
nrulti¡rle separate anrl tlistillct construction lctir.itics rì'ts)' be taking ¡rlacc at difleru¡rt lilncs on
dilìL'rcnt schcclulcs trut un<ìcr one ¡:i¡rr. inclutling ¡lost subclir isions.

2. GI|NER'\t- WY/)jI'DES l,nR\ll'l' \0: \\r\/01 1 592J

3. CIOU|(TY: Any \VV cor:nry lìIÌCI MNG S'f RE.,1,i\,I : An\' \\1V strc¿un

{. PLiIILIC (lo}I}lliNT I}tìt{IoD I.'Ito}I J_Lrlrjl-2,0Q?'t'o Septc¡nbcr.t. 2007

5. SICr CODI|: l7

ú. D tiSCRI l''[tON O IÌ AI]I'1, I C.t I'l"S F;\Cl I LIT\' ()R r\C'|'IVI'I'Y :

Thc aetivitics ancl tacilirics u'ill be r.arictl.


FACT SHEET
WV/NPDES PERMTT No. WVOI 15924
Page 2 of l3

7. DESCRIPTION OF DISCIIARGES:

Earthmoving and grading projects create conditions where accelerated erosion can cause
large quantities of soil to be deposited into the sfteams and rivers of the state. The lack of
vegetatioq steepening of slopes, insreased runoff, decreased infiltration, and other ill effects of
constn¡ction can cause a 1,000-fold increase in the rate of erosion over præxisting conditions.
The erosion rates on construction sites can run into the hundreds of tons per acrc. By volume,
sedims¡t is the nr¡nrber one pollutant in the state's uraters and degrades more miles of stream that
any other po¡lutant.

8. BACKGROT]ND

Tllre 1972 Amendments to the feder¿l Water Pollution Control Act (referred to as the
Clean'lVater Act or CWA), prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge is authorized by an NPDES permit. Efforts to improve water
quality under the NPDES program traditionally and primarily focused on reducing pollutants in
discharges of industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage.

However, as pollution control measures were initially developed for these discharges, it
became evident that more diffi¡se sources (occurring over a wide area) of waterpollution, such as
agricultural and urban runofi, are also major causes of water quality problems. Somc so-called
diffi¡se sourc€s of wat€r pollution, such as agricultural stormwater discharges and irrigation
return flows, are statutorily exernpted from the NPDES prog¡am.

Since the enactnrent of the 1972 amstdments to the CWA, considering the rise of
economic activíty and population, significant progress in controlling water pollution has been
made, particularly with regard to industial process wastewater and municipal sewage.

The "National Water Quality Inventory," 1988 rçort to Congress provided a general
assessment of water quality that concluded pollution from diftse sources is a serious problern.
Runofffrom agriorltural, urban sreas, constn¡ction sites, land disposal, and resource extraction is
cited by the states as thc leading cause of water quality impairment.

The states conducted a more comprehensive stutiy of diffi¡se pollution sourc,es under the
sponsorship of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIIMPCA) and the EPA, which indicated that urban ru'loff, is a major cause of beneficial use
impairment.

This te¡rd has continued almost unabated. Recent studies (Metropolitan Council of
Governments, EPA, states, and others) have shown that urban runoff from all sor¡rces severely
impacts water quality and limits designated uses of the waters of the United States. Studies by
the Watershed Assessment Section of the Division of Water and Waste Managemørt have
daermined that sediment is the number one source of water quality impainnerrt in rgVest Virginia.
Sediment moderately to heavily impacts approximately 70o/o of the state's waterwa)4s. One of the
largest sources of sediment is constuction activities,
FACT SHEET
!W/ì.¡PDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924
Page 3 of l3

The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 contained provisions that specifically addressed
stoflnwater discharges. Section (p) was added to the stormwater discharge provision Section 402.
Section 402û)X4XA) required the EPA to promulgate final regulations goveming stormwater
permit application requirernents for stormwater dischargcs assosiated with industial activity and
diseharges from large municipal separate stormwater s)rstems. In response to lawsuits filed by
the Natr¡ral Resource Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA finally published regulations on
Novernber 16, 1990. West Virginia's first stormwater general permit was based on this rule. In
early 1992, the EPA published additional information that changed some of the standards,
particularly in relation ûo constlruction. The state's previous construction stormwater general
permits closely mirrored the EPA's permit exc€pt the federal permit's higher minimum
disturbance th¡eshold was lowered to three acres.

The NRDC again sued the EPA on several issues, one gelrnane to this permit. NRDC
contended, a¡nong other items, that the five-acre limit for constn¡ction site distt¡rbance was
arbitrary and capricious and should be rethought. The court agreed, telling the EPA to come up
with a new and lower disnxbance threshold. In 1999, the EPA published the new rule for Phase
II of the Stormwater General Permit in the Federal Register, and among other things, lowered the
disturbance threshold to one acre, meetíng the intent of the court ruling on NRDC's lawsuit.

9. GENERAL

The Division of Water and Waste Management, through its permitting system, is
responsible for ensuring that wastewaters are identified, receive adquate treatment and are
disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations. Usually this requires an individual
permit based on a thorough review of the facility processes and the constituents of iæ waste
stream. The issuance of an individual pe'nnit for any facility is a resource intensive and time
consuming procçss for both the permitting agency and the industry.

All parties recognize the immensþ of the problern of issuing individual pcrmits for the
large nurnber of anticipated new sites throughout the state; hence, such permitting is currently
too resource intensive.

For these reasons, the Division of Water and Waste Manageinent has decided to utilize a
general ïW/NPDES permit. The Division of rWater a¡rd lVaste Management assumed primacy
for the NPDES Program ûom the EPA in 1982. Under4TCSRI0-13.6 of the Legislative Rules, a
general perrrit can be used to regulate either separate storm sewen or a category ofpoint sources
other than separate storm sewersi if the sources all:

a. Involve the same or substantially similar t¡pes ofoperations;


b. Discharge the same t1çes of wastes;
Require the same effluent limitations or op€rating conditions;
d. Require the same or similar monitoring; and
In the opinion of the Director, sre more appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under individual permits.
FACT SHEET
WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924
Page 4 of 13

About 370 constn¡ction sites per ye¿¡r have been permitted over the last 14 years. The
general pernit procÆss has prove,n to be a very efficient mechanism to cover consùr¡ction-related
activiti€s. It is proposcd to continue the use of a general p€rmit for these facilities.

10. COVERAGE T'NDER THE GENERAL PERMIT

The general permit proposes to provide coverage for any discharges composd entirely of
stormwåter associated with industial (constnrction) activity and agreeing to be regulated under
the terms of the general permit except for:

l. Operations that result in the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area,
which is not part of a larger common plan of development or sale.

2. Stormwater discharges associated with land disturbing activities that may


reasonably be expected to be causing or contributing to a violation of a
water quality standard as determined by the Director.

3. Land disn¡rbing activities governed by other NPDES permits issued by the


Departnrent of Environmental Protection. This includes Division of Mining and
Rsclamation permits for coal mining and non-metallic quanies.

4. Landfills, except in the preparation of a new landfill, landfill trea[nent


facilities and/or borrow areas.

5. Other activities exempt from NPDES permitting requirements as set forth


in 40CFR122.3 and 47CSR10.3.2.b.

6. L¿nd disturbing activities related to oil and gas activitiqs as required by the
Enerry Policy Act of 2005. These activities include constn¡ction of drilling sites,
waste management pits, and access roads, as well as construstion of the
transportation and treabnent infrastructure, such as pipelines, nah¡ral gas
treatrsnt plants, natural gas pipeline comprÊssor stations, and crude oil pumping
stations. Construction activities that result in a discharge of a rçortable quantity
release or that conEibute pollutants (other than non-contaminated sediments) to a
violation of a water quality standard are still subject to permit coverage.

Determination of the disturbed area is made by totaling all disturbed area directly related
to construction of the entire project. Offsite waste (excluding sales of topsoil to individuals) and
borrow sites arc insluded in the total disturbance unless borrow sites are commercial quarries and
regulated by the Division of Mining and Reclamation.

For subdivisions, the total disturbed area is calculated by adding up all disturbances
related to the installation of utilities, construction of sediment control facilities, building of roads
and other infrash¡cture. Phased projects that disturb less than one acre in each phase but will
evenrually disturb more than one acre with all phases will need to register under this permit.
FACTSHEET
WV/NPDES PERMT No. WV0l 15924
Pagc 5 of 13

ConsEuction of singls family reside¡¡ces by the homæwner or homeowner's conEactor


reguiring land distu¡tances less than ttree acres in sÞe are provided coverage under the General
\4/V/NPDES Water Pollution Contol Pۖrrit and do not require application for regisration.
However, all other terms and conditions of the Gcneral \\w|NPDES Water Pollution Control
P€rmit still apply €fi,c€pt for thc Notice of Ter¡nination requirenrent

For minor ænstn¡ction activities (one to less than tbree acres) a simpler program exists.
These minor l¡nd disturùing activities æe required to zubmit a Noticc of lnte¡rt (NOÐ forrr prior
to commencing consûnrction. TheNOI is a simplified application form. A Storrrwater Pollution
Prsve,ntion Plan (SWPPP) still nesds to be dwclope{ kept onsitc, and made available for review
by DEF personnel. A project that distr¡rbs one to less than tluee acres but will have consüuc'tion
astivit¡es one ycar or longer must file a Site Registration Application Form.

Sites approved ûrom Januar¡r l, 2@6 tbrougþ Novcnrber 4 2OO7 , are hereby granted
coverage under Gerreral WV/NPDES Water Pollution Gontrol P€finit rWVOl 15924. Sites approved
prior to January l,zAM, will have until June 30, 2008, to have fin¡l s¡¿þi¡¡za¡¡oo completcd. Final
stabilization mea¡rs distuH areas shall be covered by the appmpriate permanart protcc'tion, Final
stabilization includes pavemcnt, buildings, stable waterwa¡rs (riprap, æncrÊte, grass or pipe), a
healthy, vigomus stand ofperennial grass th¡t r¡niformly oov€rs at least 70 percent ofthe ground,
stable outlet channels with velocity dissþation whictr dirccts siæ r¡¡noffto a natural watcrcourse,
and any otlrer appmved stn¡cturÊ ormaterial. Ifthese sites are not stabilized by Jrne 30, 2@8, an
application to receive p€rmit coverage wilt be requirÞd to be submited to the Division ofWater
and ltr/aste Managernent on or before July l, 2@8.

I l. MONTTORING REQITIREIìIENTS
Monitoring is not requirad rmless requested by the Director. C,onstn¡ction activities are
usually of short duration, le*s than one year, and the pollutant associatd with constn¡ction is
primcily sediment The measures r¡sed to minimize pollution for land disturting activities are
preventative i.a, best manAger¡reirt practiccs (BMPs) and are not zubject to effluent limits.

12.1YHEN TO APPLY

T\e application for consEuction activities requiring cov€úage must be submittd at least
45 days prior to shrting the projecf exc€pt as follows. Pnojects with three acres or greater
dish¡rbance that disc,hargc to or npstneam of Tiec 2.5 or Tisr 3 watcrq or with 100 or greatcr
acræ of disturbance, or with an initial gading construction ehasË of one yetr or great€r, must be
submiued at least 90 days prior to start of conskuction in order to allow time for the public
notice proccdrua MÍnor construction projecæ Qess than tlnee acres) not discharging to or
upsüeam of Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters must only zubmit thc NOI form l0 da¡'s prior to initiation
of consfuction A project that distr¡¡ùs one to less than threc acres but will have constnrction
aæivities one year or longer must file a Site Registration Ap'plication Fomr.
FACT SHEET
ItrV/NPDES PERMff No. WVOI 15924
Page 6 of 13

13. SECTION.BY.SECTION RATIONALE

Section A. Terms of Permit

This section of the permit establishes discharge limitations. Since constn¡ction activities are
normally short term, sampling is not required unless requested by the Director.

Section B. Schedule of Compliance

Compliance with this General Permit and the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(including the sequence of events) is required upon the beginning of the construction project.

Section C. Management Condition

This section is boileqplate language essentially extrâcted from Title 47, Series l0 of the West
Virginia Legislative Rules. These rules establish that ev€ry NPDES permit contains certain
standard conditions. A reference to Title 47, Serics I l, Section 9 of the rtrest Virginia Iægislative
Rules was included that requires that outlet rnarkers be posted. Outlet markers wõuld be -
required only during the time of active permit coverage.

Section D. Operation and Maintenance

This section is boilerplate language essentially exkacted from Title 4?, Series l0 of the ïVest
Virginia lægislative Rules.

Sætion E. Monitoring and Reporting

Unless directed by the Director of the Division of Water and T¡lVaste Managernent monitoring will
nat be required. Reports will be maintained in accordance with and as reqoirø in Section
G'4'e'2.C.vi. In addition, several new definitio¡rs are included which relate to the stonnwater
permitting program.

Section F. Other Re,porting

This section is boilerplate language essentially extacted from Title 47, Series l0 of the West
Virgínia Legislative Rulec.

SætionG. OtherRequirønents

This section ericompasses the requirernents specific to the stormwåtsr permitting program and
those sites subject to regulation under the gerreral permit.

G.l This paragraph simply deprcts the sifi¡ations for which theDirector mayrequire a facility
covered by the permit to be covered by a different permit or wheir such facilitymay
approach the Director on its own initiative to obtain corr€rage by a different pcrmii
FACT SHEET
\ryV/MDES PERMIT No. rilV0l 15924
Page 7 of 13

G.2. Prohibition of non-stormwater discharges. Also, a section was added notifing the
developer that an Underground Injection tü/ell Permit is required if discharging
stormwater into a sinlú¡ole.

G.3. This paragraph details that stormwater discharges from a project cannot contain
hazardous zubstanses.

G.4. This section details the requirernents of the SWPPPs that must be developed for each
facility covered by the general permit.

This general permit establishes minimum standa¡ds of practices (best management practices) for
specific situations rather than specific effluent lirnitations for stormwater discharges- This means
the quality of the discharges must meet I best managernent practice requirement that represents
the minimum level ofcontrols. This permit allows the meeting of water quality standards with
the proper installation of the minimum standards set forth in the permit and instn¡ctions. The
application and plans detailing the permittee's schedules and intended best managernent practices
must be submitted for approval as detailed in paragraph 12 above. Compliance with the plan
must begin immediately as detailed in the SWPPP.

The development and implernentation of the SWPPP is one of themost important parts of
this permit and is critical to thc successful control of stormwater pollution. The SWPPP rnust be
modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct specific
problems identified. These adaptive managsment requirements are designed to result in permit
compliance and prevent stormwater discharges that could cause a violation of state water quality
standards. The S1VPPP musÉ also be modified wheneverthere is a change in design,
construction, op€ration, or maintenance at the constn¡ction site that has, or could have, a
significant effest on the diseharge of pollutants to waters of the state.

All NPDES pennittees are required to develop a Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP). For
construction sites, the areas of concern will be equipment maintenance yards, including fueling
and refireling areas, and produot storage facilities. GPPs should address groundwater protection,
and maintqnancs. A ge.neric GPP for construction-related activities has bee¡r developed and is
available upon request from the Division of lVater and Waste Managønenl The GPP must be
developed and kept onsite.

G.4.b. This section details the timeframe an application must be submitted. This section also
includes the requirements for the public notice sign.

G.4.c. This section details when the STVPPP must be modified.

G.4.d. This section details general managsrnent conditions including preventive maintenance,
good houseke€ping and spill prevention and response. Probably the most common
rea¡¡on for failure of constn¡ction site etosion control devices (BMPs) is inadequate
maintenance. If BMPs are properly construsted, but not properly or frequently
FACT SHEET
WV/MDES PERMIT No. lryvOl 15924
Page I ofl3

rnaintained, verylittle beneñt may be exp€cted. Newly installed devices will perform as
initially expected until their capacity is exceedd. Silt fences, for example, should be
maintained before the material that accumulates behind them becomes excessive. More
ímportantly, the integrity of the fences needs to be checked frequently. Many silt fences
at constn¡ction sites are undermined or b¡passed because of large flows or large sediment
accumulations. Sedimentation basins, silt traps, etc., need to be cleaned frequently. The
cleaning frequency of these devices located in areas undergoing constnrction should be
quite high because of the very large discharges of sediment from constn¡ction sites. Rill
or gully erosion must be correctod immediately when first observed. During each
inspectioq the person conducting the inspoction should document whether the BMP is
performing correctly any damage to the BMP since the last inspection, and what should
be done ûo repair the BMP if damage has occurred. The housekceping and spill
preverrtion and res¡ronse requirement is intended to prevent the discharge of trash,
chernicals and other polluting materials from the site.

G.4.e, This section details what must be included in the site description section, the erosion and
sediment conFol section, the stormwater management control section and other control
section ofthe SIVPPP.

Site descrintion section- Development projects must be phased or sequenced in order to


minimize the amount of exposed soil at any one time and prevent the transport of
sediment from the site during construction. Constr¡ction sequencing cån be an effective
tool for erosion and sediment control because it ensures that management practices are
insalled where nec€ssary and when appropriate. A comparison of sedime,nt loss from a
t)rpical development and from a comparable phased project showed a 42 percent
reduction in sediment export in the phased project (EPA, 2OO2). As discuss€d previously,
permittees are required to evaluate BMP performance. Based on the results of inspections
and monitoring remedial actioos must be implernented, documented and reported in
accordance with specifi c timeframes.

The purpose of stabilizing entrances to constn¡ction sites is to minimize the amount of


sediment and mud being tracked offsite by motorized vehicles. lnstalling and maintaining
a pad of gravel over filter cloth where constn¡ction traffic leaves a site can help stabilize
the entrance. As a vehicle drives over tl¡e gravel pad, mud and other sediments are
loose,ned and removed from the vehicle's wheels therebyreducing the offsite transport of
sedime,nt. The gravel pad also reduces mechanic¿l e¡osion and prwents the formation of
muddy wheel ruts, which ca¡r be a source of "track-out". The ñlter fabric reduces the
amount of nrtting caused by vehicle tires by spreading the vehicle's weigþt over a larger
soil area than just the tire $'idth. The filter fabric also separates the gravel from the soil
below, preventing the gravel ûom being ground into the soil. Limiting eonskuction site
acoess to one point minimizes the surface area that could be affected by tracked out mud
and sediment from construction mffic.

The predevelopment and post-development peak discharge rates for a one year, 24hour
storm in cubic feet per second.
FACT SHEET
WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924
Page 9 ofl3

This section also details what is required on the site maps.

9ontols- The dufflayer, native topsoil and natural vegetation must be retained in an undisturbcd
state to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement is partly based on the fundarnental
principle that vegetation is the most effective form of erosion control. Vegetation reduces runoff
volume, reduces flow velocity, filters srspended sediment, absorbs the erosive energy of falling
raindrops, and retains soil stn¡cture. In areas where soils have been disturbed or exposed during
constn¡ction activity, tirnely pennanent seeding is appropriate in areas whe¡ç p€rmanent, long-lived
vegetative cover is the most practÍcal or most effective method of stabilizing the soil. Vegetation
controls erosion by protecting bare soil surfaces fircm displacement by raindrop impacts and by
reducing the velocity and quantity of ovcrland flow. The advantages of seeding over other means of
establishing plants include lower initial costs and labor inputs. Seeding that produces a successfr¡l
stand of grass has been shown to remove benveen 50 and 100 percent of totat suspended solids from
stonnwaterrunoff, with an average removal of 90 percent (EPA 2O0Z).

Sodding is a permanent erosion control practice that involves laying a continuous cover of grass
sod on exposed soils. In addition to stabl[zing soils, sodding can reduce the velocity of
stormwater runoff. Sodding can provide immdiate vegetative cover for critical areas and
stabilize areas that cannot be vegetated by seed. [t can also stabilize channels or srvales that
convey concentrated flows and reduce flow velocities. Sod has been shown to remove between
98 and 99 percent of total suspended solids in runofi and is considered a highly effective best
managem€nt practice (EPA 20OZ). Mulching is a temporary erosion contol practice in which
mâterials such as hay, wood chips, wood fibers, or straw are placed on exposed or recently
planted soil surfaces. Mulching is hightyrecommended as a stabilization method and is most
effective when anchored in place until vegetation is well established. Mulching can also reduce
the velocity of stormwater runoff. l#hen usd in combination with seeding or planting, mulching
can aid plant growth by holding seeds, fertilizere, and topsoil in place, bypreventing birds from
eating sceds, by retaining soil moisn¡re, and by insulating plant roots against extreme temperatures.

Sedimentcontrol systems create conditions that allow for the settlernent of soil particles that are
suspended in stormwaterrunoff. Sediment containment systerns (sedimørt trapJand sediment
basins) are hydraulic controls that function by modifring the storm-runoffhydrograph and
slowing water velocities. This allows for thç settling and deposition of suspended particlas by
gravity.

Sediment traps are appropriate where the contributing drainage area is five acres or less.

Sediment basins are generally larger and more effective in retaining sediment than temporary
sediment traps and t1çically rernain active throughout the construction period. A sediment basin
must be used where the contributing drainage area is greater than five asres. Sedimcnt basins
must cont¡ol the discharge in order to dewater the wet storâge volume between 48 and 72 hours.
In addition, the safety of embankmsrt stnrctures requires the outlets to safely pass the peak
discharge from 25-year 24-how storm.
FACT SHEET
WVñIPDES PERMTI No. tilV0 I I 5924
Page l0 of 13

The permit requircs sediment traps and sediment basins to be sizd for 3,ó00 cubic feet per acre
of watershed draining to that struch¡r€, half of which is dry storage and half of which is wet
storage. The permit also states that, baning impossible site conditions, all projects will utilizg to
the extent practicable, sediment taps or sediment basins and diversions.

The SWPPP should address the steepness of cut-and-fill slopes and how the sþcs will be prorecrd
ftom runoft, stabilized and maintained. Berms, diversions, and other stormwater practices that
rËquire excavation and filling should also be incorporated into the grading plan.

Rock outlet struch¡res placed at the outfall of channels or culverts reduce the velocþ of flow in the
receiving channel to non-erosive rates. This practice applies where discharge velocitie and energies
at the outlets of culverts are sufficient to erode the next downstream reach and is applicable to outlets
of all t¡çes such as sediment traps, sediment basins and eulverts.

Sediment-laden ìilater is not allowed to leave a site without going through an appropriate device.

Hayand straw bales arc not accÊptable BMPs.

Antidegradation review is addressed in the General Peirnit for Conskustion Stormwater. The
legislaturg in codiSing the Antidegradation Polic¡ eliminated general permit registrations from
antidegradation revíew exc€pt in Tier 2.5 and Tier 3 waters. Howwer, general perrnits must go
th¡ouglt antidegradation review during the issuance./reissr¡ance process. Constn¡ction projects by
their natr¡re are normally short term and trar¡sient. Anticipating the scope and location of
constn¡ction projects is difficult. While local, sho* term sediment impacts can be extreme; in
general, sediment impacts are tcmporary.

Ä. To meet antidegradation requiremcnts forthe waters of the statg the following guidelines
will be followed on all proJects.

1. Sediment basins

lediment basinVtaps will be installed with 3,600 cubic feet of storage measured from
the bottom elevation of the stn¡cture to the top of the riser or weir, pãr acre of drainage
and will have draw down times of48 to 72 hours. Half of the pond will be in wet stotage
and half in dry storage. Dewatering deviccs that skim the discharge from the top several
inches is encouraged.

B, Large long-term proj ects

Projects that the initial grading construction phase lasts for more than onc yeâr or
disa¡rbs 100 acres or more shall submit the application 90 days prior to constn¡ction.
Ïhese projects will be subject to the public notice requirements as outlind in 47CSRI0
prior to receiving coverage under this permit.

c. Projecæ that discharge to or upstream ofTier 2.5 and Tier 3 waters.


FACT SHEET
WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WVOI15924
Pagellof13

l. Public notice

All applications for construction projects that will discharge to or upsbeam of a Tier 2.5
or Tier 3 steam shall submit the application 90 days prior to constr¡ction. Public
comments will be used in the decisions leading to issuing the approval or denial for
cov€rage under the general permit.

2. Presumptive Conditions

Constn¡ction activities discharging to Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters will go through the Tier
2.5 or Tier 3 antidegradation review process.

No degradation will be allowed on Tier 3 waters except for ûemporary, short term
activities.

Stormwate.rmanaeement plari section- A description of measues that will be installed


during construction to confrol pollutants in stormwater discharges after the project is
completed shall be included in the STWPP. The completed project shall convey stormwater
runoffin a ma¡¡ner that will protect both the site and the receiving steam from post
consFuction erosiorr. All waterways and other runoffconve)¡ance structures shall bc
perman€ntly stabilized as appropriate for expected flows. Velocity dissipation devices shall
be placed at the outlet of all detention or retention structures and along the length of any
outlet channel as ltecessary to provide a non-erosive velocity flow f¡om the structure to a
natural water course.

