Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D. Registered Professional Geologist P.O. Box 217 Montrose, WV 26283

January 19,2009

Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Subject: Case Number 08-2105-E-CS AES New Creek, LLC, Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Interconnection Facilities in Grant County, West Virginia

I strongly oppose construction of wind turbines on New Creek Mountain in Grant County, West Virginia and I request that you deny the siting certificate for which AES has applied. I oppose this project because: 1) there is no need for the very minimal amount of electricity produced by wind turbines; 2) there are local negative environmental impacts which result from construction and operation of the wind turbines; 3) there are cumulative negative environmental impacts on a regional or ecosystem scale with the construction and operation of industrial-scale wind turbines on numerous mountain ridges along the in West Virginia; and 4) there are no benefits to the citizens of West Virginia, but rather a tremendous amount of profit for the AES Corporation, including our federal tax dollars which provide the Federal Production Tax Credit to the company.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL-SCALE WIND TURBINE FACILITIES

Concerning the lack of need for the very minimal amount of electricity produced by industrial-sized wind turbines, we know that over 70 percent of the electricity produced by the coal-fired plants in West Virginia is already transmitted out of the state to neighboring states. Grant County is within the Allegheny Power System (APS) region of the PJM Interconnection regional transmission organization. The APS region covers slightly more than half of West Virginia, two portions of Pennsylvania (the southwest corner, including Pittsburgh, and a northern middle portion), Garrett County and Frederick County (which includes the Frederick and Baltimore areas), Maryland, and portions of north central Virginia. However, the usage of summer peak load provided in the PJM Load Forecast Report provides that this entire APS area constitutes only approximately 6% of the total amount of electricity demand in the PJM zone. Even if industrial-scale wind turbines could provide any useful electricity, there is minimal demand in our region, especially in Grant County, and therefore there is no need for the industrial-scale wind turbine facility proposed by AES in Grant County. In response to my question submitted on March 4,2008, to APS concerning whether there are any plans to retire generating plants, I received an e-mail stating, "No, Allegheny doesn't plan to retire any generating facilities or construct new generating facilities."

1 In the public hearing for PSC Case Number 08-0109-E-CS (AES Laurel Mountain, LLC), expert testimony by Charles Simmons provided updated information by PJM: “The Application indicates the PJM forecasted summer peak for 2017 is 159,822 megawatts (MW). On May 5, 2008, a PJM press release stated that PJM has 159,780 MW of committed capacity for the summer of 2008, which essentially is equal to the 2017 projection if no new capacity became available to PJM during the next nine years. Ten days later, another PJM press release announced the results of the capacity auction for the planning year June 201 1 thru May 2012, which added 4,238 MW of new generation and demand response, with a 37% reduction in price. PJM explained that the ‘auction price was lower because growth in the available capacity was greater than the growth in demand - supply exceeded demand.’ PJM also stated that the total results of the auction include 176,055 MW of generation and 2035 MW of demand response.’]

Additionally, on November 21 2008, an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Surprise Drop in Power Use Delivers Jolt to Utilities”, includes a quote from Michael Morris, the chief executive of Allegheny Electric Power, who says he thinks the industry should to be wary about breaking ground on expensive new projects: “The message is: be cautious about what you build because you may not have the demand to justify the expense.]’

INDUSTRIAL-SCALE WIND TURBINE FACILITIES DO NOT REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

The Mt. Storm coal-fired plant in West Virginia generates electricity for Virginia. Even , though there can only be very minimal electricity produced by wind projects near Mt. Storm, the mere connection to the wind project will be used for the purpose of satisfying the requirement for Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in other states. The RPS requirement is that approximately 15 percent of the electricity in that state must be from renewable sources such as wind, solar, or hydro, or a fine is levied. A review of the actual sources mostly used for RPS requirements reveals that most of the RPS credits are stated to be from wind plants (h~S://~.Rim.COm/Rlannina/RroieCt-t-qUeUeS/queUe- gen-active.isp).