Projects located in a¡eas that have local government requirem€nts and/or criteria for post
construction stormrÀ¡ater management must meet those requirerneirts and/or criteria"

Permanent stormwatermanagement structures that will impound watçr (detention/retention


basins orsimila¡ stnrctures) shall be designed and certified by a registered professional
engineer. These structures shall also have a cert¡fid as-built drawing submitted with the
Notice of Termination at the completion of the project.

Othcr control section- This section requires the solid rflaste be disposed of properly.
Provisions must bc made to control dust. This section also details maintenance,
inspection, fraining and ræord keeping requirenrents.

Çonpliance with othçr state laws a¡rd ststutes- This section advises the permit that nothing
in this general permit shall be constued as excusing the permittee from compliance with
anyapplicablefederal, state, orlocal statutes, ordinances, orregulations. Fortlroseprojects
that may impact hÍstoric preservation sitm, the permittee should coordinate the project with
the State Historic Preservation Officer
FACT SHEET
WV/I:IPDES PERMIT No. WVO| 15924
Page l2 of13

6.5. Discharges to Impaired Waters

This permit doqs not authorize netv sources or new discharges of constituents of concem to
impaired waters unless consister¡t with the approved total maximurn daily load (TMDL)
and applicable state law. Impaired waters are those that do not meet applicable water
quality standards and are listed on the Clean $/ater Act Section 303(d) list. Pollutants of
concern are those constituents for which the water body is listed as impaired. Discharges
of pollutants of concem to impaired waterbodies for which there is an approved TMDL are
not eligible for coverage under this permit unless they are consistent with the approved
TMDL. Within síx months of the TMDL approval, permittees must incorporate any
limitations, conditions or requirernents applicable to their discharges necessary for
compliance with the TMDL, including any monitoring or re,porting required by the
Division of Waterand trVaste Management rules, into their STWPPP in order to be eligible
for coverage under this general permit.

Sites that discharge into a receiving water which has been listed on the Clean Water Act
303(d) list of impaired wat€rs, and with discharges that contain the pollutant(s) for which
the water body is impaired, must document in the StilPPP how the BMPs will control the
discharge of the pollutant(s) of concern.

G.6, Endangered and Threatened Species.

If a site discharges to a stream where a federally endangered or threatened species or its


habitat is present, the applicant shall contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
that requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act are met.

In addition, the Division of rûfater and \ffaste Management will include in the application
insm¡ctions a list of sreams in West Virginia with possible presence of endangered or
threatened species, to assist applicants in determining whør that issue nds to be
considered.

H. This paragraph serves as a reopener mechanism to go back to a permittee covered under


the general permit and places any necessary additional requirements upon the site as
necessa¡y, due to potential or realized water quality impacts by the site stormwater
discharges.

I. This section allows for changes in permit conditions in later general permits.

J. This section provides for the Notice of Termination, explains final stabilization and
requires certified as-built drawings be submitted with the Notice of Termination for
permanent ponds.
F¡\C'l'SIIEE'I
W\¡.Ò{PDES PI-.RivllT No. \\¿V0l l5t)2-i
Page 13 of i3

Thc Statc of \\¡esr Virginia, Dcpartmcnt of'lìnvironrlctìl¿ìl Protcction, Division of Watcr


and Waste V{anagemeut, has madc a tentativc ciecision ftrr a state NPDES pennit as listecl on this
iact sheet. In order to provicle ¡rublic participatio¡r on thc propose(l issua¡rce of thc rcc¡uired
pemrit, the fbltorvi¡tg infbnnation is be ing suppliecl in accordance rvith Titlc 47, Series 10,
Scctio¡r 11.3.c.2 ¿l¡rd i, of the Wcst Virginia Legislativc lìules'

Duri¡g tþc public comment pcriod, any intcrcstetl persou nray submit rvrittcn commcnts on the
tlrati pcnnit unO nråy request a ¡rublic hcaring. A rcqucst ibr a public hearirig shall bc made in rvriting
¿rncl addressecl to;

Dircctot', Division of \\¡atcr antl \\¡astc l'lanagenrcnt, DEP


601 57th Street SE
Charlcston, WV 25304-2345
Attcntion: Alice \Yallier
E-mail : arvalker(¿Ùrvvtlep.o rq

The requcst shall statc the nature of the issues proposccl to bc raised in the hearing and must be
recejvecl rvithin the comrnent periocl. J-he Director shall holcl a public hearing'uvltc¡tcvcr he or she finds,
on thc basis of rcqucsts. a significant degtce of public intcrcsl on issues relevant to the clralì penriit. Any
pcrson may subrnit oral or rvritten statcmeÍlts arrd <1ata cotrcernitrg thc draft perniit; hott'ct'cr, reasonable
iirnits nraybe set upotì the time allou'cd f'or oral starcments. and thc submission olstatçmcnts in rvritittg
nray be required. A tape recordin-u or u,riticn transcrìpt of thc hcaring shall be nrade available to thc
public upon requcst.

Public hearings for this general perrnil rvill bc hclcl 'l'hursday, August 30,,2007, fiom 6
p.nt. to I p.rn. ar thc DEP Hea<lquartcrs Coopers Rock Training Rootn at 601 57"'Streel.
Clrarleston, WV 25304 arrcl Tucsday, Septcrnbcr 4.2007. fì'om 6 p.nl. to I p.rl. at the Jamcs
Rumsey Tcchnical Institutc al3274 Heclgcsville Itoacl, Martinshurg, \VV 25401

If inforrnation rcceived cluring thc public conltncnt pcriod appears to raisc substantiai ne\\¡ qucstions.
the Dircctor may reopo¡r tlie public cornmeut ¡leriocl'

All applicable infonriation concenring any pemrit application anci the tentative dccisiolls is tln tìle
ancl may be inspectcd by appointmcnt, or cei¡ries obtaincd at a nominal cost, at thc ott-ices of the Divisio¡r
of Water a¡rd Waste Managcmcnt, 601 57th Strcct SE. Charleston, Wcst Virgiuia 2530'1, Vlonday
tluough Friday (except State holiclays) bctrvcerr 8:00 a.ln. to 4:00 ¡r.rn.

I-lcari¡g irnpaired individuals having access to a Telecollrmunicatiou Device for thc Dcaf ('l'DD)
may conrart our agcncy i:y calling (304) 92ó-0489. Calls ¡nust [:c rnade bet$'een I a.m. to 3:30 p.rn.
lr4ondtry through Friday.

Requests lbr aclditional i¡fc¡nnation sþoulcl be directecl to Alicc W¿rlker at (304) 9?.6-0499, Extensio¡r
il 03.
Marytand lnventory of Hrstorrc Propertres Page I oï I

$
g
Search Criteria: Town:'Westernport ô
Displayi ng 22 record(s). I
Ë

Site Number Site Name Address Town


AL-VI-D-
Main Sheet (MD 937) Westernport
204
A-I,-Y-I:Ð-
Main Sheet (MD 937) Westempoft
z0-7
AL:YLÞ Poplar Street Westemport
4r
4IrVL-D: 213 Smoot Street Westemport
Jsl
--
AL-VI-C-
DuckworthFarmhouse Stoney Run Road Westernport
;:,ñ
Al:YI4: First Baptist Church Parsonage 109 Main Street (MD 937) Westernport
128
AL-VI-D-
Fusner-Hanna House 342 Front Street Westemport
zt0
AL:V[:D- Green colonial Revival House 119 Vine Street Westemport

4L:V[Ð- Hammond's Addition Historic District Westernport


307
A,L:yI:D- Mt. Calvary LutheranÆvangelical Lutheran
Front Street Westernport
t3s Church
AI=,-V[:D: (MD 135)
Norris Bruce House 163 Church Street Westemport
2t3
ALTYLD- 310 Johnson Street & Hammond
Odd Fellows Hall #91 Westernport
129 Street
AI':YI-D: Shugars Board and Batten Stoney Run Road Westernport
214

South Westemport Historic District Westernport


îiF{IaD
al:Y-I:Ð- st. James Episcopal church Main Sheet(MD 937) V/esternport

ALIVL-Ð:
St. Peter's Convent Church Street (MD 135) Westernport
t3l
AL]1IÐ: St. Peter's Rectory Church Street (MD 135) Westernport
t32
A!-vLD: St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church Church Street (MD 135) Westernport

*F, -' Tibbets stick stvle House 112 Main Street (MD 937) Westernport

Waverþ Sfeet @owstring Arch Truss) Bridge Waverly Street


åul*t- Westemport

n"Jlu'-' westemport Bridge Main Street (MD 937) Westernport

aL:YI D:
westernport survey District Westernport

http J / www. mdihp. net/dsp_search. cfrn?search:address t012412009


Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Page 1 ofl

Search CrÍteria: Town: McCoole


Displaying 11 record(s).
Site
Site Name Address Town
Number
AL-YLE:
019
Cunningham Frame House old us 220 McCoole

4-L:-V-I-!- Dayton Frame House 21st Bridge Road McCoole


a!,6-
Road (MD 135) & old
Fletcher Frame House (Ambrose Frame House) McCoole
ffi* Yöiät*-
4t rLEr Landis Brick House, ruin Westemport Road (MD 135) McCoole
t3.7
AI¿:VI-E-
Patchett Frame House 650 Main Street McCoole
t28
Al:Vl-I- Queen's Point Kiln 21st Bridge Road McCoole
'r)<
.{L:VLE: (Miller Frame House) West Street & Westemport Road (MD
Reese Frame House McCoole
02t 135)
AL-VT-E-
Town of McCoole McCoole
43
AL:YLE. Twenty-First Lane Schoolhouse (Dayton
ZTstLane McCoole
221. Schoolhouse)
AI..YI- E:
020
Walters Brick House (Rice Brick House) I Main Street McCoole

AL-VI-E-
Westem Maryland Right- of-Way McCoole
224

http / / www.mdihp.netldsp_search. cft n?search:address


: t0/24/20a9
ta
I
C øwrçrany
å
o
g
ñ
a.'
c

MEMORANDUM OF' AGREEMENT


PURSUANT TO 82 CSR 2
BET\ryEEN THE
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY
AND
PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC
FOR THE
PINNACLE \ryIND ENERGY PROJECT

WHEREAS, Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC proposes the development of a wind-powered electric
generation facility in Mineral County, V/est Virginia; and

WHEREAS, Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC (Pinnacle) has consulted with the West Virginia State

Historic Preservation Officer, WV Division of Culture and History (WVSHPO), pursuant to 82


CSR 2, in particular 82-2-5: State Review Process, regulations implementing W. Va. Code 29-1-
8; and

WHEREAS, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC has conducted survey efforts within the area of
potential effect to identify historic resources which are listed or considered eligible to be listed in
the National Register of Historic Places and has consulted with the WVSHPO regarding
eligibility and assessment of effect; and

WHEREAS, the WVSHPO has determined that the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at New Page,

in Mineral County, V/est Virginia may have an adverse visual effect upon 18 buildings within
the Keyser, Mineral County, West Virginia vicinity, which are listed or considered eligible to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Attachment 1) (the Subject Properties); and

WHEREAS, the WVSHPO has communicated with Pinnacle regarding the results of its review
of the Pinnacle's suryey efforts (Attachment 2); and
WHEREAS, the Mineral County Historical Society and the Mineral County Historical
Foundation have been consulted regarding the potential finding of adverse visual effect and
suggestions for mitigation measures specificaliy during a meeting held in Keyser on I7 August
2009; and

WHEREAS, the Mineral County Historical Society and the Mineral County Historical
Foundation have been provided an opportunity to comment to the WVSHPO regarding the

finding and proposed mitigation;

NOW, therefore, Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the undertaking will be implemented in
accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the
undertaking on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS
Pinnacle wili insure that the following measures are carried out:

Architecture. Prior to the coÍrmencement of construction within the view sheds of the
Subject Properties, Pinnacle shall have funded an historic preservation grant fund in
amount of $10,000.00. The historic preservation grant will be made to and administered by
an independent, local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle.

A. These monies will be administered by the community foundation with funding


decisions being made independent of Pinnacle, and will be for the express purpose of
assisting in the preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic properties in
Mineral County, West Virginia.
B. Written approval by the WVSHPO that projects proposed for assistance through the
historic preservation fund comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Historic Preservation shall be a condition of funding such projects with historic
preservation fund proceeds.

C. The historic preservation grant fund will be dedicated to projects for the the
advancement of historic preservation in Mineral County, or for the preservation,
rehabilitation, or restoration of eligible properties for a period of 10 years or until all
the monies in the fund are expended.

D. Monies remaining in the fund ten years from its establishment will be retained by the
local community foundation for distribution as part of general grant awards for any
other community purposes within Mineral County, West Virginia.
E. Alternatively, Pinnacle may elect to fund the historic preservation grant to an existing
pres ervatio n or ganization acc eptable to the si gnatories.

F. Should Pinnacle fail to establish an historic preservation grant fund through the
proposed local community foundation, no construction within the viewsheds of the

Subject Properties may be undertaken rintil the establishment of such a fund in the
amount of $10,000.00 through the WVSHPO, or other organization acceptable to the
signatories.
il. Archeology.
A. Pinnacle has been redesigned to avoid site 46Mi174 identifted in the archaeology
study. Pinnacle agrees that site 46MiI74 is outside of the limits of disturbance and
will not be directly impacted by construction activities associated with installation of
the wind turbines. Likewise, sites 46 Mi76,46Mi79, and 46Mi80 can also be avoided
in the construction of the project.
B. If it is determined that archeological sites 46Mi78, 46Mi81, and 46Mi82 carmot be
avoided during the proposed project, Pinnacle will continue to consult with the
WVSHPO to assess their significance. If Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the
sites do not qualify as historic properties, then no further work will be required. If it
is determined that avoidance of an eligible archeological site is impracticable,
Pinnacle will consult with the WVSHPO to develop a treatment plan consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Støndqrds ønd Guidelines for Archeological
Documentation and WV SHPO Standards.
C. Post-Review Discoveries. In the event of any unantieipated discoveries of
archeological sites, unmarked cemeteries, or human remains and associated funerary
objects during the construction or operation of the Pinnacle wind project, all ground
disturbing activities will be suspended in the area of discovery. Pinnacle will contact
WVSHPO within 48 hours of the discovery. In consultation with \ /VSHPO,
Pinnacle shall ensure lhat, if necessary, a qualified archeologist will visit and assess
the discovery within 72 hours of the initial WVSHPO notification. Through
consultation, Pinnacle and WVSHPO shall agree upon the appropriate treatment of
the discovery prior to resumption of construction and/or operation activities in the
area of discovery. If human remains are determined to be Native American origin,
WVSHPO, in consultation with Pinnacle shall comply with W.Va. Code 29-1-8a.
Pinnacle affirms that all human remains will be avoided by direct construction
impacts where feasible.

IV. Dispute Resolution. During the execution of the stipulations as outlined above, should
Pinnacle and the WVSHPO be unable to reach a mutually satisfactory decision, except as
noted, the WVSHPO will provide written comments to Pinnacle. Pinnacle shall respond to
WVSHPO comments. This exchange of correspondence shall demonstrate that Pinnacle
has afforded the WVSHPO an opportunity to comment and considered the effects to
historic tesources. All stipulations not subject to the dispute shall remain in force.

V. Annual Report. Pinnacle shall provide an annual report to the WVSHPO regarding the
project status including information regarding the establishment of the local community
foundation, use of the dedicated preservation funding and construction activity, the iatter as

it relates to the avoidance of the identified archaeological sites. Upon complete dispersal
of the $10,000 and construction completion, it will be mutually agreed that the reporting
requirement has been fulfilled.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and has mitigated
West Virginia Division of Culture and History.

io, .,
West Virginia Deputy State Historic Preservation Offrcer Date
ï
V/est Virginia Division of Culture and History

Date

Attachment 1: List of Subject Properties


Attachment 2: Correspondence from WVSHPO to Pinnacle regarding study reports
Attachment 1
List of Subject Properties

Possible view Meets National Distance to Direction to


of wind RegÍster nearest wind nearest wind
Site Tlrye of Resource turbines Criteria turbine fmiles) turbine
2 Potomac State College Agricultural Yes Yes
Farm 1.872342 \A/NV/
5 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.318389 wNw
9 Dwellins Yes Yes 2.47977 NW
t6 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.s01086 NW
23 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.678607 NW
24 Dwellins Yes Yes 2.652979 NW
25 Dwellins Yes Yes 2.663733 NW
26 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.673s91 NW
33 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.595332 wNw
35 Dwellins Yes Yes 2.741638 wNw
37 Dwellins Yes Yes 2.633057 NW
39 Dwelline Yes Yes 2.512607 NW
s7.tt Dwelline Yes Yes 2.871442 NNW
59.2 Dwelline Yes Yes 4.057732 N
59.8 Dwelline Yes Yes 3.40841I NNW
60 Dwelline Yes Yes 4.515577 N
64.5 Grocery Ycs Yes 5. I 83s64 ENE
65 Keyser Yes Yes 2.1009s3 w
March 12,2009

Mr. James M. Cookman


US r#ind Force
P.O. Box 550
Petersburg, WV 2684i

RE: US tilind Force, LLC


Pinnacle wind Project - proposed v/ind power ceneration Facility
FR: 08-450-MI-5

-ìffiTiftil¡¡A- Dear Mr. Cookman:


DMSION OF
lile have reviewed
CULTL'RE& HÍSTORY the
lhay II hryeslígationfar Archirecfin'al and Structut-al Resources,
February 26,2009 for the pinnacre wiñd ero¡eet in Minerat
The Culturol Center county. The following
1900 Konowho Blvd., E- comments are oflered under'West Virginia Code 29-l _g
Chsrleston, WV
2s305-0300 According to the information submitted the initial plans for the pinnacle
Wind project
Phone 304.558.A220 proposed the construction of eastem and western arrays of wind
Fox3Oa.558,2779 turbines in Minerãl
County- Since the initial plans the western array has now been eiiminated
TDD304.5s8.35ó2 from the
proposed project- Therefore, the currentproject consìsts of a
www.wvcufture.org maximum of 23
ËEO/AAÊ¡FloF commercial wind turbines and assocíateðequipment. studies were completed
to
determine the visual and cultural effects to architectural and structu¡al
rðsorr"es eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic places by the project.

lVe have reviewed the Findings as presented Ín the Report.


vy'e concur that the pinnacle rü/ind project rvíli have no direct
effect on
properties listed in or eligible for Iisting in the National Regisrer
of Histor¡c
Places.

we concur that as a result of this change an analysis of the current project


qloposal and photo simularions found that f¡ve olthe properties lsiîe il. r-
Claysville Church. 6l-Kanter Cut OffRoad-drvelling aná OZ.l-irors School,
62'2-Cross Church. 62.4-Cross Methodist Church) rãconrrnended for phase
II
investigation will no longer be within the viervshed of the proposed project
due
to project changes, topography and vegetation.

Though there is some contemporary constuction within the viewshed


of eight
properties (sites 5. g' 16,?3,24,37,39 and 65) the addition
of rhe rvind ruibines
will lrave an accumulative effect to tlrese historic resources. AIso, rhe
consEuction of the 30 wind turbines will introduce a new industrial element
to
the ru¡al landscape of these individual sites 2, 25,26,33, 35, i7.l
I, 5g.2, 59.g,
60. and 64.5.

It ís our understanding ttrat the noise assessment study has not yet been
completed and is not specific to historic resources. Althou-eh the nearest
resource eligible for listing in the National Register of Hisõric Places
is l.B
miles ftorn the turbines please provide u .opy ãf th. shrdy for our review and
comment,
Mr. Cookman
FR#:08-450-Mi-5
March 12,20A9
Page 2

In our opìnion, the proposed construction ofthe Pinnacle V/ind Turbine project
rvill have
a visual Adverse Effect to these eighteen resources eligible for or
listed ín t¡e National
Register of Historic Places as rvell as a visual AdversJEffect to the
rural landscape and
cultual setting within some portions of trre Area of potential Effect (ApE).

In antícipation of an Adverse Effect tû architectural and shucËural resources


eligible for
lísting in the National Register of Historic Places the US Wind Force has proviãed
a
draft Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) for the adverse visual effects
of tr," I g
resources and adverse cultural effects rvithin the APE. In addition,
during our meeting
on February ?6,2a09 we discussed severar other mitigation possibilities. \ile
have
checked our records and at this tirne do not have any requesffrom
the public for a
National Register nomination. However, we do suggest ihat the Minerãl
county
Historic¿l society be contacted to provide them wiìñ an oppoüuniry to comment
and to
ínçire if they rvould like to be a concurring parfy on the NiOe. Also, ir our opinion
the
establishment of a local grant program that was discussed in our meeting
could provide
the best long term mitigation. Please provide a drafr MOA that incorporates
some or all
of the suggested mítigarion.

It is our understanding that tl¡e Phase I archaeological survey report will be submitted
for
our review in the near
frture. Please keep in minJthat, if alia¡ciraeologÍeal issues have
not been resolved at this point in the proiess, the MoA rvill need to be-amênded
to
for continuing the consultation process witå respect to archaeological
l-t-*i{:
v/e will provide fi¡rther comment upon ieceipt of the reiort and other items listed
resources.
above.

We appreciate the oppornrnity to be ofservice and look forward to rvorlcing


rvith you on
this project. Ifyou have any guestìons regarding orr conmß¡tts or ilrc
sectrcn I a6
process, please call Ginger williford, stntctural Historian,
or Lora Å. Lamarre, senior
at (304) 558-0

ú/.øe4ûx1Wot¿,<_
,ò,
M. Pierce
ÇfÉan
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

SMP/Gtvt//LAL

cc: Rebecca Gatewood, R. Chrístopher Goodwin & Associates


June 22, 2009

Mr. Jeffrey H.lvlaymon


Senior Prolect Manager
R. Chnstopher Goodw¡n & Associates
241 East Foufth Srreet, Suite 100
Frederick, MD ?1701

RE: US Wind Fo¡ce, LLC


Pinnacle wind Project - Proposed wind Power Generation Facility
FR: 08450-MI-6

Dear lvlr. Maymon:


WESTVIRGINIA
DIVISION OF lVe have reviewed the cirafr report titled Phase I Årchaeological Survey far the Proposed PínnacÌe
CULTURE & HISTORY lyitzd prolect fulíneral Cozutty, Htest llirgmia, which was submitted for the above ref€renced
The Culturol Center project to determine effecs io historic rãsourres. The followrng cornments are províded according
1900 Konowho Blvd., E. io Wrrt Virginia Code $ 29-l -8. We apologize for the delay in our comments, but as you tcnorv
Chorleston, WV from our emlail and tetephone correspondencer rve are concerned about the nature ofresources
25305-0300 identified ín the project area a¡d have been attempting to locate useful reference materials'
Phone 304.558.0?2O
Fox304.558.2779 According to the report, systemattc survey of the proposed project area, including the wind turbine
TDD 304.558.35ó2 corridor ind the T-line and revised interconnection conidors, resulted in the identification of 9
www.wvcu lture,org new archaeological resources; which are numbered 46Mi74 - 46Mi82. One of these sites,46Mi75'
EEO/A€mployer consists of a prehistoric rsotated find, which we agree has no research potentral. The remaining
sites constst of roclt caims and walls and are thought to date to the historic Period.

In general. rhe draft report pres€nts a thorough account ofthe survey. However, we find that
addit¡onal information regarding the identified sites is needed before we can provide comment on
rheÍr Nartonal Register eligibÍlity. Sites 46Mi?6 through 46MiSO consist ofl indivídual sêt stones
rhat appear to have been uied recently as boundary markers. Sites 46Ìvli8l and 46Mi82 may have
been uied as distillery locations, white 46Mi74 cons¡sts of a cluster of caims and walls that are
thought to represent field ctearing piles. It is our understanding that very few or no ártifacts rvere
recovered Êom each site location. As you know, rock caims dating to the prehistonc period are not
uncommon in this region, As a result, it is unclea¡ whether these resources were consfructed during
the historic period or were created much ea¡lier and used fortuitously in the recent past. In
additron. in our experience, the cluster of rock caims and walls do not necessarily resemble field
clearing piles. Rather, they may be more similar to those documented elservhere in the eætem
Un¡ted States rhãt are thought to be prehistoric in origin. As a result, tve as.k tlrat sites 46Mi74 and
46Mi476 - 46Mi82 be avoìiled by the proposed project. If they can be avoided it is our opinion
that this project will have no efect on any archaeoiogical tesource etigible for inciusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. If this is not possible, we ask that they undergo fi,¡rther
examìnation to determ¡ne their eligibility for inclusion in the National RegÍster.

We appreciate the opportunily to be of service. If),ou have any questio,Ts regat'dittg ottr co¡nments_
106 process, please call Lyq.'4. Lamarre, Sentor Archacologrst, at (304) 558-0240.

State H ístoric Preservatton Offlcer

SMP/LAL
$

å
e
Ë

PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC


CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS

DIRECT TESTIMONY

PREPARED BY
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER

UTILITIES DIVISION

ON BEHALF OF TTIE STAFF OF THE


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

****:k*

SEPTEMBER 15,2009

201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812. Charleston. WV ZS3Z3


CASE NO. O9.O36()-E.CS

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER PAGE 1

1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AI.{D BUSINESS ADDRESS.


2

3 A' My name is Dixie L. Kellmeyer. My business address is 201 Brooks Street

4 Charleston, West Virginia, 2fiA1


5

6 A. BY WHOM AND IN WHAT CAPACITY ARE YOU EMPLOYED?


7

I A' i am employed by the Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia


as a Utility
I Analyst Manager in the Utilities Division.

10

11 O. IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION?


12

13 A. Yes.

14

15 A. PLEASE STATE YOUR BACKGROUND AND


QUALIFICATIONS.
l6
17 A' I have a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Marshall University. I
18 am a Certified Public Accountant. i was employed in public practice
from 1974 to
19 1999. I have been employed by the Public Service Commission since
Iggg.
20

21 A. WIIAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS


22 PROCEEDING?
23

24 A' I witl address whether Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle,,) has
fulfilled the
CASE NO. O9.(}36O-E.CS

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER


PAGE 2

1 requirements of Section 3.1.1 of the Rules Governing Siting Certificates


for
2 Exempt Wholesale Generators.

4 O. SECTION 3.1.I.1.A OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE


5 APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS
6 OF DEBT AND EQUITY CAPITAL FOR THE PROJECT.
WHAT
7 HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?

I
I A' Pinnacle provided estimates of the amount of debt and equity
capital in a
l0 confidental filing.

11

12 A. SECTIONS 3.1.I.1.8 REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESCRIBE


ANY
13 AGREEMENTS WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES AND WHETHER SUCH
14 AGREEMENTS WOULD TRANSFER TO A FUTURE PURCHASER
OF
15 THE FACILITY. HAS PINNA.CLE COMPLIED WITH THIS
16 REQUIREMENT?
17

l8 A' In its application Pinnacle stated that it has no agreements with any public
entities.
19

2A A. SECTION 3.1.I.1.C REQUIRES THAT IF THE PROJECT WILL


HAVE
21 ANY FUNDING FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, THE AMOUNT AND
TERMS
22 FOR SUCH FUNDING MUST BE FULLY DISCLOSED. HAS PINNACLE
23 COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?
24
CASE NO. O9-O36O.E.CS

DIRECTTESTIMONYOF:@ PAGE 3

1 A. Pinnacle has testifîed that there wiil be no funding


from public sources.
2

3 a. SECTION 3.1.I.2 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE


APPLICANT
4 SHALL PROVIDE PROFORMA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
WHAT
5 HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
þ

7 A' Pinnacle has provided the proforma financial statements


subject to a
I confidentiaiity agreement. The assumptions upon which
the proforma financial
o
statements are based appear to be reasonable.

l0
11 a. SECTION 3.1.I.3 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT
THE APPLICANT
12 SHALL PROVTDE ESTIMATES OF THE EFFECT OF THE
PROJECT ON
13 THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY AS WELL AS
THE MODEL USED
14 TO DERIVE THE ESTIMATES. WHAT HAS PINNACLE
PROVIDED?
t5
t6 A. Pinnacle provided testimony concerning estimates
of the effect of the project on
17 the iocal and state economy' Pinnacle performed
an economic impact study using
l8 the IMPLAN econmic impact model. The study indicates a positive
economic
l9 impact.

2A

21 a. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS?


22

23 A. Staff recommends that if a siting certificate is granted that pinnacie


prior to the
24 coÛlmencing of construction be required to obtain
a report from a qualified
cAsE NO. 09-0360-E-CS

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER


PAGE 4

1 independent third parry regarding a decommissioning fund


to cover the
2 dismantling of the turbines and towers and land reclamation. The
report of the
3 qualified third parly should provide the anaiysis and set the
fund amount. The
4 report should be updated thereafter as mutually agreed between pinnacie
and the
5 Mineral county commission, but no less frequently than every
five years
þ thereafter. The fund amount will vary over time depending on
changes in the
7 estimated market or salvage value of the Project, the
estimated cost of dismantiing
I and removing the turbines, and the expected ongoing
life of the project. pinnacle
9 should obtain the approval of the Grant County Commission
of the evaiuative
10 expert and of each of the periodic reports. The decommissioning
fund should not
11 be a part of Pinnacle's assets. 'within 90 days of any
report that requires a
12 contribution to the decommissioning fund, Pinnacle should
make that contribution
13 into an escrow account held by an agent pursuant to an escrow
agreement between
14 Pinnacle and the Grant County Commission. The methods
for deposits to and
l5 disbursements from the fr¡nd should be established within
and governed by the
16 escrow agreement' The escrow agreement should clearly
reflect the role of the
17 Grant Counfy Commission and state that the obligations set
forth in the escrow
18 agreement apply to Pinnacle, its successors and assigns.
The escrow agreement
19 and each report of the qualified independent third party
should be filed with the
20 Commission as a closed entry in this matter. The Commission
should retain the
21 right to hire its own evaluative experl to review any of the periodic
reports and to
22 take such fuither action within its jurisdiction as the Commission
may determine is
23 necessary to protect the public interest.

24
CASE NO. ()9-()36O.E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY oF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER PAGE 5

1 Q. PLEASE SUMMARTZE youR TESTIMONY.


2

3 A' Pinnacle has met the requirements of Section 3.1.1


of the Rules Governing Siting
4 certificates for Exempt'whoiesare Generators.

6 a. DOES THrS CONCLUDE youR TESTIMON'?


7

I A. Yes, it does.

I
10

11

12
ô
ñ
E StoÎ*
t
Ê¡
å
IH

PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC


CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF


DONALD E. WALKER
ENGINEERING DIVISION

ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF OF THE


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

September 74,2009

201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812, Charleston, WV 25323


Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force. LLC
Engineering Division Direct and Rebuttal Testimony
Submitted by
Donald E. Watker, Technical Analyst DZt!

September 14,2009

1 Q. Please state your name, occupation and business address.


2 A. My name is Donald E, Walker. I am employed by the Public Service
'West
3 Commission of Virginia as a Technical Analyst in the Engineering Division.

4 My Office address is 201 Brooks Street, Charleston, 'West Virginia 25323.

5 Q. How long have you been employed by the Commission and what are your
6 basic duties?

7 L. I have worked for the Commission for approximately one and one half years,

8 where I have been investigating electric utitity complaints mostly on a formal


9 basis. Much of my work inciudes contact with complainants, where I assist them

10 in interpreting the electric rules as applied to their situations. I also review and

11 analyze the technical aspects of complaints and provide Commission Staff with

12 supportive data through research that is presented in written technical


13 memorandums. I have peripherally assisted engineering staff colleagues on

14 various wind power generation projects and I am currentl.v assigned to the

15 Potomac - Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project where I am

16 responsible for reviewing the application,

17 0. What is your educational background and job experience as it relates to

18 your position at the commission?


Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page2 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker

19 A. I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Design Engineering

20 Technology in 1979 from The Pennsylvania State University. My engineering

21 related experience included working as a start-up engineer at the American

22 Electric Power (AEP) Mountaineer 1300 MW Power Plant, where I was

23 responsible for the installation of the Data Collection and Evaluation System

24 (DCES) which monitored crucial operating conditions of the plant. I transferred


25 from the Mountaineer Plant to the American Electric Power Service Corporation,

26 System Measurements Section in 1980. In this position. I was responsible for the

27 factory acceptance testing of the DCES, and retrofitting the AEP Gavin Units 1

28 and 2 and the Amos Unit 3 AEP System 1300 MW generating units with this

29 system which, monitored and recorded critical operating conditions of the plant. I

30 completed my over nine years of engineering experience as a Performance

31 Engineer, Sr. at the AEP John E. Amos Power Plant. I was responsible for all
32 performance testing, related improvement projects and generator / exciler

33 troubleshooting on the Amos Plant 1300 MW Unit 3. Additional responsibilities


34 at the plant level included environmental monitoring, coal pile surveys as well as

35 Outage Coordinator for the Unit 3 annual and major outages.

36 a. What is the purpose of your testimony and how was this task
37 approached?

38 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe and discuss the Engineering

39 Division's technical review of the siting certificate of the Pinnacle V/ind Force

40 Project, Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS, with respect to compliance with the


Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 3 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimonl, of Donald E. Walker

41 commission's siting rules,t This task was systematically approached b¡z ¡syie\¡/ing

42 the application and requesting additional information from the Applicant through

43 Forrnal Data Requests, Letters of protest as well as those supporting the project

44 were also reviewed, and direct testimony provided by the company was read and

45 analyzed. A site visit and public hearings are scheduled during the week of

46 September 21,2009. Further testimony will be submiued by the Engineering

47 Division if these events require additional comment.

48 Q. Is the technical portion of the application complete?


49 A. A comprehensive three-volume application submiued by Pinnacle Vlind Force,

50 LLC (Pinnacle or Applicant) appears to be complete. Additional information was

51 requested from the Applicant for clarification of the application and of a few direct

52 testimonies which were provided by Pinnacle. The additional information that

53 was provided to the Engineering Division Staff assisted us in determining that the

54 Applicant has met the siting rules requirements, I will discuss portions of the
55 application where additional comments will either clarify the information lissues

56 presented by Pinnacle and / or the intervening parties. The Engineering Division

57 will also present potential engineering concerns and recommendations for this

58 project.

59 Q. Is the Applicant's wind project experience sufficiently presented?

60 A. US 'Wind Force has previously submitted wind projects for Certificate of

61 Convenience and Necessity for the Commission to consider. The Mt. Storm

I
West Virginia Code of State Ruies 150-30 Ê24-2-11c
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page 4 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

62 Windforce, LLC project in Grant County was granted a certificate on August 29,

bi 2002, but has not yet been constructed, The Liberty Gap Project in Pendleton

64 County was denied a certificate in 2001. Additional information about the

65 Applicant can be viewed on-iine at the IIS WindForce website.2 This information

66 in conjunction with the Direct Testimony of Mr. David K. Friend indicates that the

67 Applicant has had experience in acquiring certificates for the development,

68 construction and operating of wind turbine electrical generating facilities.

69 Q. Is the project's justification of need satisfactory?


70 A. It has been established in previous siting cases presented to the Commission,

7I the need for an electric generating project to state the need and justification for the

72 generating facility being considered3. Typically, this includes any available long-

73 term supply and demand projections. completed by the local Regional

74 Transmission Operator (RTO), and any other rational for building the facility.o Art

75 annual Load Forecast Reports was submitted by the RTO originally serving the

76 Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland (PJM) areas which now also serves parts

77 of 13 states and the District of Columbia including West Virginia. The Load

2
Additional information concerning the Applicant's company is available on thei¡ website at
www.uswindforce.com.
3
Mount Storm Windforce, LLC, Case No. 0l-1664-E-CN, AES Laurel Mountain, Case No. 08-0109-E-CS,
AES New Creek, Case No. 08-2105-E-CS.
a
Refer to the Discussion section found on pages 3-5 of AES Laurel Mountain. Case No,
08-0109-E-CS (Reopened) Further Final Order entered on March 17.2009.
t January
2009. PJM Load Forecast Report hffp:/iwww.p-im.com/planningy'resource-adequacy-
pian¡rin g/-/media/dosuments/reports/2 009 -pj m-load-report.ashx
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 5 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

78 Forecast Report contains a quantitative analysis of regional electric demand


79 through the year 2024.

80 The Report states:

81 . An eçonomic rebound in 2010 causes load growth to resume in

82 2010, though summer peak load will not exceed the 2008 level until

83 2011. Summer peak load growth for PJM RTO is projected to


84 average l.7o/o pu year over the next 10 years, and 1.4o/o ovet the

85 next 15 years. The PJM RTO summer peak is forecasted to be

86 158,617 MW in 2019, a l0-year increase of 24,189 MW, and

87 reaches 166,581 MW in 2024, a 15- year increase of 32,153 MW.

88 Annualized l0-year growth rates for individual zones range from

89 49% to 2.8o/o.

90 Pinnacle witness David Friend suggests that within the regional whoiesale

9I power markets, there is a demand for a mix of energy sources, including

92 renewable sources such as wind. He explains the growing demand for renewable

93 energy includes consumer demand as well as the Renewable Portfolio Standard

94 (RPS) or similar legislation found in several states.6 There appears to be sufficient

95 information presented in the case fiie to support the justification of need.

96 Q. Is the required technical data satisfactory?

6
Pin¡racle witness David Friend Direct Testimony fited with the Commission on May 25,2009.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 6 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker

97 A. The technical content of the appiication appears to meet the siting rule

98 requirements. Clarifications requested by Staff were provided by the Applicant

99 which may be discussed later in this testimony.

100 Q. Were the maps included with the application adequate to review the scope

101 ofthe project?

102 A. The maps initiall,v submitted with the application were helpful and sufficient to
103 satisfy the requirement of the siting rules. These original maps however. were not
104 similar to maps provided in previously submitred siting hearings. Staff requested

105 the Applicant to review previously submitled maps from other wind projects, and

106 provide maps similar to them. Pinnacle agreed to our request and provided maps

107 that were more familiar to staff. As a result, similar criteria could be applied to

108 this project as has been with recent wind turbine generation projects,

109 Q. Are the photo simulations provided in the application satisfactory?


110 A. Pinnacle is required to provide photo simulations (renderings) of ali scenic

111 overlooks and vieu,s of the project that will be most evident to the public and

112 which are accessible to the public, The Applicant provided renderings from i9

113 vantage points within a 1.8 to 10.9 mile radius of the project. In addition to an

114 "actual" photograph used in producing the renderings, an image taken from an

115 aeríaI view found on Google Earth was also presented indicating a simulation of
i16 how the view would appear as compared to the conventional photo simulation.T

1I7 Many of the photographs for the simulations appeared to be taken on cloudy,haz),

t Refer
to the website af: hffp:llearth.google.com/
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 7 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

118 days. For this reason, Staff requested the Applicant to provide approximately how

119 many days out of the year had similar characteristics portrayed in the renderings,

120 Approximately 70o/o of the days in the area of this project were expected to be

I21 clear, suggesting the photo simulations may not provide an accurate representation

122 of the visibility of the project. It appears the photographs represent hazy

123 conditions on 30Yo of days suggesting the turbines are visible most or the majority

124 of time,

125 The Commission Staff, intervenor representatives and other participants

126 wiil visit the project site for a tour of the project area the week of September 2I,
127 2009. This will afford the participants an opportunity to see for themselves the

128 extent of the visual impact the project may have on the surrounding communities.

129 The project tour has been scheduled after the submission of this testimony;

130 signifrcant issues which may present during this tour will be addressed with
131 additional testimony if required

132 Q. Is Pinnacle's ambient noise study in compliance with the siting rules?

133 A. Yes. The direct testimony of James D. Bames indicated that he, as a
134 Supervisory Consultant for Acentech Incorporated, has been involved with the

135 study of sound for over 35 years. He has prepared studies and presented testimony

136 before the Public Service Commission of West Virginia on two other similar
l3l cases. Beach Ridge in 2006 and Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. Mr.

138 Barnes was responsible for the preparation of the Acentech study entitles,
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 8 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker

139 "Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnaele Wind farm, Mineral County. 'WV"

140 ("Acoustical Report").8

141 The Acoustical Report summarizes the approach Acentech foliowed while

142 addressing the requirements of the commission siting rules. Their .analysis and

143 results are cleariy presented in the Acoustical Report, in his direct testimony, Mr,

144 Barnes explains that Acentech developed information about existing iand uses,

I45 noise-sensitive receptors, and ambient sound levels in the community; and
146 developed sound ievel estimates for the construction and operation phases of the

147 project.

148 Q. Briefly describe some of the terminology used when discussing o'noise" as

149 it applies to the siting rules.


150 A. The siting rules specify that noise levels will be represented as average DNL,

151 also referred to as Ldn (Day-Night sound level). The day-night sound level is the

152 average equivalent sound level (Leq) for a 24 hour period. The data in this
153 calculation is adjusted for nighttime sound levels (between 10 p.m. andT a.m.) to

154 reflect the human population's expectation that nightlime should be a quiet period

155 of time. This is accomplished by adding 10 dBA to the nighttime recorded levels

156 before the calculation is performed. The avetage equivalent sound as defined by

157 Mr. Barnes is a single -value ievel that expresses the time-averaged total energy of

158 the entire ambient sound level. In otherwords, the Leq is an average level of all

159 sounds measured over a period of time that inciudes adjustments for nighttime
t Refer
to Appendix U of Pinnacie Wind Force, LLC Citing Certificate Application, March 13,2009
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 9 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

160 sensitivities, This method of quantifying sound leveis have been identifred by the

161 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the best descriptors to use for

162 the purpose of identifying and evaluating levels of environmental noise.

163 The Siting Rules require that Ldn sound levels be provided for existing

164 ambient conditions and projected Ldn sound levels be projected and submitted for

165 the construction and operational phases, This information shall be presented in the

166 form of sound contour maps,

167 a. Has the Applicant provided adequate sound contour (noise exposure)

168 maps representing accurate results of their sound studies?

169 A. The Applicant requested a waiver for the requirement of filing a

170 preconstruction noise exposure map, The Engineering Division agreed to this

171 waiver as the data obtained from this study did not indicate any dominate sound

172 source across the site area for which to base any contour (or area) where different

173 levels of sound could be distinguished. The AES New Creek project recently

174 reviewed for certification by the Commission has similar characteristics and is

I75 located near this project, was granted a waiver requiring the filing of a

176 preconstruction noise exposure map,e

177 An analysis of the Construction Phase of the project yielded data which was

I78 plotted on the required sound contour map indicating the effects of noise levels at

I79 perimeters one and five miles away from the project boundary, It appears that

n
AES New Crcek, LLC Case No. 08-2105-E-CS
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 10 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E.'Walker

180 there will be no signif,rcant noise disturbance during the construction phase of the

181 project,
182 The operational sound estimates provided by the Applicant indicate that the

i83 estimated average day-night sound levels are greater than the 12-day ambient Ldn

184 (measured ambient noise) closest to the east side of the proposed project. The

185 noise level at all but one of these receptors is estimated at or below 55dBA. The

186 maximum measured ambient noise level was found to be 56dBA. Pinnacle points
187 out that these levels are considered "worst case" conditions, and at lower wind

188 speeds, the turbine sound levels would also be reduced.

189 Low frequency noise disturbances have recently become a concern when

190 evaluating noise impacts on the environment. In his direct testimony, Mr. Barnes

i91 discusses the most significant concern of how low frequency noise affects nearby

I92 communities. He goes on to explain that vibrations in a building structure may

193 result in the rattling of china or moving windows and mirrors from this lou'

194 frequency component of sound. Pinnacle addresses these concerns by utilizing a

195 technique for calculating these low level frequency components through

196 mathematical calculations. By measuring the sound at any given iocation, with a

197 standard sound level meter, a value which emphasizes mid-range frequencies is

198 obtained, referred to as "A-weighted" sound level (dBA), Another measurement

199 of the same noise utiiizes a specialized filter which is caiibrated to de-emphasize

200 the low and high frequenoy components of the noise being measured, referred to

201 "C-weighted" sound ievel (dBC) is also obtained. By comparing an A-weighted


Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page I 1 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

202 sound level (dBA) with a C-weighted sound level (dBC), the low level frequency

203 component of the measured sound can be determined. It has been determined by

204 the Applicant that the calculated low level frequency component (long-term C-

205 weighted) Ldn (Day-Night sound) levels at both indoor and outdoor locations in

206 the community at distant locations to the west of the turbines will be lower than

207 the current preconstruction (measured) levels. The Applicant states that the

208 calculated C-weighted Ldn levels to the east of the turbine sites, are estimated to

209 be74 dbC and 72 dbc at Noise Receptors 4 and 5 respectively, which are higher

210 than the l}'day ambient Ldn of 57 dbc and 56 dbC which are currently being
211 experienced (measured) at those same Noise Receptors, Pinnacle acknowledges

212 this, and indicates that this acceptable by referencing the American National

213 Standards institute (ANSÐ entitled, ANSI/ASME Standard 8133 .8-1971 (R2001)

214 used in deterrnining an upper level for sound emissions from gas turbine projects

215 as an acceptable level of 75 dbc to 80 dbc. Staff is unsure if this is a fair


216 comparison because of different circumstances present between the projects,

217 Literature published by the Acoustic Ecology Institute suggests low frequency

218 noise at fevels 60 dbc or higher is considered an indicator that iow-frequency

219 noise levels are problematic and lou'-frequency mitigation is generally required.l0

220 Never-the-less, the low level frequency concern was addressed b), pinnacle which

221 was not required by the Commission's Siting Rules.

r0
AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise impacts,l16/2009. Website, acousticecology.org
Pubiic Service Commission of West Virginia Page 12 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker

222 Pinnacle has addressed the issue of low-frequency sound by indicating in

223 its application that the wind turbine / generator units that will be implemented in

224 this project are that of MHi Model MV/T9512.4, manufactured by Mitsubishi

225 Heavy Industries (NGII). This unit is designed to reduce low frequency sound by

226 incorporating an upwind rotor design. Older wind turbine/generator designs used

227 downwind rotors (rotors downwind of the support tower) which produced a

228 significant low frequency noise component. Other possible ways of mitigating

229 this concem is by increasing the distance befween those who reside near the

230 project and the nearest turbine, also know as the use of set backs.

231 Q. Are the required Bird and Bat studies complete?

232 A. Yes. The studies presented in the application as well as the Direct Testimonies

233 of Witness Paul Kerlinger and 'Witness Mike Sponsler appears to have fulfilled the

234 .requirements of the Commission.

235 Q. Did Staff review the direct testimonies for Pinnacle?

236 A. Yes. Staff has reviewed all of the available direct testimony related to this
237 case,

238 a. Does the Engineering Division have any concerns that have not been
239 adequately addressed either in the application or direct testimonies?

240 A. Yes. For a number of years there have been reports of tower failures placing
241 structures and human life in danger. Additionalhazards inciude ice shedding from

242 turbine blades and blade throu,s. Although, research suggests that many of these

243 events rarely occur; public agencies, across the nation and world address these
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 13 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker

244 issues through setbacks from residences and other facilities that couid affect the

245 public (Safety and Health Concerns). Tower failures have been caused by blade

246 strikes, rotor overspeed, cyclonic winds and poor or improper maintenance.

247 Manufacturing defects have also been noted in the literature,ll Ice can accumulate

248 on turbine blades, nacelle and on towers during extreme cold-weather conditions,

249 as the temperature rises above freezing, the formed ice can slide off of the

250 structure falling to the ground causing harm to anyone in it path. Blade throw can

251 occur for several reasons; but, basically, if a blade becomes detached from the
252 turbine-generating unit, it can be projected long distances depending on the speed

253 and angle at which it becomes separated.12

254 Staff has reviewed how these concerns have been mitigated throughout the

255 industry, and believes turbine setbacks are a reasonable solution to these possible

256 hazards. Many setbacks from residences which have been enforced range from

257 1.5 to 2 times the total height of the unit from its base to the highest vertical tip of

258 the blade,r3 Other setbacks have been set at fixed distances from 1200 to 1500
259 feet from the base of the unit to the residence. Additional concerns of the

260 Engineering Division include the proximity of roads and power lines to the

261 proposed turbines. The Engineering Staff has reviewed the literature and has in its

l]lnternational
Finance corporation, world Banl< Group, "Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
for Wind Energy', April 30. 2007.
'' Investing in a Cleaner Power . . . Naturaliy website, Public Health and Safety, pp.4-5;
www.powematuraliy. org

13
Investing in a Cleaner Power . . . Natu¡aliy website, Public Health and Safery, p, 8;
www.powernaturally.org
Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia Page 14 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker

262 rocommendation submitted a reasonable solution to these concerns. Another safefy

263 issue that has been addressed in previous wind farm cases before the Comrnission

264 is that of posting warning signs around the site including the Operations and

265 Maintenance (O&M) Building, It has also become a concern regarding the
266 attraction of wildlife, such as birds to lighting related to the O&M Building.

267 Q. What is the Engineering Divisionos recommendation?

268 A. If the Commission, after conducting its statutory mandated analysis, decides

269 that a siting certificate should be issued to Pinnacle Wind Force, then the

27A Engineering Division respectfully recommends that the Commission includes the

271 conditions in its orders:


272 Preconstruction Certificate Issues

273 1) Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant must file a verified statement

274 indicating that all pre-construction conditions and requirements of the cerfifïcate

275 have been met.


276 2) The Applicant must not dispose of excavated rock and/or any bedding material

277 during or following construction of the facility by spreading the material on

278 agricultural land.