The concept that the minimal amount of electricity produced by industrial-scale wind turbines constitutes an “offset” of carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants is a fallacy and a scam on the American people. Electricity from industrial-scale wind turbines can only be produced when the wind is blowing at speeds above approximately 8 miles per hour and then must be used immediately because there is no method to store the electricity (there is no need to store electricity at coal-fired plants because coal is provided at a predictably constant rate). Because of this, PJM has now lowered the amount of capacity that wind plants claim to produce to 13 percent of their nameplate capacity. This well-known fact is in direct conflict with the AES claim that a wind turbine site on New Creek Mountain would function at 28 to 35 percent capacity. The wind speeds are the least during the summer months when electricity is needed the most (http://www.ncdc. noaa. aov/odclimate/online/ccd/avawind. html). Also, the wind is highly variable minute-to-minute and is not reliable for the hour-ahead dispatch system currently in use by our PJM regional transmission organization. In their siting application, the wind resource on New Creek Mountain was characterized by AES as excellent. However, they don’t even have 2 years worth of data and they state they need to more data to fully characterize the wind resource. This obviates the statement that there is an excellent wind resource. Additionally, AES must be embarrassed or

2 afraid to provide their wind data because they have refused to provide it as information.

It is essential that the coal-fired boilers used at coal-fired electrical generation maintain flame stability. When the boilers are backed down to accommodate the variable influx of electricity from a wind plant, the flame stability must be maintained least to 50 percent of their capacity even if the steam cannot be used for that specific period of time. When the boilers are heated again sufficiently, this ramping up (equal to acceleration) requires even more coal to be burned (or more gas or petroleum to be consumed in peaker units) than if it were just burned constantly. Therefore, there is essentially no reduction of carbon dioxide due to the introduction of electricity from a wind project. Additionally, all generating facilities are required to have a spinning reserve of electricity that is available at any moment if a power plant ceases operation or a transmission line goes down. Wind plants are not capable of producing a spinning reserve and the operators of wind plants must therefore purchase the spinning reserve from a reliable source, such as a coal-fired generating plant. If the wind plant were not providing input to the electrical dispatch system, the extra spinning reserve required for the wind plant would not be necessary.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has provided regulations for “spinning reserve” (http://tdworld.com/news/Dower soinnina reserve black/). Spinning reserve is capacity (generation or usage reduction) that is available in 10 minutes. It can be called upon virtually instantly to replace a power plant or transmission line that unexpectedly trips out of service ~http:/iwww.~im.com/contributions/news-releases/2006/20060501-dr- in-ancillaw-services-markets.Ddf). Plants providing spinning “spin” under no-load (or partial load) conditions and are not actually producing any substantial amounts of electricity although their rotating generators are electrically connected to the grid (htt~://ewh.ieee.orc1/r7/ottawa/ea/lEEEStan Seminar VI.pdf). Power suppliers will be paid a per megawatt hour market clearing price to provide spinning reserve services - a pricing schedule that has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The manager of market development for PJM stated, ‘Wemust have sufficient spinning reserve at all times to allow quick recovery from the largest single outage anticipated, and that would be the possible loss of a large nuclear unit of more than 1000 megawatts”. Considering the required spinning reserve and the need for a coal-fired plant to maintain flame stability, it is difficult to perceive that any carbon dioxide is being offset by the use of industrial-scale wind turbines. It should be noted that the amount of spinning reserve electricity is not simply a backup for the wind turbine plant, but rather, it is a backup in the event that a major, reliable generator would go off-line. Wind power is not capable of supplying spinning reserve.

Additionally, industrial-scale wind turbines use electricity from the electric grid system, referred to as “parasitic” loads. Such parasitic loads include electricity from the grid for the electric pitch system yaw motors, oil heaters, oil pumps for bearings and gearbox, cooling van for generator and turbine controller. Unfortunately, if electricity is not supplied for these components, disasters can occur, such as ice throws when the blades are not heated during winter and total destruction of the blades if the brake does not work to stop the turbine during wind speeds exceeding 57 miles per hour. This additional use from coal-fired generating plants obviously causes even more carbon dioxide emissions. In its application for a siting certificate, AES has already requested a waiver of meter requirements. If the PSC grants this waiver, there will be no record of how much electricity is used by the wind turbines from the grid.