279 3) The Applicant must dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in

280 approved landfills in accordance with appropriate environmental regulations,

281 4) The Applicant must design and install any needed fire protection systems in

282 accordance with the National Fire Protection Association or other accepted
283 standards.
Public Sen ice Commission of West Virginia Page 15 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

284 5) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency

285 personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and

286 timely emergenc¡, preparedness and response,

287 6) The siting certificate shall become invalid if the Applicant has not commenced

288 a continuous course of construction within five years of the date the final
289 certificate is granted or has not completed construction by the tenth year without

290 petitioning the Commission for approval to expand these time frames.
291 7) The Applicant must file evidence that it has obtained any necessary

292 environmental permits and/or cerlifications prior to commencing construction


293 (including letters from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia

294 Division of Natural Resources,320 West Virginia Division of Cultural; Historl'

295 and West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office; any local governmental

296 agency requiring permits for construction / operation of this project) indicating

297 either that the Applicant does not need to take further action or outlining what

298 action the Applicant needs to take to be in compliance with that agency's rule or

299 laws prior to any grading, soil excavation, and/or habitat removal or causing a

300 similar action by others.

301 8) The Applicant must file a copy of the Wetiands Survey and Delineation,

302 evidence of approval andlor acceptance of the wetiands delineation, final


303 endangered species study with any required mitigation plans, and
304 historical/archeoiogical significance study with any required mitigation plans prior

305 to commencing construction.


Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 16 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

306 9) The Applicant must comply with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 5

307 FERC 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S,C, 5 701 et seq.), and,

308 if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C , 5 4321 ef
309 seq.) in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any authorized

310 governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that the Applicant

31 1 is not complying with any one of the above three acts in either the construction or

312 the operation of the Project, then the Applicant must notify the Commission in

313 writing in this case of any such finding within ten (10) days of any such finding

314 being made. Furthermore, the Commission may seek any legal remedies it has

315 jurisdiction to seek, including injunctive reiief, to address any such findings.

316 10) The Applicant must A) construct and maintain a fence around the O&M

317 building and substation; B) lock all turbine tower doors unless access is needed for

318 maintenance purposed and C) for the life of the project, install and maintain safety

319 hazard signs at appropriate intervals around the project's perimeter, at the O&,M

320 building, substation, turbine towers and any other location(s) where safety hazards

32I are ofconcern.

322 General Construction and Operational Phase Certificate

323 1) During construction, the Applicant shali:

324 a) Require contractors to use standard noise buffers on all construction

325 equipment and trucks;

326 b) Require contractors to use piie driving equipment which have the least

327 noise impact;


Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 17 o120
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

328 c) Perform construction activities mostly during the dayiight hours;

329 d) Avoid noise impacts at certain noise sensitive locations, such as a

330 church, during the weekend church activities and services and during other

331 normally scheduled church weekday activities;

332 e) Limit any dynamiting to daylight hours and follow all State and

333 Federal rules, regulations and/or laws.

334 2) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency

335 personnel during all other stages of the Project, including Construction and

336 Operations, to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response,

337 3) The Applicant must file evidence of its EIVG status from FERC prior to

338 commencing operation.

339 4) If the Applicant seeks to transfer its certificate, the Applicant is required

340 pursuant to Siting Rule 7.1 to notifl'the Commission in writing of the identity of

341 the transferee and submit an affrdavit from the transferee attesting to the

342 transferee's willingness to abide by the terms of a siting certificate, as issued. This

343 condition applies at anytime - not just in the operational stage.

344 5) The Appiicant will consult with the representatives of Commission Staff, the

345 U.S. Fish &. Wiidlife Service, and the West Virginia Division of Natural

346 Resources (collectively the Technical Advisory Committee) on the scope,

347 development, and implementation of post-construction studies (Studies) to

348 commence within a reasonable time, and in any event no later than one year
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page 18 of20
Case Number; 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

349 following the commercial operations date of the Project. Pinnacle shall consult

350 with the Technical Advisory Committee on the following:

351 a) Three years of post-construction bat mortality and adaptive management

352 studies, after operations commence, to assess,

353 1) The project's impact, if any, upon bat life

354 2) The potential for adaptive management techniques to mitigate


355 such impacts.

356 3) The expected costs over a range of mitigation effectiveness levels.

357 b) Three years of post-construction bird studies, after operations

358 commence, to assess the impact, if any, on birds.

359 c) The Applicant will file copies of each Study with the Commission and

360 provide copies to each member of the Technical Advisory Committee

361 within thirty days of its completion.

362

363 If the project causes significant leveis of bat or bird mortalify and adaptive

364 management techniques are proven effective and economically feasible, Pinnacle

365 and its successors will make a good faith effort to work with the Commission to
366 apply parameters to implement faciiity-wide adaptive management strategies on

367 an on-going basis. Pinnacle shall update the Commission in writing twice a year

368 on the studies being conducted, The update shall be directed to the attention of the

369 Commission's Executive Secretary. Unless Pinnacle obtains Commission consent

370 for other deadlines, the updates shall be filed on or before January 30 and Juiy 3 1
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page l9 oî20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

)/I each year. Pinnacle shall provide a copy of each report to the members of the

Jtz Technical Advisory Committee.

Jt) 6) The Applicant will minimíze the visibility of the Project by only using project

374 lighting in the presence of the project's personnel and any other persons
375 authorized to be in the area except that the Applicant may use Project lighting as

376 required by the Federal Aviation Administration and any applicable fire or safety

5t/ code, regulation, or accepted good utiiity practice,

378 7) In the unlikely event that the blasting associated with construction activities

379 negatively affects the groundwater aquifer on or around Green Mountain; the

380 Appiicant will take immediate steps to resolve such negative effects.

381 8) The Applicant must fiie copies of the remaining interconnection studies and

382 final interconnection agreements prior to commencing operation,

383 9) Tower setbacks from residences, roads and power lines will be imposed to

384 equal at least i.5 times the total combined height of the tower, turbine and

385 maximum blade height. It is understood fhaf. pafücipants (residents) who have a

386 legal agreement with Pinnacle and reside in the project area are exempt from this

387 condition.

388 Q. Have these conditions been imposed on other similar applications?

389 A. Yes, most recently some or all of these conditions were imposed on previous

390 wind turbine-generator projects certificated by the Commission, Specifically,

391 Final Orders from the Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia are avaiiable

392 at the Commission's website by searching with the foilowing Case Numbers:
Public service commission of west virginia page 20 of 20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker

393 NedPower Mount Storm, LLC (Case No, 05-1590-E-CS), AES Laurel Mountain

394 (Case No. 08-0109-E-CS) and AES New Creek


- Proposed Final Order (Case No.

395 08-2i05-E-CS).r4 All of these conditions have been previously imposed with the

396 exception of the implementation of setbacks,

397 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

398 A. Yes,

o
' htrp'//www.psc. state, wv. us/

#/q
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia.

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

TERRENCE J. DEWA¡I

M.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page I of21

I a. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Terrence J. DeWan. My business address is Terrence J. DeWan &


a
J Associates, 121 West Main Street, Yarmouth, Maine 04096.

5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6 a. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

7 A. I am the Principal and Sole Proprietor of Terrence J. DeWan & Associates ("DeWan &

8 Associates"), a land planning and design firm in Yarmouth, Maine. Since founding the

9 firm in 1988, I have been responsible for conducting site visits, preparing visual impact

10 assessments, and reviewing the production of visualizations in the office.

11 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE DEWAN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN VISUAL


t2 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.

13 A. DeWan & Associates is a land planning firm with a specialty in scenic inventories,.visual

t4 impact assessment, open space planning, design guidelines, and integration of large-scale

15 projects into sensitive environments. The staff is composed of professionals with

t6 backgrounds in landscape architecture, planning, visual resource assessment, scenic

t7 inventories, recreation planning, graphic design, and computer modeling. DeWan &

18 Associates has worked on over fifty visual impact assessments throughout the eastem

19 United States for projects including port facilities, electrical power generation and

20 transmission facilities, natural gas storage facilities, co-generation facilities, LNG

2I terminals, industrial buildings, sanitary landfills, hydroelectric projects, wind energy

22 facilities, and new communities. DeWan &, Associates incorporates accepted


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page2 of2l

I professional methodologies to assess visual impacts on scenic resources and the

2 surrounding viewshed through a process that includes: defining a study atea;,

J inventorying scenic resources; describing the viewshed and project site characteristics;

4 determining the affected population; developing a GIS based viewshed analysis;


5 examining specific areas of potential visibility through cross-sectional analysis; creating

6 photosimulations to accurately represent visual impacts; and evaluating potential

7 mitigation measures.

9 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

10 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL

11 BACKGROUND.

I2 A. I received a Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture in 1968 from the State

13 University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry in Syracuse,

I4 New York. I hold Maine Landscape Architect license #6. For the past three decades I

15 have concentrated a major part of my practice on visual impact assessments, serving

t6 industrial, municipal, and state agency clients throughout the eastem United States and

t7 Canada. My experience includes 17 years of visual impact assessments for wind energy

18 facilities in Maine, Massachusetts, and now'West Virginia. I have served as a consultant

t9 to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for the development of Maine's

20 Chapter 315 Scenic Regulations and recently assisted the Maine Governor's Task Force

2l on Wind Power Development. I have testified before the Maine Board of Environmental

22 Protection and the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission on numerous occasions over
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 3 of2l

1 the past two decades. I recently completed a peer review of the Draft Environmental

2 Impact Statement prepared by Mineral Management Service for the Cape Energy Project

J in Nantucket Sound, MA. I am the author of the Scenic Assessment Handbook for the

4 Maine State Planning Off,rce (2008), which developed a methodology to identiff areas of

5 statewide and national significance for purposes of the Maine Wind Power Law.

7 DEWAN & ASSOCIATES INVOLVEMENT

8 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF DEWAN &

9 ASSOCIATES IN THE PROJECT.

10 A. DeWan & Associates was retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind

1l Force") to provide a visual impact assessment of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at

t2 NewPage (the "Project") on a site on Green Mountain. The Visual Impact Assessment

13 ("VIA") that we prepared is included in Appendix "J" to the Siting Certificate

t4 Application.

15 In connection with the VIA, we drove the major public roads within the study

16 area that may have a view of the Project and visited known public recreation areas,

I7 historic properties, scenic overlooks, major transportation corridors, population centers,

18 and other sensitive viewing locations within a twenty-mile radius of Green Mountain.

t9 Sites were selected in part by a review of viewshed maps, which identified where views

20 of the Project would be possible. The field work we performed also provided an

2l opportunity to verify the viewshed maps for accuracy. DeWan & Associates also

22 independently verified the accuracy of photosimulations prepared by Pinnacle Wind


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 4 of27

1 Force through comparison with three-dimensional digital models created separately.

2 ln addition to the written reports and graphics described above, DeWan &
a
J Associates prepared poster-sized enlargements of the photosimulations to be used in

4 public discussions, agency presentations, and similar venues. An important component in

5 the proper understanding and use of these images (at any size of reproduction) is the

6 viewing distance, i.e., the horizontal distance that the reviewer should hold the

7 photosimulation from the eye to accurately replicate real-world conditions. DeWan &

I Associates calculated the viewing distance for each photosimulation and incorporated it

9 into the title block of each image.

10

11 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

t2 a. WHAT IS A VIEWSHED ANALYSIS?

13 A. A viewshed analysis is a computer-generated way of determining where the Project

t4 would be visible from within the 20-mile study area, and also where the Project would

15 not be visible within the same area. The viewshed analysis mapping for the project was

t6 prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force and reviewed by DeWan & Associates. The results of

t7 this analysis were used in the identification, selection, and evaluation of appropriate

18 observer points for the site photography and photosimulations. The viewshed analysis

I9 was also used in the determination of relative visual impact of the Project on scenic

20 features, roadways, and publicly accessible areas within the study area.

2t a. DESCRIBE THE VIEWSHED MAPS AND THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS.


Piruracle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 5 of21

1 A. Pinnacle Wind Force developed three types of viewshed maps using "WindPRO"

2 software: a positive viewshed map, a negative viewshed map, and a negative viewshed

J map with vegetation that helped to illustrate the effect of tree cover on viewshed. These

4 maps are included in Appendix "J" to the Siting Certificate Application.

5 ' The positive viewshed map shows where the turbines might be visible from if there

6 were no trees, buildings, or other obstacles to block the view. Darker green colors

7 on the map indicate where all the turbines would be visible, while lighter shading

8 indicate where the turbines would be only partially visible or where fewer than all

9 of the turbines would be visible. While this map is informative, it over-represents

10 project visibility since it does not consider vegetation or other obstacles, which will
t1 block the turbines from view.

I2 ' The negative viewshed map shows where views of the turbines will be blocked by

13 topographic features, irrespective of local vegetation or obstruction. While this map

t4 is also informative, it under-represents the extent of the area from which the

15 turbines cannot be seen because it does not reflect the effects of forest cover and

I6 other localized screening.

I7 ' The negative viewshed map with vegetation adds a separate layer, representing

18 forested areas, to the negative viewshed map, to more realistically illustrate the

t9 potential visibility of the Project. This composite map is based on the assumption

20 that an observer would not be able to see turbines where the view is blocked by

2I topography or by intervening vegetation. While this is a somewhat imperfect


22 assumption, it has proven to be generally accurate in providing a realistic estimate
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 6 of27

1 of where the project will actually be visible from. As noted earlier, the viewshed

2 maps were verified during our field work.

J The combined use of all three of the maps provides the most accurate understanding of

4 potential Project visibility within the 2O-mile study area. However, this will still be an

5 exaggerated picture of the extent of possible visibility, since the blades are rarely visible

6 beyond a distance of 8 miles due to their thinness.

7 a. THE VIEWSHED MAPS INDICATE THAT THE PROJECT MAY THEORETICALLY

8 BE VISIBLE FROM AS FAR AS TWENTY MILES AWAY FROM THE PROJECT

9 SITE. IS IT LIKELY THAT THE PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE VISIBLE FROM

10 SUCH DISTANCES?

11 A. ln our experience, under optimum conditions (very low atmospherichaze, direct sunlight,

t2 low humidity), the turbine support towers may be visible at 20 miles where there is no

13 intervening topography or vegetation. At distances greater than 10 miles, wind turbines

I4 are generally perceived aS very small elements in the landscape and do not result in

15 unacceptable contrasts in form, line, color, texture, or scale. Turbine blades will

T6 generally not be visible beyond 8 miles due to their thinness, the effects of atmospheric

t7 perspective, and the limitations of the human eye to detect objects of that size at these

l8 distances.

rea PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCEPT OF DISTANCE ZONES

20 AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page7 of2I

I A. In most of the visual impact assessment work performed by this office, the concept of

2 distance zones is used to describe the amount of detail that an observer can differentiate

a
J in the landscape. This concept is based upon USDA Forest Service visual analysis

4 criteria for forested landscapes and is generally accepted by professionals in visual

5 impact assessment. The outer limits of the Foreground, Midground and Background

6 distance zones described below have been adjusted from USDA Forest Service criteria to

7 comply with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Public Service

8 Commission's rules.l

9 Foreground: 0 to I mile in distance. Within the foreground, observers are able to

10 detect surface textures, details, and a fulI spectrum of color. For example, the details of

11 the turbines (blades, nacelles, support towers) are easily recognized within one mile.

T2 Public viewpoints within one mile of the Project are limited to local roads on Green

13 Mountain (e.g., Pinnacle Road and Hoover Hollow RoaÐ. When the project is

I4 completed, those who wish to see the Project may be able to use this road network to get

15 a closer view of the turbines.

I6 Midground: 1 mile to 5 miles in distance. The midground is a critical part of the

T7 natural landscape: details become subordinate to the whole, individual trees lose their

18 identities and become forests, buildings are perceived as simple geometric forms; roads

t9 and rivers become lines, colors become somewhat muted. Development patterns are

20 readily apparent, especially where there is noticeable contrast in scale, form, texture, or

2l line. The effect of distance is intensified in hazy weather conditions, which tend to mute

t Rule 3.1.m.3 of the Commission's Rules Governing Siting Certifications for Exempt Wholesale
Generators (150 C.S.R. 30), $ 150-30-3.1.m.3
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 8 of21

1 colors and blur outlines even further. In panoramic views, the midground landscape is

2 the most important element in determining visual impact. While the Project will be

J
a
visible from a number of public viewpoints within five miles, the dense roadside

4 vegetation and the folded hills will limit its visibility. Representative midground

5 viewpoints where the Project will be visible include: Potomac State College in Keyser

6 (2.6+ miles to closest turbine), many of the residential and commercial streets in Keyser

7 (2.5* miles to closest turbine); the US Route 220 Bndge over the Potomac River (2.8*

8 miles to closest turbine); Jennings Randolph Lake (4.1* miles to closest turbine).

9 Background: 5 miles to 20 miles. Background distances provide the setting for

10 panoramic views that give the observer the greatest sense of the larger landscape.
11 However, the effects of distance andhaze will tend to obliterate the surface textures and

t2 details of the Project components. Objects seen at this distance will be highly visible

13 only if they present a noticeable contrast in form or line and when weather conditions are

t4 favorable. Due to the thinness of the design, the ends of the turbine blades will be

15 minimally visible in the background, and not visible at aIl at distances greater than 8 to

t6 10 miles. At these distances, the most visible parts of the turbines will be the 8O-meter

t7 towers and the nacelles, if they are visible at all. Under most circumstances, the turbines

18 should not be a noticeable part of the landscape beyond 8-10 miles.

t9 a. WILL THE PROJECT BE VISIBLE FROM HISTORIC AREAS OR PLACES WITHIN

20 FIVE MILES?

2t A. The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office ("WVSHPO") determined that a

22 five-mile area of potential effect ("APE") was adequate for the investigation of potential
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page9 of2l

1 Project impacts on historic resources. Two structures within five miles of the Project are

2 currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Thomas R. Carskadon

J House on Mineral Street in Keyser and the Mineral County Courthouse on Armstrong

4 Street, also in Keyser. The Project is not expected to have a significant impact on either

5 ofthese structures.

6 a. DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE PROJECT.

7 A. In West Virginia, the following managed lands are located within 10 miles of the Project:

8 . Alleshenv Wildlife Management Area ("AWMA'ì (including the abandoned fre

9 tower on Pinnacle Mountain). Viewshed mapping indicates that portions of the

10 AWMA may have views of the Project. However, most views from within the

11 AWMA (with the exception of the fire tower) would most likely be filtered by

T2 dense hardwood vegetation. The most prominent view of the Project within the

13 AWMA will be from an abandoned fire tower on Pinnacle Mountain that is 1.8*

t4 miles southwest of the closest turbine. From this viewpoint, the turbines will be

15 seen in a relatively tight cluster (due to the alignment of the ridge) over a 5.5o arc

f6 (out of a total 360o panorama). The view from Pinnacle Mountain also includes

t7 multiple nearby communication towers on the summit, the development in the

18 valley to the northeast around Keyser, the Luke Paper Company mill to the north,

19 and the wind turbines on Mount Storm, 9n miles to the southwest. Photosimulations

20 from Viewpoint 8, included in the VIA, provide views from the fire tower in both

2I leaf and leaf off conditions.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 10 of21

1 . Jennings Randolph Lake Pro.iect (in both West Virginia and Maryland). At its

2 closest point the Project will be approximately 3 miles from the edge of the

a
J impotrndment. The viewshed analysis determined that the turbines would be visible

4 from less than 20Yo of the surface of the lake, due to the folded natwe of the

5 landscape, the intervening topography, and the surrounding forest cover. The

6 majority of the views of the turbines from the water will be at the northern end of

7 the lake in Maryland, where the existing landscape includes a 2,130'-long rolled

8 earth and rockfill dam, a 900'-long dike, a spillway with tainter gates, a concrete

9 inlet structure rising out of the lake, a visitors center, a railroad bridge, and other

10 man-made features. In comparison to the existing man-made structures, the

11 turbines will be seen as a relatively small addition to the landscape. In the other

T2 locations on the lake where the Project may be visible, the viewer will only see the

13 tops of a few of the turbines at any one location. Local topography and intervening

t4 vegetation may block the view of the turbines from many of the remaining
15 viewpoints. The Maryland Overlook at the northern end of the lake provides a

I6 panoramic view of the impoundment and its related facilities, set against a backdrop

t7 of the Allegheny Mountains. Where turbines will be visible from the lake they will

18 be seen on the horizon at a distance of over 4+ miles. Photosimulation Viewpoint

I9 17 (panoramic view) provides a view of the Project from the northern end of the

20 lake and the surrounding landscape.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 1l of21

1 . Bamum Whitewater Area (leased by Mineral County from the Army Corps of

2 Engineers). Based upon the visibility analysis, the Project should not be visible

J within this 4O-acre area due to the surrounding topography and vegetation.

4 Additional managed lands in Maryland are located within 10 miles of the Project.

5 These are described on pages 10 through 15 of the VIA.

6 a. DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS BETV/EEN A 10 AND 2O-MILE RADruS OF

7 THE PROJECT.

8 A. In West Virginia, three managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Fort

9 Mill Ridge WMA, Springfield WMA, and Nathan Mountain \ryMA. Úr Maryland, five

10 managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Mount Nebo WMA, Big

11 Run State Park, New Germany State Park, Deep Creek Lake State Park, and Dan's Rock

T2 Overlook Park.

13 Viewshed mapping indicates that some of these locations may have views of the

I4 Project. However, most views would likely be filtered by dense hardwood vegetation

15 and obscured by the effects of distance and atmospheric perspective. The most

T6 prominent viewpoint in this viewing range is at Dan's Rock Overlook Park in Maryland.

T7 Eighteen communications towers have been erected on top of the peak immediately

18 surrounding the overlook, which detract from the visitor experience. At the overlook, the

t9 closest turbines would be approximately 11.7 miles to the southwest. However, views of

20 the project should be blocked by intervening vegetation on Dan's Mountain. The existing

2t communication towers in the foreground would have a far more significant visual impact
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 12 of21

I than wind turbines in the background that would be seen over a 1o arc (out of a total 360o

2 panorama).

4 PHOTOSIMULATIONS

5 a. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?

6 A. Photosimulations are computer-altered photographs that are used to illustrate the

7 anticipated visible changes to the landscape within the viewshed of the Project as seen

8 from characteristic viewpoints within the study area. Photosimulations are used to help

9 determine the relative visual impact of the Project by providing realistic images to

10 evaluate possible contrasts in color, form, line, texture, scale, and spatial dominance. For

11 some viewpoints, e.g., where the turbines would be visible over an extended part of the

t2 landscape, a series of selected photographs were merged into panoramas on the computer

13 to provide a more realistic contextual view of the landscape. In other situations, a single

t4 photograph was used to demonshate the visual changes from the Project. Where

15 photosimulations have been created by merging multiple images, a 'normal' view is also

16 provided, since panoramic images tend to diminish the size of the turbines and under-

T7 represent their potential visual impact. Instructions are included on each photograph to

18 show reviewers how far from the image they should hold it to replicate actual viewing

t9 conditions (i.e., to make it appear "full size" or lifelike).

20 a. WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO THE SELECTION OF THE SPECIFIC

2l VIEWPOINTS USED FOR THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeV/an
Page 13 of2l

I A. Several factors went into the selection of the viewpoints used for the photosimulations.

2 Potential locations were first selected after studying the viewshed maps to determine

J where the Project might be visible from public vantage points within the 2O-mile study

4 area. DeWan & Associates and Pinnacle Wind Force selected locations within the study

5 areathat (a) are publicly accessible (i.e., all photographs were taken from public roads,

6 bridges, college campuses, public hiking trails, or other locations where the general

7 public has access), (b) represent a broad cross-section ofthe diverse land use patterns in

8 this part of West Virginia and Maryland, and (c) are characteristic of the views of the

9 Project from a wide variety of vantage points and viewer positions. Locations were also

10 selected to provide views of the Project where the most number of turbines would be

11 visible. From many of the viewpoints, the Project will be partially screened by

t2 intervening topography or vegetation.

13 Pinnacle Wind Force shared the photosimulations of the Project with the public in

t4 Community Advisory Panel meetings, open house discussions, and meetings with local

15 organizations and community leaders. These forums were used to solicit input on the

t6 appropriateness of the selected viewpoints and the qualitative aspects of the Project.

I7 a. WHICH SITES V/ERE SELECTED FOR PHOTOSIMULATIONS TO SUBMIT TO

18 THE COMMISSION?

t9 A. A total of 19 photosimulations were prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force, with the

20 assistance of DeWan & Associates, for inclusion in the VIA. The viewpoints, which are

2T all on public property or publicly accessible locations, include the Keyser industrial park,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 14 of2I

1 the Route 220 bndge over the Potomac River, the Potomac State College campus,

2 representative sites in the residential and commercial areas of Keyser, the Duling Church

J near New Creek, the Pinnacle Mountain f,rre tower (abandoned), f*o rural cemeteries,

4 Jennings Randolph Lake, and a variety of major highways and rural roads. Of these

5 viewpoints, 14 are in West Virginia and 5 are in Maryland. The viewing distances vary

6 from less than two miles to the closest turbine (Potomac State College Farm and the

7 Pinnacle Mountain fire tower) to over ten miles to the closest turbine (a viewpoint on CR

I 50-6 (Ridge Road)). The majority of the views are in the midground viewing distance

9 (less than 5 miles to the closest turbine).

10

11 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

t2 a. WHO WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE PROJECT?

l3 A. Four major viewer groups will be able to see the turbines and other aspects of the Project.

t4 These include local residents, motorists, working population, and recreating population.

15 The anticipated visual impacts of the Project on each of these viewer groups is described

t6 on pages 26-29 of the VIA. The visual sensitivity of each of these groups will vary and is

T7 tempered by the presence of other structures within the visible area.

l8 a. DESCRIBE THE VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE SURROUNDING

19 LANDSCAPE.

20 A. Landscape compatibility can be described in terms of the potential that the Project has for

2t being similar or dissimilar relative to color, form, line, texture, scale, and dominance.

22
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 15 of21

1 Color. The turbine components (base, nacelle, and blades) will be white or off-

2 white, resulting in a considerable amount of color contrast, especially within one mile of

J the Project (foreground). As the distance from the turbines increases, they will appear as

4 light gray, especially when seen on hazy or overcast days. White turbines will allow the

5 project to have only red nighttime lighting. If an altemate color were selected, the FAA

6 would likely recommend white strobes for daytime lighting, which would draw attention

7 to the turbines and make them considerably more noticeable during the day. The color

8 contrast will change with the time of day, viewer orientation, sun angle, and atmospheric

9 and weather conditions.

10 Form. With several other wind energy projects in neighboring counties, turbines

11 are starting to become a more familiar form on the West Virginia landscape.
t2 Nonetheless, the three-bladed turbines set on tall towers breaking the horizon will present

13 a noticeable contrast in form. By following the ridgeline of Green Mountain and

t4 preserving as much vegetation as possible, the Project will minimize contrasts in form.

15 Line. From most viewpoints, observers will be looking upward and will not see

16 the lines caused by the Project's access roads or transmission lines. There should be

t7 minimal contrast in line as a result.

18 Texture. Texture contrasts will be most noticeable within a five-mile radius of the

t9 Project (i.e., in the foreground and midground viewing distances). The smoothly finished

20 surfaces of the turbines will present a noticeable contrast with the natural hardwood

2T texture of the surrounding mountains.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 16 of2I

1 Scale Contrast. The scale of the Project area is def,rned by the space between the

2 mountain ridges (e.g., 3 to 3.5 miles on the east side of Green Mountain in the Keyser -
a
-t New Creek valley), extensive areas of active agricultural lands, and open vistas. The

4 Project will extend over 3.4 miles of the Green Mountain ridgeline and will be perceived

5 as a very large man-made element in the larger landscape. Observers'perception of scale

6 will be influenced by their immediate surroundings. To someone in downtown Keyser,

7 surrounded by commercial buildings, utility structures, and similar types of development,

8 wind turbines 2.5 miles away will appear relatively small and in scale with the Green

9 Mountain ridgeline. To someone standing near the turbines (within the foreground

10 viewing distance), the turbines will be the largest element in the visible landscape.

11 Spatial Dominance. The majority of the views of the Project will be in the
12 midground (less than five miles), where the turbines will be highly visible and will be

13 seen in the context of the Green Mountain ridgeline and other local and regional

t4 landforms. By comparison to the size of the underlying mountains, the wind turbines will

15 be seen as co-dominant or subservient to the larger landscape. The turbines will be seen

I6 against the sky, due to their elevated position from virtually all viewpoints. However, as

I7 illustrated by the photosimulations, they will not dominate the entire landscape
18 composition (the mountains, the sky, or nearby waterbodies).

t9 a. WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE

20 PROJECT?

2t A. The Project will be visible to a portion of the population who live, work, drive, and
22 recreate within the study area. The turbines have been sited along the ridgeline of Green
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l7 of2l

1 Mountain to take advantage of the available wind resource on a property that has been

2 used for commercial forestry. Existing access roads will be used where feasible to

J minimize the creation of new lines on the mountain.

4 Areas of Scenic or Cultural Significance. There are no areas of scenic or cultural

5 significance within the project viewshed that will be unreasonably affected by it. The

6 most signif,rcant recreation area is Jennings Randolph Lake, approximately 3 miles from

7 the Project. The Project will be visible from a few locations within the recreation area,

8 but the presence of the turbines should not affect the manner in which people now enjoy

9 the lake or the other recreation opportunities at the facility. The Project will not

10 unreasonably affect areas of scenic or cultural significance within its viewshed.

1t Impact on Significant Views. There are very few views within the study area that

t2 may be considered of statewide significance. The most noteworthy are the Piedmont Gap

13 on the North Branch Potomac River at 2.9 miles and the Maryland Overlook at Jennings

t4 Randolph Lake Project at 4.I miles. As demonshated by Photosimulation Viewpoints

l5 15, 16, and 17, the wind turbines will not block or interfere with the views from either of

t6 these locations (both of which are on the West Virginia / Maryland line).

t7 Regional Focal Points. There are no landforms within the immediate vicinity of

18 the Project that are considered regional focal points. Green Mountain is a relatively flat-

r9 topped landform and characteristic of much of the landscape that makes up the Allegheny

20 Front.

2I
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l8 of2l

I Traveled Ways. As noted above, the Project will be visible from several public

2 highways within the 2O-mile study area. In most of these instances, the Project will be

J visible in the midground or background viewing distance and will not block or intemrpt

4 the views. There are no designated scenic byways or scenic overlooks in West Virginia

5 in the study area.

6 Landscape Uniqueness. Green Mountain is a major landform in the immediate

7 area, but it is not considered unique to this part of West Virginia. The mountain has been

8 extensively used and developed with roads, home sites, mining and forestry activity,

9 transmission corridors, and other t¡rpes of activity so it cannot be considered an intact or

10 undisturbed landscape.

1l Clutter. The turbines will be spaced across the top of Green Mountain at an

t2 average of 2.4 rotor diameters (approximately 750') apart. The line of turbines parallels

13 the ridgeline and echoes the profile of the mountain. The transmission lines, access

l4 roads, and other project infrastructure have been sited so they will not usually be visible

15 to the general public. The resultant Project should present a simple, uncluttered

16 appearance.

t7 The Project will have some minor visual impacts on a limited number of scenic

18 and recreational resources within the project viewshed. However, the Project location

t9 and layout have been selected to minimize impacts to the extent practicable. In no

20 instances will the Project block the views from or the views of lakes, mountains, rivers,

2I or other scenic resources. Throughout the majority of the 2O-mile study area, views of
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l9 of21

I the Project will be partially or completely blocked by the rolling topography, tree cover

2 on the hills in the foreground and midground, and roadside vegetation.

J The Project has been conceived and desigued to have minimal visual impacts

4 within the study area. Pinnacle Wind Force has made adequate provisions for fitting the

5 wind turbines, collection lines, transmission line, access roads, meteorological tower, and

6 ancillary facilities harmoniously into the existing natural environment.

7 The VIA was conducted by DeWan & Associates in compliance with the
8 applicable provisions of the Public Service Commission's Siting Rules and it is our

9 conclusion that the Project will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic or

10 aesthetic uses and will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic character of the

11 land within the viewshed of the Project.

I2

13 MITIGATION

t4 a. WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS?

15 A. Mitigation is defined as any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectiff, reduce,

T6 eliminate, or compensate for actual or potential adverse environmental impact. The

t7 Project has been conceived and designed to have minimal visual impacts on the

18 surrounding environment. A description of how the Project has been designed to follow

I9 current professional thinking on wind power facility planning is provided in Appendix B

20 (Aesthetic Considerations) to the VIA. The main mitigation measure was selecting a site

2l that has:
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page20 of2l

1 . Favorable topography requiring no major earth moving for road constructlon or

2 turbine siting.

a
J o A network of existing roads that will provide access to the site, thus minimizing

4 potential construction impacts.

5 o An existing transmission line very close to the project site, thus minimizing the

6 amount of clearing necessary.

7 o A minimal number of scenic resources that could be affected by the Project.

8 Additionally, the following design standards have been employed in the

9 development of the Project to enhance the appearance of the wind turbines and minimize

10 adverse public reactions:

1l o Turbines will be placed in an orderly arrangement along the ridgeline, minimizing

12 perceived clutter.

13 ¡ The electrical collection system between individual turbines and the substation will

T4 be located underground to the extent practicable, primarily along the access roads.

15 o Vegetation clearing along the ridgeline will be minimized, particularly between the

I6 individual turbine sites.

t7 o The turbine support towers provide a clean simplified profile that will have less

18 complex surface characteristics and less reflectance.

I9 o The color of all wind turbine components (tower, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be

20 a uniform white or ofÊwhite to achieve greatest visibility for pilots, particularly

2l during cloudy, overcast and inclement conditions. This will avoid the use of high-
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page2I of2l

1 visibility strobe lights dwing daylight hours, which would increase the visual

2 impact.

I o Nighttime lighting of the wind turbines will be the minimal amount required by

4 Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Lighting will be synchronized and

5 will not be required on every turbine.

g o Security lighting at the substation and O&M building will be minimal. Where

7 lighting is needed, the source of the light will be shielded to prevent off-site light

8 spillage.

9 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTMONY?

10 A. Yes, it does.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS

Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia

DIRECT TESTIMONIY OF

JAMES D. BARNES

N[ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 1 of 16

1 a PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. James D. Barnes. Mybusiness address is 33 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.

4 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5 a. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

6 A. I am a Supervisory Consultant of Acentech Incorporated ("Acentech"). In this role, I

7 typically serve as principal investigator and/or manager on projects that address

8 community sound associated with industrial, energy, institutional, and transportation

9 facilities. My firm has been retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind

l0 Force") to perform and prepare an acoustical study of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm

1l at New Page ("Project").

t2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE ACENTECH AND ITS WORK IN RELATION TO NOISE

l3 ISSUES AND STUDIES.

t4 A. Acentech is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm with offices located in Massachusetts,

15 Pennsylvania, and California. The staff of more than 50 professionals is comprised of

t6 acoustical consultants, audiovisual consultants, noise and vibration consultants, and IT

t7 consultants. For environmental sound studies, Acentech consultants apply experience,

l8 technical expertise, current computer modeling techniques, and measurement procedures

I9 to assess conditions and to develop design recommendations.

20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 2 of 16

I EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL


a
J BACKGROUND.

4 A. My educational and professional qualifications that relate to providing this testimony are

5 set forth on Exhibit JDB-I. I have over 35 years of experience relating to the study of

6 sound, which has encompassed interior and community noise studies for existing sources,

7 prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for

8 proposed industrial sites and transportation corridors. During this time, I have worked

9 with desigu team engineers, architects and planners, attomeys, equipment suppliers,

10 owners, community representatives, private citizens, and state and local government

1t personnel. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree and a Masters of Engineering degree

l2 from Cornell University) am a registered Professional Engineer in multiple states, and

l3 currently co-teach the Fundamentals Exam Preparation Course for the Institute of Noise

t4 Control Engineering.

l5 a. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE

16 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?

t7 A. Yes. I have testified before the Commission in the hearings on the Beech Ridge Energy

18 project in 2006 and the Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. ln addition, I have

19 presented testimony in hearings before the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board,

20 the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee, and at local town and

2T planning board meetings.

22
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 3 of 16

I PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.

3 A. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the study prepared under my direction by

4 Acentech entitled "Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County,

5 WV" ("Acoustical Report"), a copy of which has been submitted to the Commission as

6 Appendix U to the Siting Certificate Application.

8 THE PINNACLE ACOUSTICAL REPORT

9 a. PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.

l0 kr its Siting Rules, the Commission has adopted requirements for the study of sound to

tl aid its review of proposed electric generating facilities, including wind farm projects.

l2 The Acoustical Report responded to the Siting Rules by developing information about the

l3 existing land uses, noise-sensitive receptors, and ambient sound levels in the community;

I4 and developing sound level estimates for the construction and operation phases of the

l5 Project. Acentech reviewed the facility and site drawings, and equipment information;

I6 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing

t7 ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction

18 and operation sound levels for the facility. The Acoustical Report summarizes our

t9 analysis and presents the pertinent results of the acoustical study. I performed or directly

20 supervised all work tasks in this study.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 4 of 16

I a. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW NOISE IS MEASURED BY DECIBELS AND PROVIDE

2 SOME TYPICAL SOUND LEVEL COMPARISONS.

a
J A. The magnitude, or loudness, of sound waves (pressure oscillations) is described

4 quantitatively by the terms sound pressure level, sound level, or simply noise level. The

5 magnitude of a sound is measured in decibels, abbreviated dB. Decibels are used to

6 quantify sound pressure levels just as degrees are used to quanti$ temperature and inches

7 are used to quantify distance. Since the decibel is a logarithmic rather than linear

8 quantity, adding two sound levels of 50 dB each results in a total sound level of 53 dB

9 rather than 100 dB. The faintest sound level that can be heard by a young healtþ ear is

10 about 0 dB, a moderate sound level is about 50 dB, and a loud sound level is about 100

ll dB.

t2 At any location, a complete physical description of the ambient acoustic


13 environment might include its sound pressure level at various frequencies, as a function

t4 of time. As a first step toward simpliffing this multi-dimensional description, it has

15 become coÍrmon practice to eliminate the frequency variable by measuring the A-


t6 weighted sound level (dBA) as observed on a standard sound level meter. The A-

t7 weighting filter emphasizes the mid-frequency components and de-emphasizes the low

18 and high frequency components of sounds to approximate the frequency response of the

t9 human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with our perception of most sounds.

20 Examples of common sound levels include:

2t o truck passby at 100 feet - 80 dBA;

22 o lawn mower at 100 feet - 65 dBA;


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 5 of 16

I . average speech - 60 dBA;


2 o private and open offices - 40 to 50 dBA; and
a
J o calîr, quiet suburban nighttime and daytime periods - 35 to 45 dBA.

4 a. THE ACOUSTICAL STUDY REFERENCES "LEQ'' AND "LDN'' SOUND LEVELS.

5 PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE LEQ AND LDN SOUND LEVELS REPRESENT.

6 A. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the level of steady-state sound that has the same

7 (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of interest, taken over a specified time

8 period. Thus, the equivalent sound level is a single-valued level that expresses the time-

9 averaged total energy of the entire ambient sound energy. It includes both the high-level

l0 single event sounds (e.9., bird chirps, dog barks, or local car passbys) and the relatively

il steady background sounds (distant traffic or steady wind in the trees). The day-night

I2 sound level (Ldn or DNL) is simply the average equivalent sound for 24 hours after 10

13 dBA has been added to the nighttime sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Adding 10

t4 dBA to the nighttime sound levels accounts for people's expectations that the nighttime

l5 should be a quiet period. Both the equivalent sound level (Leq) and the day-night sound

t6 level (Ldn) have been selected by the US Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA")

l7 as the best descriptors to use for the purpose of identiffing and evaluating levels of

l8 environmental noise. The Siting Rules require that Ldn sound levels be provided for

t9 existing ambient conditions and projected Ldn sound levels be submitted for construction

20 and operation phases.

2t a. HAS THE USEPA IDENTIFIED A GUIDELINE LDN SOTIND LEVEL THAT IS

22 PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND WELFARE?


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 6 of 16

I A. Yes. USEPA has identified a guideline Ldn level of 55 dBA as protective of the health

2 and welfare of humans for outdoor residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas

J where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a

4 basis for use. This recommended level, which includes a margin of safety, was

5 developed without regard for technical or economic feasibility. (United States

6 Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise

7 Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA

I 55019-74-004, March 1974, Offtce of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C.)

9 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has also adopted an Ldn level of

10 55 dBA as its criterion during review of proposed projects (Part 157, Chapter I, Title 18,

1l Code of Federal Regulations).

t2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATIONS YOU MADE AND THE

l3 METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.

t4 A. We reviewed the facility and site drawings, equipment information, and the Siting Rules;

t5 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing

T6 ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction


'We
t7 and operation sound levels for the facility. conducted the ambient sound monitoring

l8 program during the period of 28 November to 11 December 2007. We then developed

T9 the facility construction and operation sound estimates with methods in the ESEERCO

20 Power Plant Construction Noise Guide and with Cadna/A, a commercial software

2t package that is used widely for environmental sound modeling projects. Cadna/A has

22 been used in numerous other wind turbine noise studies, including the Beech Ridge,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 7 of 16

1 Laurel Mountain, and New Creek applications that have been reviewed by the

2 Commission. Finally, we summarizedthe ambient sound measurements and the pertinent

J results of this acoustical study in the Acoustical Report.

5 THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM

6 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT THE MONITORING

7 LOCATIONS FOR THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM.

8 A. The purpose of the monitoring progrcm is to charactenze the existing ambient sound

9 environment at noise-sensitive receptors, e.g., residences. It is well known in the

10 acoustics community that the ambient sound environment is directly related to the land

1l uses and sound sources in an area. We reviewed maps, aerial photographs, and initial

t2 turbine layout plans; toured the project site and nearby community areas; and then

l3 identified candidate monitoring locations that would be representative of the noise-

t4 sensitive areas (all residences, in this case) in the vicinity of the Project site. The actual

l5 location for each long-term monitor was then selected to allow for relative security of the

t6 equipment. Long-term ambient sound monitoring was conducted at the following five

17 community locations:

18 o Location 1 - wooded area in the vicinity homes to the south of the existing Beryl

T9 Electrical Substation, east of open fields, and west of the Project site.

20 o Location 2 - residential yard adjacent to a pond and in the vicinity of a cluster of

2t homes to the west of the Project site.

22 o Location 3 - residential yard near several homes to the south of the Project site.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 8 of 16

I o Location 4 - wooded area near two homes to the east of the Project site.

2 o Location 5 - residential yard near two homes to the east of the Project site.

a
J a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT SOI-IND LEVELS PRESENT IN LOCATIONS

4 NEAR THE PROJECT SITE.

5 A. The measured long-term Ldn sound levels ranged from 49 dBA to 63 dBA, with an

6 average value of 54 dBA and a standard deviation of 5.5 dBA across the five monitoring

7 locations. The measured hourly and daily sound levels varied widely at each location,

8 with individual24-hr Ldn sound levels that ranged from 4l to 72 dBA, across Locations I

9 and 3 and from 39 dBA to 56 dBA across Locations 4 and 5. The wind direction was

l0 typically from the west during the ambient sound survey. Therefore, the winds and

l1 associated sound levels due to wind in the trees in the vicinity of Locations 1 and 3 on the

t2 west side of the mountain ridge were greater than those in the vicinity of Locations 4 to 5

13 on the east side of the ridge. The ambient measurements indicate long-term average Ldn

t4 sound levels of 55 dBA around the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southwest of

l5 the Project and,49 to 50 dBA around the nearest receptors to the northeast ofthe Project.

T6 a. DOES THE STUDY AREA INCLUDE ANY DOMINANT SOUND SOURCE?

t7 A. No. The measured Ldn values and the observed mix of sound source types and land uses

l8 indicate that the study area contains no dominant sound sources, for example, a factory or

t9 a well-traveled lnterstate highway. Although the sound levels in the community varied

20 daily depending on weather conditions (e.g., wind speed) and other local conditions, the

2t typical sound sources across the area were similar and the overall acoustic environment

22 within one-mile of the Project site was relatively homogeneous.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 9 of 16

J ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE

4 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED IN PREPARING THE

5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ESTIMATES.


'We
6 A. assumed that construction of the Project will start in early spring and continue into

7 late fall. The initial activities (Phase I) will include improvements and new construction

8 of the facility access road; and then clearing, excavation, foundation, and backfill work at

9 the turbines and the substation. Concrete for the Project will be made at temporary on-

10 site batch plants using trucked-in materials or will be directly trucked-in from an offsite

ll plant. Phase II will include erection of the turbine towers and installation of the turbines;

t2 trenching and installation of the elechical collection system; and installation of substation

l3 equipment. Prior to commercial operation, the individual equipment items and the entire

t4 facility will be tested and commissioned in Phase III. The Acoustical Report lists the

15 representative construction equipment for each phase with their associated individual

t6 sound level estimates (Table 4 in the Acoustical Report), and it displays the Ldn sound

t7 level contours (Figure 16 in the Acoustical Report) for the simulated worst case of Phase

l8 I construction occurring simultaneously at each turbine location. We also assumed that

t9 the majority of construction activities will be conducted during lO-hour daytime shifts

20 and that any construction in the evening and nighttime periods will be limited to

2t relatively quiet activities. The individual Leq sound levels on Table 4 of the Report were

22 developed according to the methods in the ESEERCO Power Plant Conskuction Noise
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 10 of 16

I Guide. The sound contours on Figure 16 of the Acoustical Report, which were calculated

2 with the Cadna/A.program, represent Ldn sound levels, as required by the Siting Rules.

J a. WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE

4 MPACT FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING PROJECT SITE?

5 A. The construction activity at the site will be temporary, will occur mostly in the daytime

6 hours, and will produce sounds that are already familiar to the community, including

7 sounds from home construction. Although construction activity will be audible to nearby

8 residents at times over the planned construction schedule, its overall noise impact on the

9 community beyond 1000 ft. of the nearest turbine is not expected to be significant.

l0
1l ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL NOISE

l2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED IN PREPARING THE


13 OPERATION NOISE ESTIMATES.

t4 A. For purposes of the Acoustical Study, we used the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHÐ

l5 Model MWT95/2.4 turbine. We assumed that all23 turbines were operating with a hub-

t6 height wind speed of 10.9 mls (24 mph), the wind condition that produces the greatest

t7 sound by this turbine model. The Cadna/A program model accounts for spreading losses,

l8 atmospheric attenuation, ground effects, terrain and other barrier shielding, and

19 reflections for the sound between each source and each receptor. For this acoustical

20 study, the sound propagation routines and barrier calculations in the Cadna/A model were

2t based on octave-frequency-band sound pressure levels, downwind conditions with a

22 moderate temperature inversion, and an absorptive ground effect.


Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 11 of 16

I a. WHAT NOISE LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FROM PROJECT

2 OPERATION AT THE NEAREST COMMUNITY RESIDENCES?

J A. The Project will be available to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The

4 estimated Ldn sound levels on Tables 5 andT of the Report and contours on Figures 17 to

5 19 of the Report were calculated with the Cadna/A program and present the facility

6 operation sound estimates for the community residences within one mile of the facility.

7 Under the assumed condition of maximum sound ouþut from all 23 wind turbines, the

I estimated sound levels produced only by the Project range from 41 dBA to 55 dBA at the

9 five sound monitoring locations. At the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project,

10 which include the residences to the southwest of the facility near Location 2, the

1l estimated operation Ldn sound levels vary from 46 dBA to 52 dBA with one residence at

t2 54 dBA; and at the closest few residences to the northeast of the Project near Locations 4

13 and 5, the estimated24-hr Ldn sound levels for operationare 52,52,55,55, and 56 dBA.

l4 Under conditions of wind speeds lower and greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), the turbine

l5 sound emissions will be less than the maximum level. For example, the predicted Ldn

t6 sounds levels for each turbine, and for the entire Project, will be reduced by I dBA at

t7 12.3 mls (28 mph), 2 dBA at 13.7 m/s (3 1 mph), and 3 dBA at 8.2 mls (18 mph); and will

18 be reduced by more during times with even less wind, including the times below the

t9 minimum cut-off wind speed when the turbines do not operate.

20 a. HOW DO THE SOUND LEVELS THAT WILL OCCUR FROM PROJECT


2l OPERATION COMPARE TO THE EXISTING AMBIENT SOI.IND LEVELS AT THE

22 RECEPTORS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 12 of l6

I A. The estimated average Ldn sound levels due to routine operation of the Project are equal

2 to or lower than the measured existing ambient Ldn sound levels at noise-sensitive

J locations to the west of turbines. Although the estimated Project average day-night sound

4 levels are greater than the measured l2-day average ambient Ldn values at locations

5 closest to the east side of the Project, they are within the range of the daily Ldn values

6 measured near those locations.

7 a. WHAT NOISE IMPACT WILL THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT HAVE ON

8 AREAS SURROI.INDING THE PROJECT?

9 A. It is anticipated that the turbine sound will be heard at times at the nearest residences.

l0 The scenario in which the Project will most likely be heard is during times when the

1l turbines operate, wind conditions favor sound propagation, and local ambient sound

t2 levels are low. It is important to remember, however, that although the turbines will be

t3 heard at times at the nearest residences, except for one residence where the estimated Ldn

t4 sound level is 561 dBA, the estimated Ldn sound levels in this aÍea are all equal to or less

15 than 55 dBA, the guideline level identified by the USEPA as protective of the health and

t6 welfare of humans for outdoor recreational areas.

t7 In addition to the faú that the expected long-term sound levels for the Project are

18 (in all but one instance) equal to or below the USEPA guideline level for rural areas,

l9 several other factors indicate that the actual sound, when heard, will be below the USEPA

20 guideline. First, the model includes the conservative assumptions that all turbines would

I
As discussed later in this testimony, this residence and several other nearby residences are participants in the
Project.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 13 of 16

I be operating at the maximum sound ouþut wind speed condition of 10.9 mls (24 mph),

2 with downwind conditions in all directions and a moderate temperature inversion.