3 INDUSTRIAL-SCALE WIND TURBINE FACILITIES CAUSE CUMULATIVE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the request of Congressmen Mollohan and Rahall, produced a report entitled, “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” (GAO Report: www.crao.aov/new.items/d05906~df).The foremost conclusion of this report was that “no one is considering the impacts of wind power on a regional or ‘ecosystem’ scale” and that state and local officials have no guidelines for considering the negative environmental impacts caused by wind turbine facilities. The concern about wildlife habitat and water resources expressed in the GAO Report is obviously not simply a fabrication of people just to oppose wind turbines: it is a recognized reality that there are cumulative negative environmental impacts caused by the construction and operation of industrial-scalewind turbines. There is currently no method of evaluating the cumulative negative impacts, but in addition to the existing wind plants (Mountaineer on Backbone Mountain in Tucker County and NedPower near Mt. Storm in Grant County), there are at least 20 wind projects planned for West Virginia, including: U.S. Wind Force has received a siting certificate for construction of more wind turbines on Backbone Mountain; AES has received a siting certificate for construction of wind turbines on Laurel Mountain in Randolph and Barbour Counties; lease agreements are being negotiated for wind turbine construction on Rich Mountain near Beverly, WV; a wind project has been reported targeting , with an area partially in Pendleton County, Hardy County, and a portion of the National Forest; wind turbines are targeted for Briery Mountain in Preston County, West Virginia; Liberty Gap Wind Force is continuing its efforts to construct wind turbines on Jack Mountain in Pendleton County; and Gamesa reported to the West Virginia Energy Authority that it has targeted the Dobbins Ridge wind project in Grant and Tucker counties, the Drennen wind project in Nicholas County, the Rich Mountain wind project near Harman in Randolph County, and the Stone Steps wind project in McDowell County, WV and Tazewell County, VA. Wind generated electricity is consistently below the rated capacity of the wind turbine because of the variability of the wind. Considering a typical 1.5 megawatt wind turbine operating at a generous 30 percent annual capacity factor (as opposed to the 13 percent annual capacity factor assigned by PJM), which is the highest average efficiency that could ever be expected in the Appalachian region, over 4,000 wind turbines would be necessary to equal the output of a coal-fired power plant operating at a 70 percent annual capacity factor. Based on the typical spacing of wind turbines, this would require approximately 590 miles of mountain ridge areas. Even if this were to happen, the wind turbine facilities would require coal-fired plants for the spinning reserve in addition to the reserve margin supplied by reliable coal-fired generating plants.

IF THE PSC APPROVES A SITING CERTIFICATE TO AES FOR A WIND PROJECT ON NEW CREEK MOUNTAIN, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL EFFECTIVELY BE ALLOWING AES TO BREAK THE LAW

Clear-cutting of the forested ridgetop on New Creek Mountain would be conducted by AES in order to construct and operate the industrial-scale wind turbines. Clear-cutting results in habitat fragmentation and destruction of the tree canopy. Numerous studies have shown that habitat fragmentation in forests harms many woodland birds by increasing their susceptibility to predation and nest parasitism.