J For those times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest

4 turbines or when hub-height winds are less or greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), Project

5 sound levels would be less, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not

6 operate. Additionally, the Project Ldn sound levels are estimated for outdoor locations;

7 for indoor locations, these levels would be reduced by 12 dBA with the windows open

8 and by 24 dB.A or more with the windows closed.

9 Second, the nearest residences include those to the southwest of the Project near

10 Location 2 and to the northeast of the Project near Locations 5 and 6. I understand that

ll wind data collected by the Project indicate a predominant wind direction from west to

t2 east. This wind condition will significantly mitigate impacts at the upwind residences to

t3 the southwest of the Project. For the nearest residences to the northeast of the Project

t4 (and the most affected residences), I understand that Pinnacle has entered into agreements

t5 for them to participate in the Project. In particular, Pinnacle has entered into an

I6 agreement with the owners of the residence where the estimated Ldn sound level is 56

t7 dBA.

l8 a. WHAT DESIGN/CONTROL MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO WIND

t9 TURBINES TO MITIGATE NOISE, AND HOV/ HAVE DESIGN CHANGES IN

20 MODERN TURBINES CHANGED THE SOUND OUTPUT FROM EARLIER

2t DESIGNS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 14 of l6

I A. Modem industrial turbines are equipped with extensive noise control features, including a

2 noise-insulated enclosure over the gearbox and generator, reduced-noise gearbox,

3 vibration isolation mounts, and quieted-design rotor blades. Quite significantly, modern

4 turbines are also of the upwind design, i.e., the turbine rotor blades are positioned to be

5 upwind of the support tower during operation. Some earlier wind turbine designs that

6 used downwind rotors (rotors downwind of the support tower) produced higher levels of

7 low frequency sound. When low frequency sound is substantially greater than the

8 background ambient sound, it may be noticed in the community and can cause
9 annoyance. The most significant concern of low frequency sound is that it can induce

10 vibration in a building structure, which may result in rattling china or moving mirrors and

ll windows. Fortunately, modem wind turbines incorporate the upwind rotor design so that

I2 low frequency sound is not an issue.

l3 We also note that the MHI Model MWT95/2.4 unit incorporates noise control

t4 treatments into the design of its various components, including the rotor blades, gearbox,

l5 and generator. Under conditions of reduced wind speeds, the background sound

t6 associated with wind in trees will be less; however, the turbine sound emissions will also

t7 be less. In addition, the Project will install high-efficiency, reduced-noise transformers,

18 including the main facility transformer.

t9 A. YOU STATED THAT MODERN WIND TURBINE DESIGN HAS ELIMINATED

20 THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDER WIND

2t TURBINES. NONETHELESS, DID YOU INVESTIGATE THE DEGREE OF LOW

22 FREQUENCY NOISE EXPECTED FROM THE PROJECT?


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 15 of 16

I A. Although the Siting Rules do not specifically address low frequency sound, we did

2 provide an analysis of low frequency sound in the Acoustical Report. The C-weighting

J filter slightly de-emphasizes the low and high frequencies relative to the mid frequency

4 components of sound, which results in less de-emphasis of low frequency sound than

5 with the A-weighting filter. By comparing the C-weighted sound level with an A-

6 weighted sound level (i.e., dBC vs. dBA), one can determine the low frequency

7 component of the sound. We measured the C-weighted Ldn sound levels at the

8 community locations during the ambient sound monitoring program and estimated the C-

9 weighted Ldn sound levels for facility operation at the five locations. Table 6 in the

10 Report compares the measured ambient and the estimated facility operation levels. The

l1 results indicate that the long-term C-weighted Ldn sound levels of the facility will be less

t2 than the existing ambient C-weighted Ldn levels at both outdoor and indoor locations in

l3 the community at the distant locations to the west of the turbines. At the closest locations

T4 to the east of the facility, the estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels are greater than the

l5 measured ambient levels, although they are less than the upper limit of 75 to 80 dBC that

t6 is recommended in ANSVASME Standard 8133.8-1977 (R2001) for another type of

17 power facllity.2

18

t9 CONCLUSION

20 A. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS FOR THE COMMISSION?

2 | do note that, on page 8 of the Acoustical Report we state as follows: "At the closest locations to the east
of the facility, the estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels are greater than measured ambient levels, although they
are less than the upper limit of 75 to 80 dBA that is recommended in ANSI/ASME Standard 8133.8-1977 (R2001)
for another type ofpower facility." (emphasis added). The sentence should have referenced 75 to 80 dBC.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 16 of 16

I A. Yes. The estimated facility average Ldn sound levels are all within the range of the daily

2 ambient Ldn values that were measured in the area. The fltndings of our noise study

a
J indicate that the Project will produce sound levels that are equal to or lower than the

4 USEPA guideline level of 55 dBA at all but one of the noise-sensitive receptors in the

5 Project area. At times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest turbines

6 or when the hub-height winds are less than or greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), the turbine

7 sound levels will be reduced, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not

8 operate.

9 Sounds from Project construction will be temporary, will occur mostly in the

l0 daytime hours, and will be similar to those of other activities, such as home construction.

1l As a result, the overall noise impact from construction is not expected to be significant in

t2 the community.

t3 a. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMO}TY?

t4 A. Yes.
Staff Resume

JAMES D. BARNES
Supervisory Consultant

Aeentpnlt,
EDUCATION

M. Eng., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, 1973


8.S., Mechanical Engineering, Comell University, 1972
Additional Graduate Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 197 6

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS

Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, MA 1989-present


Bolt Beranek and Newman hc., Cambridge, MA 1973'1989
Cornell University, Ithaca, l{Y, 197 2'197 3
Johnson Controls, Indianapolis, IN, 1972

HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCMTIES

Registered Professional Engineer (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, New York)
NASA Fellow, Past Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROJECTS

Mr. Barnes concentrates on noise and vibration control, with an emphasis on resolving community and
worþlace noise problems. Over the past thirty years, he has managed and technically supervised
hundieds of projects covering the energy, transportation, manufacturing, and processing markets. His
projects have encompassed interior and community noise and vibration control studies for existing
io*c"r, prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for proposed
industriai sites and transportation corridors. To fulfill the requirements of these projects, Mr. Bames has
worked closely with design team engineers, architects and planners, attorneys, equipment suppliers,
owners, community representatives, and state and local government personnel.

PUBLICATIONS, ORAL PRESENTATIONS, AND COMMITTEES

"Noise and Vibration of Chiller and Cogeneration Plants," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for
Architects, Cambridge, MA (November 2008)'

"Fundamentals of Acoustics," course presented to applicants for the INCE Fundamentals Examination
with E. Vy'ood, Noise-Con2007, Reno, NV (October 2007) and Noise-Con2008, Dearborn, MI (July
2008).

"A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the United States - 200'1," paper with R. Gomez,
presented at Second Intemational Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise 2007 in Lyon, France (September
2OO7).

"Prediction of Machinery Noise" (E.W. Wood and J.D. Barnes) Chapter 16 of Noise and Vibration
Control Engineering (I.L. Ver and L.L. Beranek, Eds.) New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,Inc. (Second
Edition.2006).
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

"A Seminar on Noise Control," seminar presented for Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico with
., .1.,
J. Hinckley, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR (January 2006).

"De-Coding New England's Noise Codes," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects with B.
Markham, Cambridge, MA (December 2005).

Co-chaired Session on Community Noise at Noise-Con 2@5 with L. Finegold, Minneapolis, MN


(October 2005).

"Community Noise Issues," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects with J. Cowan,
Cambridge, MA (November 2003).

"Noise Regulations that Serve the Community," talk presented at the l43rd meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA (June 2ffi2}

"Planning to Avoid Land Use Conflicts and Potential Noise Problems," paper presented at Noise-Con
2001 with J. Fullerton, Portland, ME (October 2001).

Organized and Chaired Session on Community Noise at Noise-Con 2001, Portland, ME (October 2001)'

Served on Technical Review Committee for Aircraft Noise Program at Grand Canyon National Pa¡k,
committee appointed by HMMH, National Pa¡k Service, and FAA (1999-2000)'

"Exhaust Silencer Upgrade for ID Fan System at 500 M\ry Power Plant," paper presented at INTER-
NOISE'99, Fort Lauderdale, FL (December 1999).

, "Community Noise Primer," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects, Cambridge' MA
(November 1998).

"HRSG Stack-Radiated Noise," co-chaired roundtable discussion at EEVAcentech Noise Workshop for
Electric PowerIndustry, Toronto, Ontario (July 1993).

"Cogeneration Plant Noise Monitoring," talk presented at EEVAcentech Noise Workshop for Electric
Power Industry, Toronto, Ontario (July 1993).

"Basics of Sound, Instrumentation, and Measurements," training course presented at Columbia Gas
Transmission, Charleston, WV (November 1992 and October 1996).

"Evaluation and Control of Induced Draft Fan Noise at a Municipal Waste Treatment Facility," paper
presented at Noise-Con '91, Tarrytown, NY (July l99l).

"Effects of Track Fixation on Groundborne Noise of Train Passage," talk presented at the 12lst meeting
of the Acoustical Society of America, Baltimore, MD (April 1991).

"Induced Draft Fan Noise Evaluation and Control at the New England Power Company Salem Harbor
Generating Station Unit No. 3," paper presented at Environmental Engineering Proceedings of EE
Div/ASCE Meeting, Orlando, FL (July 1987).

"Energy Savings and Noise Reduction with Speed Control," paper presented at EEVBBN Noise
Workshop for Electric Power Industry, Cambridge, MA (July 1986).

i' "Electric Motor Noise Control over the Past Ten Years," paper presented at INTER-NOISE '82' San

,åceea {É{:Ít
James D. Barnes Acentech lncorporated

Francisco, CA (May 1982).

IL (April 1980).

"A Method for the Detailed Assessment of Aircraft Exhaust Emissions," paper presented at the A.P'C.A'
Northeast Atlantic htemational Section Technical Meeting, Wakefield, MA (April 1978).

"Measurement of the Varying Noise Level from Power Plant Construction Sites," pâper presented at the
93rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, State College, PA (June 1977).

"Ambient Sound Level Studies in Suburban and Rural Areas," paper presented at INTER-NOISE'74,
Washington, DC (September 197 4).

SPONSORED TECHNICAL REPORTS

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Dans Mountain Wind Farm - Allegany County, MD," Acentech Report
No. 387 (April2008).

"Acoustical Stgdy of Proposed Reconstruction of Route 128 Interchange #19 - Beverly, MA," Acentech
Report No. 386 (November 2007).

"Acousrical Study of hoposed Mill Maximum Achievable Control Technology Project - Easton, ME,"
Acentech Report No. 383 (Ma¡ch zOW).

"Communiry Noise Evaluation NEA Bellingham Cogeneration Power Plant - Bellingham, MA,"
Acentech Report No. 385 (February 2007).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Moresville Energy Center (Wind Farm) - Stamford, NY," Acentech
Report No. 384 (June 2006).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed High Sheldon Wind Farm - Sheldon, NY," Acentech Report No. 377
(May 2006).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm - Greenbrier County, WV," Acentech Report
No. 359R (May 2006).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Liberty Gap Wind Farm - Pendleton County, WV," Acentech Report No.
376 (April 2006).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed NSTAR Colburn Street Station No. 350 in Boston, MA," Technical
Memorandum No. 0055 (May 20M).

"Sound Performance Measurements on Hines Power Block 2 in Polk County, FL," (November 2003).

"Environmental Sound Measurements at Six Community Locations during August 2002 and June 2003 in
Londonderry, NH," Technical Memorandum No. 0054 (October 2N3).

"Sound Compliance Measurements on Phases I and2 ODEC Peaker Power Plant in Rock Springs, MD,"
(July 2003).

,,äc.ean Íecil,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

i:!: "Sound Study of Planned Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements at Upper Blackstone Water
,..".-,.i Pollution Abatement District Plant in Millbury, MA," Technical Memorandum No. 0053 (Ma¡ch 2003).

"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 247 in Walpole, MA," Technical Memorandum
No.0052 (August 20O2).

"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 240 in Framingham, MA," Technical
Memorandum No.005l (JulY 2002).

"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaker Power Project at Rock Springs, MD," AI Report No. 0311
(February 2W2\.

"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 282 in Waltham, MA," Technical Memorandum
No. 0050 (October 2001).

"Noise Assessment of Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Keo, AR," AI Report No. 0300
(August 2001).

"Ambient Measurements and Noise Criteria for Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Anderson,
SC," AI Report No.285A (August 2001).

"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaker Power Project at Oraville, TT.," AI Report No. 0297 (July 2001).

"Preliminary Noise Study of Proposed Peaker Power Project in West Frankfort, IL," AI Repon No. 0295
(April200l).
' 'j "Noise Assessment of Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Anderson, SC," AI Report No. 285
(December 2000).

"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaking Power Project in Libertyville, IL," AI Report No. 0235 (August
19e9).

"Adapazari and Gebze Power Projects - Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Noise Impact
Assessment - Adapazari, Turkey," AI Report No. 0234 (June 1999).

"Noise Assessment of Proposed Pleasant Valley Energy Center near Woodstock, IL," AI Report No. 0221
(February 1999).

"Noise Measurement and Control Altematives - Ink Jet Business Unit - Buildings I and2 - Aguadilla,
Puerto Rico," AI Report Nos. 212 and 218 (February 1999).

"Noise Study in Control Room A¡eas at Clinton Power Station," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0049
(July 1998).

"Development Study of Piezoelectric Microphones for Animal Noise Monitor, Sonic Boom Monitor, and
Other Applications," AI Report No. 0200 (March 1998).

"Study of Air-Spring-supported Isolation Slab at Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane,
IN," AI Report No. 0193 (December 1997)'

"La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - Sound Level Estimates and Recornmendations - La Sierra,
i Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0148 (November 1997).

Åcexa të¡iÍt,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0147 (November 1997).

"In-Plant Sound Levels - Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Facility," (January 1997).

"Sound Level Measurements at Community Location A - Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Facility,"
(August 1996).

"Project Compliance Sound Measurements - Beaver Falls Cogeneration Facility," (August 1996).

"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at the Corinth Cogeneration Facility," (July 1996).

"Measurement and Analysis of Off-Site Noise - Bickers, Flat Top, Gala, Huff Creek, Strasburg, Emporia,
Louisa, Marietta, and Petersburg Compressor Stations," AI Report Nos. 0160 4168 (April 1996).

"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at the Olean Cogeneration Facility," (April 1996).

"Noise Snrdy at Central Plant - Denver International Airport," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0M2
(October 1995).

"Noise Study of Planned Cogeneration Facility at Yale University Central Power Plant," AI Report No.
0133 (May 1995).

"Allegany Cogeneration Facility Noise Test Report," (January 1995).

"Allegany Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0125 (September 1994).

"MIT Cogeneration Faciliry Noise Study," AI Report No. 0122, (August 1994).

"Acoustical Evaluation of Proposed Changes to East Beverly Substation in Beverly, Massachusetts," Al


Repon No. 0116 (March 1994).

"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at Onondaga Cogeneration Plant," (February 1994).

Vibration Tests of Curtain Wall Mockup for Combined Operations Centre at Heathrow Airport," AI
Report No. 0097 (April 1993).

"Georgetown University Cogeneration Project - Background Sound Measurements," AI Technical


Memorandum No.0034 (April 1993).

"Syracuse Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0092 (April 1993),

"Metro North Noise Barrier Study - Rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct for Metro-North
Railroad," AI Report No. 0093 (February 1993).

"Environmental Noise Impact Report - Worcester County Transportation, Distribution & Technology
Center," AI Report No. 0091 (December 1992).

"Noise Study at LIRR Hillside Maintenance Complex," AI Report No, 0089 (October 1992).

i "Noise Study of Deck and Track Alternatives - Rehabilitation of the Pa¡k Avenue Viaduct for Metro-
North Railroad," AI Report No. 0077 (August 1992).

,åc*sa tûcÍt,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

i,.,,,i Operation Sound Study of CAES Project in Mclntosh, AL," AI Report No. 0078 (April 1992).

"Stack Radiated Noise Evaluation and Control: Hydro-Quebec, Tracy Power Station," AI Technical
Memorandum No. 0031 (February 1992).

"Ambient Sound Measurements near Concord Facility," AI Report No. 0071 (September l99l).

"Community Sound Study in Vicinity of Midland Cogeneration Plant," AI Report No. 0066 (July l99l).

"Community Sound Study of Carver Transformer Substation," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0023
(June l99l).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Control Room for l¡cinerator Units 1-4," AI Technical Memorandum No.
0025 (March l99l).

"Investigation and Abatement of Community Noise - Brewery and Power Plant Operations," AI Technical
Memorandum No. 0021 (January 1991).

Communþ Sound Study of Deerfield Transformer Substation," Af Report No. 0050 (October 1990).

"Acoustic Evaluation of Proposed Hopkinton Transformer Station 126," AI Report No. 0047 (September
l9e0).

"Community Noise Study of Midland Cogeneration Plant Units 3-14," AI Report No. 0043 (June 1990).

,. "Installation Compatible Use Zone Noise Study, Fort Hood, Texas - Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
Worth District - Vols. I and II," AI Report No' 0054 (February 1990).

"Noise Control Study for Northport Power Station," AI Report No. 0019 (August 1989).

"Acoustic Study of Preliminary Design for CAES Project in Mclntosh, Alabama," BBN Report No. 7005
(February 1989).

"Potential Noise Mitigation Methods for Surowiec Substation," BBN Report No. 6875 (August 1988).

"Community Sound Survey in Vicinity of Surowiec Substation," BBN Report No. 68754 (August 1988).

"Commuter Train Noise and Vibration in the Needham Junction and the Needham Heights Community,"
BBN Report No. 6880 (September 1988).

"Transformer Sound lævel Evaluation - Proposed Expansion of Duxbury Substation 738,' BBN Report
No.6844 (May 1988).

"Acoustic Noise Reduction Study of 5-280 CPI and ISO-20 IDP Shelters," BBN Report No. 6632
(January 1988).

"Effects of Track Fixation on Transit Train Passage Noise and Vibration at Southwest Corridor Project,"
BBN Report No. 6549 (August 1987).

, "Environmental Sound Survey in Vicinity of Mamaroneck Wastewater Treatment Plant," BBN Technical
i' : Memorandum No.097l (June 1987).
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

"Evaluation of Exterior Paging System at Somerset Station," BBN Report No. 6l l8 "Induced Draft Fan
Noise at Salem Harbor Unit No. 3," BBN Repon No. 5927 (July 1986).

"Community Sound Measurement at Somerset Station," BBN Report No. 6188 (April 1986).

"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1985," BBN Report No.
3024-10 (March 1986).

"Transformer Noise Level Evaluation - Proposed Addition of Two Phase Angle Shifting Transformers at
West Roxbury Station I10," BBN Report No. 5982 (August 1985)'

"Transformer Noise Level Evaluation - Proposed Addition of One Phase Angle Shifting Transformer at
Waltham Station 282," BBN Report No.5984 (August 1985).

"Noise Reduction Study of Model 6100 Mailing Machine," BBN Report No. 5917 (April 1985).

"Sound l-evel Measuremenrs near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1984 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No. 30244-9 (April 1985).

"Acoustic Study for Proposed Electric Generating Facility at Lincoln Mill Site," BBN Report No. 5521
(May 1984).

"Sound Iævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1983 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No.30244-8 (April l98a).

"Acoustical Study of Wet Scrubber Module," BBN Report No. 5223 (July 1983).

"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1982 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No. 30244-7 (March 1983).

"Noise Control Study of Type l(V) CNCE," BBN Report No. 5208 (December 1982)'

"Acoustical Evaluation of New Scrap Demoulder Enclosures for Jensen 50 Lines," BBN Report No. 5164
(November 1982).

"Sound Iævel Measurements of Video Display Terminals," BBN Report No. 4841 (February 1982).

"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1981," BBN
Report No. 30244-6 (December l98l).

"Community Noise Study of Worthington Gas Turbine Generators at Ravenswood Station," BBN Report
No. 47ll (July l98l).

"Noise Monitoring at Chicago's O'Hare Intemational Airport," BBN Report No. 4675 (May l98l).

"Program Plan for Measurement, Evaluation, and Control of Environmental Noise at the Omega and
McGaw Sites," BBN Report No 4650 (April l98l).

"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Constn¡ction 1980," BBN
Report No. 30244-5 (March l98l).
James D. Barnes Acentech [ncorporated

!:: ,_- "Noise and Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Sampson Connector, Lowell, MA,' BBN Report No' 4608
(February l98l).

"Acoustic Study of Type I(V) CNCE," BBN Report No. 4566 (December 1980).

"Noise Study of CIay Boswell Station Unit 4 Data Report," BBN Report No. 4514 (October 1980).

"Community Noise Study of Clay Boswell Station Unit 4," BBN Report No. 4499 (October 1980).

"Acoustical Study of Proposed Tirnber Swamp Road Substation," BBN Report No. 4468 (July 1980).

"Ambient Acoustic Environment of Cat¿wba Site," BBN Report No. 3986 (March 1980)'

"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1979," BBN
Report No.302444 (March 1980).

"Acoustical Srudy of Proposed Small Arms Range at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station," BBN Report
No.4169 (July 1979).

"Communiry Sound l.evel Survey near the Madbury Substation," BBN Report No. 4097 (April 1979).

"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1978," BBN
Report No.30244-3 (March 1979).

Complex," BBN Report No. 3844 (November 1978)'

"Noise Control Study of Peru Planr Buildings 2,3,4,5, and 35," BBN Report No. 3758 (August 1978).

"Report on Industrial Health and Safety Consultation Visit at Various Foundries," BBN Report No. 3468
(June 1977).

"Power Plant Construction Noise Guide," BBN Report No. 3321 (May 1977)'

"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1976," BBN
Report No. 30244-2 (April 1977).

"survey and Assessment of Worker Exposure to Carbon Monoxide at the Waltham Facility," BBN Report
No. 3474 (Decernber 1976).

"Draft Northeast Corridor Project Initial Assessment," BBN Report No.3472 (November 1976).

"Air Quality Impact Analysis of Proposed Roxbury Community College," BBN Report No. 3355 (August
t976).

"Winter and Summer Acoustic Environment of the Sears Island Site," BBN Report No. 3219 (December
te7s).

"The Acoustic Environment of the Pomfiet and Sheridan Sites," BBN Report No. 2981 (April 1975).

fuenter:h
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated

"Sound Measurement Survey of the W-25lGas Turbine Installation at the Mistersky Power Station
.....,,,1 Detroit, MI," BBN Report No. 3058 (April 1975).

"Response to Article Vtr, NYSPSC Laws Part 75, Bowline Unit No. 3," BBN Report No. 2916 (December
t974).

"Program Plan for Environmental Sound Control at Sheridan and Pomfret Generating Station Sites," BBN
Report No. 2861 (July 1974).

"Winter Acoustic Environment of the Jamesport and Shoreham Sites," BBN Report No. 2656(b)
(February 1974).

-.&ce'gB .,trr-t:tfu
PUBLIC SERYICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS

Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia.

DIRECT TESTIMO¡IY OF

WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN

NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of William E. Llewelþ
Page 1 of6

1 a. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. V/illiam (Bill) E. Llewellyn, CME Engineering LP, 27 East Main Street, Frostburg,

J Maryland 21532.

5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6 a. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

7 A. I am a Project Director for CME Engineering LP. My firm has been retained by Pinnacle

8 Wind Force, LLC, ("Pinnacle Wind Force") to perform engineering and design services

9 for the Pinnacle wind power project ("Project").

10 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE CME ENGINEERING LP AND ITS EXPERIENCE IN

11 RELATION TO THE WORK PERFORMED FOR THE PROJECT.

l2 A. CME Engineering LP ("CME") is a multidisciplinary firm that provides engineering,

13 environmental science, surveying, construction management, material testing, and solid

14 waste services. CME has a staff of over 80 professional and support personnel in four

15 offices in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. The CME Group, which is comprised of

t6 CME Engineering LP and its two sister companies, CME Operations LP and CME

t7 Laboratories LP, provide complete project design, construction management, and testing

18 services. CME has provided consulting services on wind energy projects in four states in

t9 the mid-Atlantic region, including the Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, West

20 Virginia.

2t
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 2 of 6

1 EXPERIENCE

2 a PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

J A. As a project director for CME, I have broad responsibilities for many of the technical

4 aspects of CME's work, as well as managerial and client interface responsibilities.

5 Pinnacle Wind Force is one of those clients. My project management experience

6 includes engineering and surveying work for a variety of industries, including surface

7 coal, fire clay, sandstone and limestone mines as well as natural gas wells, railroad

8 sidings, tunnels, golf courses, subdivisions and commercial site development. In the past

9 six years, work for the wind industry has accounted for approximately 80%o of the

10 workload for me and my staff. I hold certifications related to surveying and quarry

11 permitting from the West Virginia Board of Professional Surveyors and the West

12 Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP"), respectively. Prior to

13 joining CME in 2003,I served as President and CEO of Llewellyn & Associates, Inc., a

t4 company that I purchased in 1995 and expanded, ultimately employing as many as fifteen

15 individuals.

t6 a. IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE

I7 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?

18 A. Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Liberty Gap

t9 wind energy project in2007.

20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 3 of6

I PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

2 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.

J A. Over the past five years, CME has worked with Pinnacle Wind Force on the design,

4 mapping, engineering, and environmental assessments for the Project. CME also has

5 assisted Pinnacle with the coordination or preparation of permit applications for the

6 Project. My testimony provides a brief overview of CME's efforts with regard to the

7 mapping, site investigations, and design work for the Project, as well as the status of

8 Pinnacle's efforts to secure the permits and authorizations needed for the Project.

9 a. CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY THE SCOPE OF CME'S WORK ON THE

10 PROJECT?

11 CME has been involved with the Project since soon after its inception. We have been

T2 involved in surveying, mapping, field investigations, design work, and permitting for the

13 Project. I am the CME Project Manager assigned to the Project. CME has assisted

t4 Pinnacle with numerous aspects of the Project, including but not limited to production of

15 base mapping, turbine layout, surveying, coordination with other consultants, lease

t6 negotiation support, environmental site assessments, geotechnical support, wetland

1,7 delineations, West Virginia Division of Highways entrance designs, preliminary

t8 transmission line layout, traffic studies and civil engineering.

t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 4 of 6

PERMITTING

2Q. WHAT PERMITS HAS PINNACLE WORK FORCE APPLIED FOR IN


J CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT?

4 A. The status of the permit applications for the Project is described on pages 4 and 5 of the

5 Application. Many of the permit applications and approvals currently are under review

6 by the regulatory agencies. The United States Fish and V/ildlife Service and West

7 Virginia Division of Natural Resources are reviewing the studies of projected wildlife

8 impacts as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Paul Kerlinger, Mike Sponsler, and

9 Karen Tyrell. Likewise, the State Historic Preservation Office of the West Virginia

10 Division of Culture and History is reviewing the potential impact on historic structures

11 and archaeology as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Kate Kuranda and Jeff

T2 Maymon. The status of the reviews by the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal

13 Energy Regulatory Commission are described in the Direct Testimony of David Friend.

l4 CME has submitted the wetlands delineation to the United States Army Corps of

15 Engineers and an application for registration under the NPDES Construction Stormwater

t6 General Permit. The remaining permits and approvals listed in the table on page 5 of the

t7 application will be requested after the Commission reaches a decision on Pinnacle's


18 application for a Siting Certificate in this proceeding.

re a. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF

20 ENGINEERS' REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION?


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 5 of6

I A. On January 27,2009, Pinnacle submitted a Wetlands Delineation Report to the U.S.

2 Army Corps of Engineers ('USACE") and it is currently under review.

J a. V/ILL A SECTION 404 DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR THE

4 PROJECT?

5 A. In consultation with the USACE, Pinnacle Wind Force and CME are currentþ working to

6 determine whether any streams or wetlands will be affected by the construction of the

7 Project. If there is no impact on streams and wetlands, no Section 404 Dredge and Fill

8 Permit will be needed for the Project. If, however, the USACE determines that the

9 Project will cause relatively minimal impacts on streams and wetlands, then Pinnacle

10 should qualiff for one of the existing "nationwide permits" (or "NWPs") available under

11 Section 404. Pinnacle Wind Force and CME have located road construction, utility

t2 corridors and turbine sites to minimize disturbance to streams and wetlands and,

13 therefore, we do not anticipate the need to f,rle a Section 404 NWP application. However,

t4 if it is determined that a Section 404 approval is necessary, the Commission Staff will be

15 so advised.

T6 a WILL A SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION BE REQUIRED FOR

t7 THE PROJECT?

18 A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from WVDEP when an impact to

I9 state waters results from a federally-permitted action (such as construction under a

20 Section 404 permit). If no Section 404 Permit is needed for the Project, then Section 401

2I certification is not required. If a Section 404 NWP is required for the Project, then

22 Section 401 certification is automatic.


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 6 of 6

I a WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE WVDEP REVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR

2 REGISTRATION UNDER THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER

J GENERAL PERMIT?

4 A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit is generally

5 required for stormwater runoff occurring during construction. CME filed an application

6 on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force for registration under the NPDES Construction

7 Stormwater General Permit on March 17,2009. The application includes a Stormwater

8 Pollution Prevention Plan, a Groundwater Protection Plan, a Spill Prevention Control and

9 Countermeasure Plan, and a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. A subsequent

10 revision to the application was made on April 15,2009. V/VDEP is expected to complete

11 its review of the application by June I,2009.

t2 a. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?

13 A. Yes.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMN/ilSSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS

Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia.

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

RANDALL A. CHILDS

NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 1 of6

I a. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Dr. Randall A. Childs. My business address is 210 Valley Street, Reedsville,

J wv 26s47.

5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6 a. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

7 A. I am a principal of Community &, Economic Development Consultants, hc.


I ("CEDCON"). I am also a research assistant professor in the West Virginia University

9 ("WVU") Bureau of Business and Economic Research.

10

1l EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

l2 a PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL

l3 BACKGROUND.

t4 A. I have a bachelor's degree in resource management; a master's degree in resource

l5 economics; and a Ph.D. in economics from West Virginia University. I have 17 years

t6 experience workng as an economist at WVU and more than 10 years as a consultant. I

l7 have, completed numerous research projects ,and, associated reports on ,a variety- of

18 economic impact studies, including wind power projects and coal-fired power plants. My

t9 work includes research on the effects of state and national energy policy on the West

20 Virginia economy. My vita, which includes my educational and professional

2I qualifications, is attached as Exhibit A to this testimony.


Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 2 of 6

1 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE

2 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?

3 A. Yes, I previously testif,red before the Commission in connection with the Liberfy Gap

4 Wind Force power project.

6 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

7 A PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.

8 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address the economic impacts on the West Virginia

9 and Mineral County economies associated with the construction and operation of the

l0 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") wind power project ("Project").

I I A. DID YOU PERFORM AN ANALYASIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

12 ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE

13 PROJECT?

14 A. Yes, I did. The results of my analysis are contained in a report titled: "Economic Impact

15 of the Pinnacle Project" ("Report") which is discussed on pages 70-71, of the application

17 Appendix "N" of the application.

18
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 3 of6

I THE IMPLAN@ MODEL

2 a. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE IMPLAN@ MODEL WAS USED TO

J DEMONSTRATE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH

4 CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING THE PROJECT. PLEASE BRIEFLY

5 DESCRIBE THE IMPLAN@ MODNL.

6 A. IMPLAN@ is an economic model that allows users to estimate the economic impact of an

7 activity or business on a state or regional economy. IMPLAN@ is utilized by government

8 agencies at all levels (federal, state, and local), as well as universities and private

9 consulting organizations. The IMPLAN@ methodology has been peer reviewed by the

l0 academic community and is widely accepted as the economic model to use for estimating

ll economic impacts. IMPLAN@ is also the model used for computing the economic

t2 impacts in the Jobs and Economic Development Impact or JEDI model that was
13 developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States Department of

t4 Energy. IMPLAN@ has also been used by universities and private consultants to provide

l5 the economic impacts of numerous other projects.

t6 a. WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS IS TITE IMPLAN@ IVTOOEL CAPABLE OF

t7 ESTIMATING?

l8 A. IMPLAN@ estimates the indirect and induced impacts of expenditures associated with an

l9 activity or business (direct impact), in this case the construction and operation of the

20 Project.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 4 of 6

lQ. PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT, INDIRECT,

2 AND INDUCED EFFECTS.

J A. The direct impacts of a project or event are represented by the expenditures that are made

4 to purchase goods and services (including labor) for that project or event. The indirect

5 impacts measure the spending and re-spending that occurs in the state or region from the

6 direct purchases of goods and services (excluding labor) and the additional spending that

7 is created as these other businesses purchase goods and services from yet other

8 businesses in the state or region. Thus the indirect impacts measure the "multiplier

9 effecf' of the original spending of the project for goods and services purchased from

10 businesses within the state or region. The induced impacts measure the spending and re-

t1 spending that occurs in the state or region from the wages paid by the project. Thus, the

t2 induced impacts measure the "multiplier effect" of the wages paid by the project that are

l3 used to buy goods and services from businesses within the state or region.

t4 a. W}IAT ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT DID YOU USE WITH

l5 RESPECT TO THE IMPLAN@ MODEL?

l6 The economic impacts presented hère and in the Report assume that the Project will be

l7 constructed in Mineral County, WV with a total construction cost of $131 million. It is

l8 further assumed that the turbines and towers will be manufactured outside of West

t9 Virginia, and thus the expenditures associated with the manufacturing of turbine and

20 tower components will not generate any impact with the state or county economies.

2t
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 5 of6

ECONOMIC IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION

2 a. WILL THE CONSTRUCTTON OF THE PROJECT PRODUCE ANY EFFECTS ON

3 THE ECONOMY?

4 A. Yes, estimated economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the

5 construction of the Project include: $28 million in increased business volume; 275 new

6 jobs; and $7 million in increased employee compensation. The estimated impacts on the

7 West Virginia economy resulting from the construction of the Project include: $37

8 million in increased business volume; 310 new jobs; and $10 million in increased

9 employee compensation.

10 A. WHAT KIND OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS IS THE PROJECT CAPABLE

II OF SUPPORTING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?

12 A. The jobs created by the indirect and induced effects of expenditures associated with the

13 Project will not be in just a few select industries, but rather jobs will be created in

14 numerous industries in the county and state as the businesses and employees purchase a

15 wide variety of goods and services.

17 REVENUES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?

18 A. The economic activity attributable to the Project during construction will generate

19 approximately $603,000 in additional assorted state taxes.

20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 6 of6

1 ECONOMIC MPACT DURING OPERATION

2 a. ONCE OPERATIONAL, V/ILL THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO GENERATE NEW

J ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE LOCAL AREA AND THE STATE?

4 A. Yes, economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the operation of

5 the Project include: $2 million annually in increased business volume; 15 new jobs; and

6 S705,000 annually in increased employee compensation. The impacts on the West

7 Virginia economy resulting from the operation of the Project include: $3 million annually

8 in increased business volume; 18 new jobs; and 5832,000 annually in increased employee

9 compensation.

10 a. IN SUMMARY, WILL THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT

1l ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY?

T2 A. Yes, this Project will generate a significant amount of new dollars and jobs for both the

l3 Mineral County and West Virginia economies. In addition, it will further strengthen the

t4 economic diversity of the state and local economies by providing additional renewable

15 energy capacity in the state, which is called for in both the national and state energy

t6 plans.

t7 a. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMO}TY?

l8 A. Yes, it does.

l9
Randall A. Childs, Ph.D.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Office: 318 Business and Economics Building Flome: P.O. Box 398
Bureau of Business and Economic Research 210 ValleyStreet
College of Business and Economics Reedsville, UIV 26547
\üüest Virginia Univenity Phone: (304) 86+0543
Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6025 Cellulan (304) 233-0689
Phone: Q04) 293-7832
Fax: (304) 293-7061
E-lvIaiL randy.childs(a mail.wvu.edu

EDUCATION
Doctorof Philosophy in Economics
rü(/est
Virginia Universiry Morgantown, West Vugi"i"
Dissenation Chain Russell Sobel, Ph.D.
Dissert¿tion Title: Essap on the Effects of Taxation and Government Regulation
Fields: Public Economics (Public Finance) and Urban/Regional Economics
July200s

Masterof Science in Resourre Economics


Vest Virginia University, Morgantown, W'esr Virgi"i"
Janraary1993

Bachelor of Science in Resource Management


West Virginia Universiry, Morgantown, Wesr Viryinia
lvlay 1990

RELEVAI{T EMPLOYI4ENT
2008 - present Research Assist¿nt Professor, Wesr Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business
and Economic Research

2000. presenr Princþl; C.ommunity & Economic Develo¡iment fünsuha¡ts; Inc.

1999 - 2008 Economisq West Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business and Economic


Research

1993 - t999 Business Research Analysq west virginia univenþBureau of Business and
Economic Research

1992 Database Specialist, \üüest Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business and


Economic Research
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

Childs, Randall. "Effect of Excise Taxation on Demand for Gasoline byGrade'


Significantly hþher gasoline prices and the effecs these price increases have had on consumers and
businesses has become increasingly imponant. In additior\ these large increases in price have led to an
increasing interest into the way in which gasoline is talred þr gallon unit tær vs. ad valorem sales tæ<).
The large inc¡ease in gasoline prices coupled with the per gallon gasoline ta:<es prcvalent in most
states has dramaticallyincreased state highway departrrcnt's expenditures without incrcasing the
state's tax rcvenu€ ¡p"lized from the gasoline ta:r, a major revenue source for manystate highway
departments. This paper examines the inefficiencies created bythe unit tax on gasoline and thus
provides fu¡ther justification for ad valorem taxes on gasoline in place of the popular unit tax This
T pd*: -"f regular and
paper also. examines the dra¡natic decrease in the sha¡e of premium qp9li".
prcmium increased bythe same dolla¡ amount... an apparcnt contradiction of the Alchian and Allen
Theorern-

Childs, Rândall and George Fhmmond. "Smoking Regulation's Effect on Employment: An


Establishment-Iævel Panel Daa Anallris "
Numercus governrnental jurisdictions across the countryhave adoptcd partiai orcornplete smoking
b""s based, at least pafiiâlly, on the negative heahh effects of second-hand smoke. These smoking
rcgu.Læions rnayaffect onlya ponion of buinesses (e.g. rcstau?nts) or mayinclude all businesses in
the jurisdiction There have been numerous sudies on the effects of these regulatiors on the local
economywith some studies reportiry a positive change or no change in economic activþ dæ to the
regulanior¡ while other srudies reporting a negative effect on local economic activiry. The effects of
smoking bans has become of increasing importance to people in \Øest Vugi"i" as manyof the counry
heafth departments in the state have considered or are considering some type of smoking ban for
their counry. Indee4 Monongalia Coutrty, V.Va. is currentlydebæints proposed smoking ban for
" throughout \{tesr Virginia
the counry. This research uses a panel dæa set of individual estabfishments
from 1990 to 2006 and thus addresses the weakness inhercnt in the previous research thæ examined
onlythe net change in employment or sales forthe local economyand ignores the possible offsening
effecr on individual businesses.

Childs, Rândall "Business and Occupation Tæ<es Effect on Business Growh and Locarion"
Municþalities within SØest Virginia have the abilfuyto impose a Business and Occupation (B6aO) tax
on businesses within the cþ limits. The¡t has been sþnificant debate reganding the impact of this tær
on employment andlor establishment growh in the municþalfuies thæ impose the ta:c This research,
utilizing establishment level data of businesses that participæe in the unemploymenr insurance
program, provides the fi¡st detailed analpis of the effects of the B&O tax This ¡rsearch examines
business growth in arcas subjcct to the tÐ( compared to businesses not subject to the BEO tax.

*d Randâll-Childs. 'Do People ReallyVoæ with Their"Feetl A Spatial


.Nesbit, Todd, Kerry-King,
Economeuic A""t)"ir of lvßA to IvISA lr4gration Flows'
Using IvISA to MSA migration flows for the period 1995-2000, this paper seels to determine if local
expendirures on educatior¡ heafth, and socìal q¡elfa¡r together with ta¡res influence the choice ro move
from one lvlSA to another. Following a method set fonh in a working paper by Lesage and Pace
(2008), we empþa spatial econometric technique to account forthe neighbor influences at both the
origin and destination of each lvßÀ \X/hile most studies of this natu¡e only examine mþration flows
between lvßA's, our model also incoqporates those who mþrued within their origin lvßA Ou.t lt
our primarygoal is to determine if local public expendfuures and taxarion policies do, in fact, influence
where people choose to move.

Childs, Randall and Ar¡ri Chester. "Valuing the Public Funding of the West Virginia Fleakh Science
and Technology .Academy'

Childs, Randall. "Does Tax Increment Financing Increase Business Growth?"

Childs, Randall. "An Input-ûrtput Analpis of Howthe Price of C¡ude Oil Should Affect the Price
of Gasoline at the Pump"

Childs, Randall "Does Wal-lr{art Hun Small Business? An Establishment-Level Panel Data
Anaþis"

Childs, Rândall "Cigarette Tæ<ation's Effect on Ggarene auaü$ A Test of the Alchian and Allen
Theorem"

ACADEMIC CONFE RENCE PRE SE NTAÏIONS

Southem Economic Association (Presenter), New Orleans, LA (Nov. 2002) "smoking


Regulation's Effect on Employment: An Est¿blishment-Iævel Panel Data Analysis"

GRAI{T. SIJPPORTE D RE SE ARCH PUBLICATIONS

Eæwricfupø {\Y/øt Vtìginia Unixeßiry FY2007, Arrryfúgginbotharn, Randall .\ Childs,


and Tom S.]üüitt" February2OO8

, Eæwric_Inpø {tln lVatviryinia SM BüWAr¿tlørity FVZ003-FY2007, Rândall ,A.


Childs, fttober2007

Eøwriclnpø {B& AùÌù USA, Randall .{. Childs, lv1ay2007

E æwric h pø { A t\ Panux ot the ÀA owgilia Cn øny E æwgt, Randall ,{. Chlds, December
2Q06

E æwric Inpo { A t\ Pattax m t}te M uwqnlid Ca,rty E wwry Rândall ,\ Childs, December
2006

E æwric hrpø { A n s Panax or tlæ M owgilia Canty E øwny Randall ,A. Childs, Dece mber
2006

t æ*r,¡, t"Wa { th I,lwEdHa Natioal Forct Pl¿n R""d"ll A Childs, nprit ZOO6

20062007 Væt Virginid Cnrty Data Ptú16, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2006

ThEúwichpø{VatVi?giniaUnùmtty,Ctristiadiand RandallA Childs, August 2005

2005-2006 Vat Viryiniø C-a,øry Daa Ml6, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall ,\ Chlds, Augr.st
2005
E æwric Inpa { RØriÌS Rtuer, Randa[ À Childs, July 200 5
LVøt Viryinia's Fore,ß: C'?ouirgVæt Virginù\ Ftøtte, Randall À Childs, June 2005

2004-2005 W'at Virginia Cnaty Daa MIß,Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2044

E æwric Inpø { t}æ Sronøt Towc C.oter m ilæ Mqwgilia eaxy E æwy, Randâll ,4. Childs,
lvlay2004

2003-2004 W'øtViryinia Cnaty Daa IW4 Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2003

Eæwric Cntrih.tisr { tLÊ MatmA¡e¿ lutdirnl Cotnr Heahh SyrøninVøt Vi@niaRandall


A Childs,January2003

2002-2003 W'øt Viryinia Cnaty Data Ml4 Chris Condon and Randall À Childs, August
2002

E æwric Cotrihtisx { Pouø Plarc in l{øø.t&y, Randall A Childs, lvlay 2OO2


t@øtiur {Pûstial Ewwric Inpæ {høihx Bøh\ Natinal Erng Pdþ and lgûoFdlow
tE m.lVatviT fuia,rüffrlliamS. Reece and Randall ,{- Childs, lvlay2002

Suarqic P lørnirg før E æwnic Daelqmt Bt& e a¡d H æú


C-øatiø, Randall
'\ Childs,
George W. Hammond, and Jim Fairbanh November 2001

E uwric Inpø { úe Anplin Hill Ho¡se Pa¡þ, Rendall A Childs, October 200 1
Eæwrichpø {Std in\Y'st ViÌgraa2000,P;rrÅ:.ll,{ Childs, Seprember 2001
2001-2002 lVat Virginia CnatyDaa IWk, Chris Condon and Randall A Childs, August
200L

A n A naly is { the lrnezs d E æwric Cçxrihtiox { ru C,mbriø 199 9, Rârrdall A Childs and
Tom S.'Witt, October 2000

Eæwric Inpo {tlß Bafurrszille Expitim@ø,Terrell Ellis and Randall A Childs,


September2000

2000-2001WætViryinia CnatyDaaIWl6, CLris Condon and Randâll A Childs, August


2000

Eøwnic Inpø {lï/æt Viryfuia Unirusiry FY 1998,R^ndall A Childs, David Greensrreer, and
Tom S. VÍ:r'r,,lv[ay L999

Euwric lrpo {ru Wbriø 1998,Rêrdall ,\ Childs and Tom S. !üin, lvlay t999
Eæwric hrpø { M anxaùwz Raæ Tra& ard Ganirq Rø,ort F iscil Yør 1 99 I , Randall ,{. Childs ,
February 1999

TrardardTarismEæwniclnpø 1997lVstviryinia (anaþis onÌ¡), Randall ,A. Childs and


David Greenstreet, July 1999

1999-2000 W'æt Viryinia Cnaty Daø Ml4 Chris C¡ndon, Brian kg", Cathleen Criswell,
and Randall Á" Childs,July 1999

Ilatm Cøûty Lab Mathø Datahse, Brian Lego and Randall ..{. Childs, June 1999

\YøtViryiniaUniwsþ\ CnxributimnVïøtViryinia\ ExpotBaseFY 1998,Randâll.A" Childs,


David Greenstreet, and Tom S. rü(i'rtt, lvla¡Th 1999

Rqinal Daa Wils RqtmVIII, AndySuper and Randall ,{- Childs, À4arch 1999

1998-1999 \YatViryiniaCaatyDaalfiln,Rândall,A. Childs and Chris C-ondon, Iaruary


1999

VatVitginia Brci¡øs ûdEØwricRedeqvarious issues 1994 - 1999

Eøwric Inpø {V/VHTC} Merrhr Cnrrynis dnd Ferdb Sqprtd Fatilitiø in North Gtrdl
Væt Virglnia 19961997,David Greenstreet and RandyChilds, December 1998

høtmcoaty LdhrMûhøDatahse,Rândall A Childs, lvlay 1998

Pleasart CãnúyFadM, Randall,A. Childs, 1998

Puøruc Hiþlaú Rqim Lahr Ma¡ha Dauhse, Randall A. Childs, NIay 1997
1997-1998 Wøt Viryinia Caaty Daa Serge Karalli and Rand¿ll A Childs, December
Ml6,
1997

Eøwric Irpa Histsric l+wffiztitt in W'st ViTginia, Randall


{ A Childs, David Greensrreer,
and TomS.lX/itt, September 1997

'Rqioul Daø lffIe Rqìm VIII, S:etge Karalli ¿rnd Randall A drilds; Juþ 1997

Pæoruc Hrþkrú Rqinz Lahr Ma¡þet Strldy, R;rndãJl ,A' Childs, lvlay 1997

19961997 \Yæt Viryinia &axy Daa Ml6, Randall ,4" Childs and Serge Karalli, Itly 1996
1995-1996 lVat Vírginia Caaty Daa W6, Rândall A" Childs, August 1995

1 994- 1 99 5 lVøt V iryinia Cnrty Daa Wilß, Randâll ,A' Chìlds, August I 994

Plezsam CsûtyFaûM, RandallA Childs, 1994


1993-1994 VøtViryiniøCnatyDaa Ws,Randall ,4. Childs, August 1993

1992-1993 wæt viryinidca'myDaa Wl*,Randall a childs, Seprember 1992

Vahãrg Vatø Qtalþ btptoørert in tlæ MowrytMa Natioal Forct Usag &tugvx Vdh4arim,
Randall A Childs, Jalrnnry 1993

REtEVAi\iT GRAI{TS ANID CONTRACTS


Iøèst Virginia Fb*-gDevelopment Fund, "Economic Impact of the ìùØest Virginia
Ftr"*-g Development Fund," ï24,500, 2007

Briclc.Street Insurance, "Economic Impact of \üV Emplopn Mun¡al Insurance C-ompan¡"


$15,000,2002

\irg¡lvrginia School Building Authority, "Economic Impact of the \Øest Virginia School
Building Authority FY2003-FII2007,' $5,OOO, 2OOZ

Trans Alleghenylntentate Line Compan¡ Economic Impact of 500KV Powerline and


fusociated IGCC Power Plants, $16,000, 2007

Bridge Ctimb IJSA' "Economic Impacr of Bridge Climb USÀ" $1O,OOO,2OOZ

National Instituæ of Justice, "Economic Impact of the Forensic Indusrry," $600,000, 2OO5-
2007

Ans lvtronongahela,'Economiclmpact of Aru Patron's Spending on the Monongalia


Connty Econom¡" $20,000 þrincipal investigator), 200+2006

USDAForest Service,lvtronongahela National Forest, "Economic Impact of Land and


Resource lvlanagement Plan," $17,687 (co-principal investigator) ,200í-2006

land Resources Comganies, LLq "Economic Impact of Roaring River," $10,000 (co-
project director, principal investigator), 2005

]üíest Vlrginia Division of Forestry "Economic Contributions of Wesr Virginia's Foresrs,"


$80,000 þroject director), 2005-2006

lvlanhall CountyCommission and the Ohio Valleylndustrial and Btsiness Development


Corporatron, "lvlanh3ll CountyRegion: Fconomic Development and Strategic Ph;,"
$55,000 (co projecr director, co-principal investigator), 2OO4

Progress Alliance, "Jefferson C-ounry, Ohio ClusrerAnallais," $18,500 (co-principal


investigator) ,2003

Region VII Vgrldorce Investment Boad "Environ¡nental Scan and Implementarion PIan,"
$98,200 (co-principal investþato r), 2002

6
Ans Monongahela "Economic Impact of the Arts in ìíonongalia C-ounty," $2O,OOO
þrincipal investigator), 2002

Charleston A¡ea lvfedical C-orporation, "Economic Impact of CAMG" $15,OOO þrincipal


investigator) ,2002

Fill E¿ Associates, Inc., "Economic Impact of Kentucþ Electric Power Generation Planß,"
$ 10,500 þrincipal investigator), 2002

U.S. Envi¡onmental Protection Agenc¡ Economic Analysis of the Impacts of l\íountaintop


Mining Resuictions on the Economyof 'West Vttgini", 5120,291(co-principal investigatorf
2000

Preservation Alliance of rü(i'est Vttgioi", Inc., Fleritage Tou¡ism Demonstmrion Projecg


$20,000 (ceprincipal investþator), 2000

Terrell Ellis Er Associates, Economic Impact of the Bartounville Exposition Gnter, $4,500
þrincipal investigator), 2000

Sgæ o! rü(lest Viqginia,


Joint C.ommission on Govemment and Finance, Economic Impacs
of Modifying Mounaintop tvtining and ValleyFills in Vest Virginiâ, $185,000 (coprincipal
investþator) ,2000

The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Company, An fuat)rsis of the Increased Economic


C-ontributions of The Greenbrier 7999 $2A,Q00 (co-principal director),2000

President's Office, Iüf'estVirginia University, Economic Impact of rü(i'est Virginia Univeniry,


$16,000 þrincipal investigator), 1998

President's Office, Vest Virginia Univenity,lü(/est Virginia Univeniry's C,ontribudon to


West Virginia's Export Base, $12,000 þrincipal investigator) ,lggï

The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Compan¡ Economic Impact of The Greenbrier


Resort, $6150 (coprincipal director), 1998

lvlarketVision Research Inc., Economic Impact of West V"Bi"i" Travel and Tourisn¡
$22,7 84 (co-principal investigator), 199 8

Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort, lt¿lou¡rtaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort
Impact Stud¡ $8,200 þrincipal investigator), 1998

Pre¡t9n CountyEconomic Development Authoriuy, Presron Counrylabor lvlarket Study


and Outlooh $S,8OO (co-principal investigatorwith George \üØ. Fbmmond), 1998

Preservation Alliance of W'est Vttgitti", Economic Impact of Füstoric Preservation in West


Vttgitti", $ 10,309 (co-principal investigator), lgg7
\üest Vi¡ginia FÍgh TechnologyConsortium For¡ndation, Economic Impact of WVFITCF
ì¡Iemben and FederallySuppon Facilities, $30,608 (co-principal investigator),1997

Potomac State C.ollege, Potomac Ffuhtands Region I¿borlvlarlat Stud¡ $10,000 þrincipal
invesrigator) , L997

Pleasants C.ountyDevelopment Authorir¡ Pleasants C-ountyFactbooh $4,OOO þrincipal


investþator) ,1997

Governor's Office, State of Vest Virginia,'$ü'est Vi"gi"ir Business and Economic


Information Spter¡ $30,000 þroject director and principal investþator), L99S

SE LE CTE D NON. CONFE RE NCE PRE SE NTATIONS/ LE CTURE S

Commr¡nitf Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, W (September 2006)


"Ilnderstanding Yor:r Regional Econom/

CommunityDevelopment Institute - East (Presenær), Charleston, W (September 200ó)


" Economic Impact Anallais"

2006 GovemoCs Conference on Ftrousing (Panelist), Charleston, WV (September 2006)


"Condition of Ftrousing in \ü'est VLBinia"

CommunityDevelopment Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September 2OO5)


"IJndentanding Your Regional E conomy''

Economics, Environmenl and Education in West Vogi"i" (Presenter), Elkins, \üøV (l"ly
2005) "Economic C-ontributions of \Øest Virginia's Foresrs"

Cnmmunity Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, I7V (Sepæmb er 2004)


"Economic Modeling"

local Government Iæadenhip Academy(Presenter), Morgantown,'ùøV (April 2002)


"Economic Development Strategies forrü(/est Virginia: Regional Perspecrives and Breakout
Sections"

Numerous oth€I presglÍations of study resuhs presentrd to board of dir.ecton, ar press


èonferenCèi,'iô legislaiivé commiuees, erc.

CONSUI,TING PROJECTS
Economic Irypact of Liberry Gap W'rnd Power Facility (Provided testimony for the ÏØesr
V"Bi"i" Public Service Commission)

Condition of \)íest VuBi"i" Ftrousing byProperryTax District and Implications to Local


Public Finance
Economic Impact of Flousing C-onstruction by Type of Ftrotsing for Selected C-ounties and
the Staæ of W'est Vugi"i"

Economic Importance of Mining and Loggrng on Counties in Southem West Virginia

Various other labor marl¡et studies and economic impact studies

PROFE SSIONAL MEMBE RSHIPS

National Tax Association


American E conomic fu sociation
Southern E conomic fu sociation
Southem Regional Science Association

REFERENCES

Dr. Russell S. Sobel


Professor of Economics
James Cla¡k CofÊnan Distinguished Chair
Department of Economics
West Virginia University
P.O. Box 6025
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 864
Email : rssobel(Omail.wvu.edu

Dr. George W. Hammond


Associate Director
Bureau of Business and Economic Research
West Virginia University
P.O. Box 6025
Morgantown, W'est Virginia 26506
Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 87 6
Email : seorse.hammond@mail.ww.edu

Dr. Todd M. Nesbit


Assistant Professor of Economics
Sam & Irene Black School of Business
Penn State - Erie, The Beh¡end College
5l0l Jordan Road
Erie, Pennsylvania 16563
Office Phone: (814) 898-6326
Email: tmnl l@psu.edu
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CTIARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS

Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia.

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

JEFFREY H. MAYMON

M:ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 1 of7

I Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Jeffrey H. Maymon, M.A. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin

3 SLAssociates, lnc.,24I East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701

5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6 A. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

7 A. I am employed by R. Christopher Goodwin &. Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin &.

8 Associates") as a Senior Project Manager for Archeology in the Frederick, Maryland,

g office.
i

10 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN RELATION i

I1 TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.

l2A.Goodwin&Associatesisatwenty-eight-year-oldcu1tura1reSourcemanagementfirm

13 with a national practice in the fuIl spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm i

preservation
:

14 provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic i

15 planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We mainJain offices in

16 Frederick, Maryland; New Oleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,

17 Kansas. All of our professional staff meet or exceed the professional qualification

l8 standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective f,relds.


Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
PageZ of1

EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

2 A. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL

3 BACKGROUND.

4 A. I have more than twenty-six years of experience in archeology and cultural resource

5 management, including fifteen years of work in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I have

6 managed a wide range of cultural resource projects ranging from small Phase I
7 archeological surveys to large data recoveries in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia,

8 Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut,

9 and Maine. I hold a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Hampshire and an

l0 M.A. in Anthropology from Binghamton University.

11

12 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

13 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.

14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in

15 archeology completed by Goodwin & Associates on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

17 investigations are detailed in a report included, in redacted form, in Appendix "Y" to the

18 application filed in this case.

t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 3 of7

I AGENCY CONSULTATION

2 a PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES' CONSULATIONS WTIH THE


a
J WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY FOR THE WORK

4 UNDERTAKEN TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

5 RELATING TO THE PROJECT.

6 A. Consultation with the West Virginia Division of Culture and History ("WVSHPO") was

7 initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Force, LLC and Goodwin &

8 Associates, Inc. met with WVSHPO personnel to discuss scoping architectural and

9 historical investigations for the project. Archeological investigations were initiated in

10 June 2008, when the parameters for potential ground disturbing activities were defined by

ll project engineers. Records and site files research was completed at the WVSHPO office

t2 on June 18, 2009. Informal discussion with SHPO office staff regarding the types of

13 resources anticipated occurred at this time.

t4 a. PURSUANT TO THE CONSULTATION WITH WVSHPO, PLEASE PROVIDE A

l5 DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN

I6

t7 A. Pursuant to the initial consultation, a Phase I Archeological Survey was conducted within

l8 a survey corridor that was intended to encompass all ground-disturbing activities

t9 associated with construction and operation of the wind farm. Defined by project

20 engineers, this survey corridor varied between 500 and 800 feet wide and extended for

2t approximately 3.27 miles along the ridgetop. A narrower interconnection corridor


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 4 of 7

I extending west to existing Allegheny Power transmission lines was also surveyed. The

2 survey corridor was adjusted and expanded in June and September 2008 and included a

a
J revised interconnection location in the northern portion of the project area. A
4 supplemental survey was conducted to ensure that all areas that might be impacted during

5 construction were examined. To maintain design flexibility, this survey area was larger

6 than necessary for construction and maintenance of the proposed wind turbine array.

7 A total of 448 shovel tests were excavated by Goodwin &, Associates

8 archeologists during the survey, and an additional 2,809 potential shovel test locations

9 were examined but not excavated due to slopes in excess of 20 per cent (11.3 degrees),

t0 exposed rock, or rock immediately beneath the leaf liuer. The testing was conducted at

ll 15 meter (50 ft) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 ft) apart along the survey

t2 corridors, which generally followed the mountain ridge. The shovel tests each measured

13 a minimum of 50 square centimeters of soil and were excavated to a minimum depth of

t4 l0 centimeters into culfurally sterile subsoil, except where soil conditions prevented fulI

l5 excavation. The spacing, diameter, and depth of the shovel tests were consistent with

t6 guidelines for archeological investigations issued by the WVSHPO. The soils were

I7 removed according to natural stratigraphic horizons and the soil characteristics, including

18 color and texture, were recorded using standard soil nomenclature. All excavated soils

I9 were screened through Yo inch hardware cloth.

20 Nine archeological sites were identified within the survey area during these

2t investigations. Five of the sites (designated as sites 46Mi76, 46M177, 46M178, 46M179,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 5 of7

I and 46Mi80) are stones set upright to serve as boundary markers. Properly surveyors

2 working for the landowners or Pinnacle Wind Force also identified most of these stones

J as boundary markers. The characters "COR No 21 NC Co" were carved into one of these

4 stones, confirming that it represented a survey marker. Two other sites (46Mi81,
5 46Mí82) represent remains of possible historic stills in a wooded area north of Green

6 Mountain Road. These sites are charactenzed by a circular feature constructed by

7 removing natural stone from a central area and stacking it to form a low circular wall.

8 One site (46Mi75) consists of a single isolated chert flake and was likely the byproduct of

9 shaping or sharpening a stone tool.

r0 The final site (46Mi74) is charactenzed by a cluster of 60 rock cairns and walls.

1l No artifacts were associated with these cairns that would help interpret their origins or

t2 use. Situated along the margin of a steep slope on the eastern margin of the ridge, this

13 cluster of rock cairns/walls is located in one of the few locations along the ridge where a

t4 plowzone was observed in soil profiles. The thicker soil deposits and plowzone
15 suggested that these cairns/walls were the result of field clearing during the nineteenth or

t6 early twentieth century. These sites do not appear to possess either substantive research

ti potential or those qualities of significance as defined by the National Register Criterial.

l8 No further work was recommended at any of the nine sites.

t9

I The criteria for evaluating properties for the National Register are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36
CFR 60.4 [a-d].
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 6 of7

1 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDY

2a DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH TO

J IDENTIFY KNOWN ARCTIAEOLOGICAL SITES NEAR THE PROJECT AREA

4 THAT ARE BEYOND THE DIRECT AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ("APE'')?

5 A. Goodwin &, Associates conducted background research as part of the Phase I


6 Archeological Survey for the Project. This background research compiled information on

7 known archeological sites and historic properties that, while not within the Project APE,

8 are located within 5 miles of the Project corridor. The research was conducted in June

9 2008 and included examination of site files at the Division of Culture and History in

l0 Charleston, West Virginia, to document previously recorded archeological sites and

ll examine archeological studies conducted within the 5 miles of the Project area. None of

t2 the 21 archeological sites recorded within the 5-mile area were determined to be eligible

l3 for or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

t4 a. HAVE YOU PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL


l5 SURVEY TO WVSHPO?

T6 A. Yes: The background - research;- methods, and -results of '.the - Phase-- I

t7 Archaeological Survey, along with the recorlmendations of Goodwin &,

l8 Associates, are contained in a draft Phase I Archeological Survey for the Proposed

t9 Pinnacle Wind Project, Mineral County, West Vìrginia ("Archeological Survey

20 Report") that was submitted to the WVSHPO on March 11,2009. A redacted


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
PageT of7

I version of the Archeological Survey Report is included in Appendix "Y" to the

2 application filed in this case.

3 Q. HAS WVSHPO RESPONDED TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT?

4 A. No. To date, Goodwin & Associates has not received any formal response to the

5 Archeological Survey Report from the WVSHPO.

6 a. DOES THrS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?

7 A. Yes, it does.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIIARLESTON

Case No. 09-0360-E-CS

Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize


the Construction and Operation of an Electric
Wholesale Generating Facility and Related
Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV
and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Mineral County, West Virginia

DIRECT TESTIMOI\-Y OF

KATHRYI\ M. KURANDA

NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page I of 10

I Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Kathryn M. Kuranda. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin &

3 Associates, Inc.,Z4l E. 4th Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701.

5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

7 A. I am employed with R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin &

8 Associates") as Senior Vice President for Architectural & Historical Services.

9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND ITS WORK IN

10 RELATION TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.

I I A. Goodwin & Associates is a twenty-eight-year-old cultural resources management firm

12 with a national practice in the firll spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm

13 provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic preservation

14 planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We maintain offices in

15 Frederick, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,

l7 standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective fields.

18

l9 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

20 A. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL

2I BACKGROI.IND.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 2 of 10

I A. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Dickinson College and a

2 Master of Architectural History degree from the University of Virginia. My professional

qualifications exceed those established by the Secretary of the Interior in the field of

4 architectural history. I am a court-qualified architectural historian.

5 Prior to joining Goodwin & Associates in 1989, I served as the architectural

6 historian with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, where I coordinated the
7 state's program for built resources, and as Architectural Historian with the Bureau of

8 Reclamation at their headquarters office in Denver. Since joining Goodwin & Associates

9 as a Senior Project Manager in 1989, I have served as Principal Investigator on numerous

10 architectural identification, evaluation, planning, and management projects across the

11 nation. I currently direct the architectural history and history programs of Goodwin &

12 Associates company-wide.

13

t4 PURPOSE OF TESTMO}ry

l5 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.

16 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in history

17 and architectural hisiory completeJ UV à""¿*io A errociates on U"t um of piooacte


18 Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") in Mineral County, West Virginia.

t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 3 of 10

1 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS

2 Q. WERE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED CONCERNING THE

3 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE WORK DONE TO IDENTIFY CULTURAL

4 RESOURCES? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN.

5 A. Yes. Consultation with the West Virginia Division of Cultural and History

6 ("WVSHPO") was initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Wind Force

I and Goodwin & Associates met with Ms. Susan Pierce, Deputy State Historic
8 Preservation Officer, and Ms. Ginger Williford, Structural Historian, on 13 February

9 2008 to discuss project scope, methodologies, and reporting. A summary of this

t0 discussion was submitted to WVSHPO for review on 20 February 2008. In

11 correspondence dated 19 March 2008, the WVSHPO concurred with the Scope of Work,

12 defining two phases of investigation for architectural and historical resources. Close

t3 coordination was maintained with the WVSHPO throughout the investigation.

t4 a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED By GOODWIN &

15 ASSOCIATES TO WVSHPO.

16 A. The Scope of Work defined a two-phase investigation. Phase I included five tasks:

17 1. Refine Area of Potential Effects ("APE") through computer modeling and field

r8 verification;

19 2. Develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of built resources

within the APE;

21 3. lnitiate public outreach to identiff resources of importance to the community;


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 4 of 10

1 4. Complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources >50 yr of age within the

2 APE; and

J 5. Identify resources requiring further investigation, including intensive-level

4 survey.

5 The APE for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project ("Project") was defined to

6 address both direct and indirect effects. The area of direct effects was defined as the

7 fooþrint of each wind turbine tower and leased land encompassing the footprint of the

8 turbine towers and foundations, access roads, collection system, and substations. The

9 areas of indirect effects are those locations within a five-mile radius of the proposed

l0 Project location that are within the viewshed of the Project as defined by computer

l1 modeling and verified in the field.

l2 a. WHAT KINDS OF RESEARCH DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES UNDERTAKE IN

l3 THIS EFFORT?

14 A. Archival research was undertaken to identify previously recorded historic properties and

15 to develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of previously unidentified

t6 resources within the refined APE. Archival research was completed at the Keyser-

t7 Mineral County Public Library, the Potomac State College, the West Virginia Division of

18 Culture and History, and other repositories. Information was gathered on Keyser,

t9 Mineral County, and communities within the APE. Themes evolving from this research

20 include coal, timber, railroad, settlement, transportation, and education.

2t Public outreach was initiated through the Mineral County Historical Society on 25

22 March 2008. Goodwin & Associates participated in the public open house held on the
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 5 of 10

project on 5 May 2008 in Keyser to obtain data on historic properties and areas of

historical concern from the general public.

Reconnaissance-level architectural survey to locate and to identifu built resources

older than 50 years was completed for both the areas of direct and indirect effects. Three

5 objectives were established for the field investigation:

6 1. To veriff and to refine the areas likely to be in the viewshed within five miles of

7 the Project area;

8 2. To complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources 50 years of age or older

9 within the APE with a view of the proposed tower locations; and,

l0 3. To identiff resources requiring Phase II investigation to determine Project effects.

11 a. PLEASE REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE I AND PHASE II


t2 INVESTIGATIONS.

13 A. Preliminary Phase I results were reviewed in the field with WVSHPO Structural

t4 Historian Ginger Williford on 22 April 2008. The results of the Phase I investigation

l5 were presented in a detailed technical report, Pinnacle Wind Project Phase I Investigation

t6 for Architectural and Structural Resources, which was submitted the WVSHPO for

t7 review and comment on23 June 2008. The 'WVSHPO concurred with the findings of the

l8 Phase I investigation in correspondence dated 3 July 2008.

t9 The Phase II investigations included intensive-level field survey, evaluation, and

20 effects determinations for 21 properties that may have views of the Project. These

21 properties include 17 buildings, I district, and 3 cemeteries. West Virginia Historic

22 Property lnventory Forms with accompanying graphic and photographic materials were
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 6 of 10

I prepared for each of the resources; all survey data was compiled from the public righrof-

2 way. The integrity of each property was assessed, and individual resources and districts

J were analyzed applying the National Register criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]).

4 Criteria A, B, and C were applied in the assessment of each property. Under Criteria A

5 and B, the historic context developed specific to the Project area was utilized in resource

6 evaluation.

7 Phase II investigations were initially recommended for 26 properties.

8 Modifications to the Project led to the reduction of the APE in consultation with the

9 WVSHPO. As a result, Phase II investigations were undertaken for 2t properties,

l0 including 17 buildings, 1 district, and 3 cemeteries.

1l The investigation identified a total of 18 properties that meet the National

l2 Register criteria for significance and integrity. Six properties possess the qualities of

13 significance and integrity necessary for consideration for listing in the National Register

t4 of Historic Places under Criterion A, and one property possesses the qualities of
l5 significance and integrity for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic

16 Places under Criterion B. The remaining properties possess the significance and integrity

t7 for National Register consideratioo *¿r, Criterion C. A staternent of significance was

l8 completed for each resource and was included in West Virginia Historic Properfy
t9 Inventory forms ("HPI").

20 Three cemeteries also were documented under Phase II investigation. Although

2l none of the cemeteries was significant under National Register Criteria A, B, or C, West

22 Virginia Cemetery Survey forms were completed for each cemetery and were attached to
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 7 of l0

I the Phase II documentation submitted to WVSHPO. All HPI forms and accompanying

2 graphic and photographic documentation were submitted to the WVSHPO as part of the

J Phase tr technical report.

4 a. HOTV WERE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES DETERMINED?

5 A. Following guidance provided in 36 CFR 800.5, analysis was completed to identifii

6 possible effects from the project upon properties listed in or eligible for listing in the

7 National Register of Historic Places. The Criteria of Adverse Effect developed by the

8 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was used in this effort. Under these criteria,

9 an adverse effect is found when a project may directly or indirectly alter the

10 characteristics of a historic property in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the

11 property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. It

t2 was determined that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in, or

13 meeting National Register criteria. The Project was anticipated to be visible from 18

t4 historic properties based on the viewshed model, photo simulations, and field

15 investigation. Unrelated contemporary construction already is present within the

t6 viewsheds of eight of these properties, and therefore a visual impact already exists at

1.7 these properties.

18 a. WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE THE PHASE II INVESTIGATION REPORT TO

t9 TVVSHPO, AND WHAT WAS ITS RESPONSE?

20 A. The Phase tr lnvestigation for Architectural and Structural Resources was submitted to

2l WVSHPO 26 February 2009 during a consultation meeting with representatives of

22 Pinnacle Wind Force LLC, Goodwin & Associates, and WVSHPO, represented by Ms.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 8 of 10

Pierce and Ms. Williford. This submission included a background summary of the

Project and a discussion of purpose and methodology. In addition, HPI forms were

attached for each historic resource that may have a view of the Project. West Virginia

Cemetery Survey forms were submitted for those cemeteries that may have a view of the

Project. Photo simulations of the proposed Project area and views toward the area from

historic resources were included with the Phase II submission.

A 12 March 2009 review letter from WVSHPO regarding the Phase II

investigations concurred that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The WVSHPO

t0 identified adverse visual effect to 18 historic properties within the APE. The WVSHPO

11 further found that the addition of turbines to the viewshed of 8 historic resources would

t2 result in a cumulative indirect effect to those resources when combined with

13 contemporary development already within the viewshed. Indirect effects to 10 additional

l4 historic properties were found due to the introduction of a new industrial element to the

15 rural landscape. These eighteen historic resources comprise 15 dwellings, the Potomac

16 State College Agricultural Farm, a grocery, and the Keyser historic district; all were

t7 identified and docurneoi.¿ * u r"r.rfiof the


".rrr"niinvestigation.
18 WVSHPO also requested that the acoustical study of the Project be submitted to

t9 their off,rce for review to address possible effects to historic property from noise

20 generated by the Project. An electronic version of the Acoustical Study of Proposed

2l Pinnacle Wind Farm Mineral County, West Virginia (completed by March 2009 by

22 Acentech, [nc.) was submitted to WVSHPO via email on 31 March 2009. WVSHPO
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kwanda
Page 9 of 10

summarized their review of the report in a2l April 2009 letter, which states that "In our
opinion the acoustical study addresses the potential effect to historic resources and that

there will be no adverse effect to any architectural or cultural resources eligible for or

listed in the National Register of Historic Places."

WVSHPO recommended that the identified effects be mitigated through

stipulations defined in a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") negotiated among

Pinnacle Wind Force and the WVSHPO. These negotiations had been initiated during

8 the 26 February 2009 meeting. This MOA will define measures to mitigate the adverse

9 visual effects to the 18 historic properties within the APE. This MOA is anticipated to

10 include the creation of a grant fund for local historic preservation projects, pursuant to

l1 which Pinnacle Wind Force will mitigate adverse visual effects to historic properties and

12 fulfill requirements for architectural and historical resources pursuant to 82 CSR 2, in

r3 particular $ 82-2-5: State Review Process.

t4 a. ARE ANY RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE LISTED IN THE NRHP?

15 A. Review of the National Register filed maintained by the WVSHPO identified ¡wo

t6 properties within the APE that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

t7 These are the Mineral County Courthouse, listed in 2005, and the Thomas R. Carskadon

18 House, which was designated in 2002. These properties were included in the

t9 architectural investigations as part of the Keyser historic district.

20 a. SECTION 15 OF THE PSC APPLICATION STATES THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE

21 FILING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY, THE PROJECT LAYOUT WAS

MODIFIED, THEREBY REDUCING THE APE. HOW HAS THIS MODIFICATION


Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 10 of 10

AFFECTED THE CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL


2 SURVEY?

3 A. Analysis of the modified layout and photo simulations of the tower turbine anay in

4 September 2008 refined the APE for Phase II investigation and eliminated five properties

5 from further study. While these properties will not have views to the Project and are

6 outside the APE, West Virginia Historic Property Inventory Forms were prepared and

j ftled with the WVSHPO to archive data collected prior to the Project modif,rcation.

s The modifications to the Project layout were addressed in the Phase II technical

9 report submitted to the WVSHPO on 26 February 2009. The WVSHPO concurred with

l0 the results of our reanalysis in correspondence dated 12 March 2009.

11 a. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?

12 A. Yes, it does.