4 Nocturnal migrants, resident birds, and raptors (including golden eagles and bald eagles} were observed flying lower than the proposed wind turbines such that they could “come into close contact with the wind turbines”. The AES siting certificate application (Appendix 0) actually provides data indicating that these birds and raptors will be destroyed by the wind turbines: “The proposed New Creek Mountain Project is located in the Allegheny mountain physiographic region of the “Eastern Continental Hawk Flyway3,” which extends from the Canadian Maritimes south to eastern Florida. Within this large area, raptors tend to concentrate along linear ridges, which create updrafts or “thermals” that raptors can use to fly long distances with minimal exertion. The proposed Project is located on the primary ridgeline of the known as the Allegheny front. The Allegheny front is thought to be used as a leading line by some diurnal migrants (Hall and Bell 1981). Long, continuous ridges and lesser disconnected ridges are quite common in the region surrounding New Creek Mountain, and certain ridges of this type attract large numbers of migrating raptors during the spring and fall migration period.” Results of the AES study report that 67-68 percent of raptors observed were flying within the elevation of the turbines and would be at risk of being slaughtered by the wind turbines. All bats found in West Virginia are insecfivom,which is an animal that only eats insects. Bats often eat more than 50% of their body weight in insects each night and nursing female bats eat enough insects to equal their body weight. A single bat can eat over 4,500 insects in a single night. Because bats eat so many insects, they are a very important part of our ecosystem. The Virginia Big-Eared bat and the Indiana bat are both federally listed endangered species known to inhabit Grant County. Numerous species of bats inhabit Grant County, as well as in most areas in West Virginia where wind projects are designated. The bats may roost in trees, in rock crevices, or near caves or ledges in warm weather, but they hibernate in local caves. The West Virginia Cave Protection Act WVC 20-7A-4 states, “It is unlawful to remove, kill, harm or disturb any plant or animal life found within any cave” (htt~://~.lenis.state.wv.usNWCODE/2O/maste~~Frm.htm).However, it is well documented that wind turbines kill thousands of bats every year. In the bat survey reports supplied in Appendix 0 to the AES application, it is reported that there were 1) 4,554 bat call sequences recorded between 8/4/07 and 10/23/07 and 2) 19,755 bat call sequences between 5/21/08 and 10/17/08. These numbers are significant. The results further show that the talus slope had the highest numbers of bat call sequences. In the conclusion section of Appendix 0 of the AES application for a siting certificate, the contractor states that: “An unusually high detection rate at the talus slope indicates the presence of habitat valuable to many bat species within the Project area. No sequences of the federally endangered Indiana bat or Virginia big-eared bat were recorded, but Indiana bats are difficult to visually identify, and big-eared bats are often poorly represented in acoustic surveys.”

New Creek Mountain, as a forested mountain ridge, is not only important to migratory and resident birds, raptors, and bats, but is also important as a source of water on a regional watershed scale. The National Resources Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) has coordinated with the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, the West Virginia Division of Forestry, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Trout Unlimited to address conservation actions for fish and wildlife species. These actions are addressed in the West Virginia Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program:

5 http://www.wv.nrcs.usda.~ov/pro~rams/whi~/O7whip/07 whipPlan.pdf. Among the key actions for conservation are: protecting key habitats, restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, propagation of fish and wildlife species, and management. The West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan targets major regional and/or statewide conservation issues, including commercial development, forest management, and loss of in-stream and riparian habitat. Specific actions implemented since 1998 to accomplish these tasks address habitat fragmentation affecting upland forest species, songbirds, brook trout, and aquatic species, high elevation forest restoration and management of critical nesting areas for declining species, including aquatic species and bats.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection provided its “Final Report, Water Resources Protection Act Water Use Survey” (DEP report) in December, 2006, to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance, West Virginia Legislature. It is explained in this report that: “The Water Resources Protection Act f‘Act” or “WRPA), W.Va. Code §§22-26-1 et seq., enacted March 13, 2004, authorized the establishment of a Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on State Water Resources. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the implementing agency for the Act, was required to submit a yearly progress report to the Commission (§22-26-5(b)) and a final report to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance.” It is also stated in this report that: ”without the continuation of data collection and analysis as recommended in this report, the state will not have the long term data to responsibly manage its most abundant and vital natural resource: water.” West Virginia is heavily dependent on groundwater. Surface water and groundwater are I totally integrated. The DEP report recognizes that drought is not simply the result of meteorological conditions. Drought can be categorized as hydrological drought, which can occur due to “unsustainable withdrawal and consumptive use rates”. Agricultural drought can result factors including groundwater/reservoir levels and evapotranspiration, in addition to precipitation. The Appalachian mountains are the areas which receive the greatest amounts of precipitation and therefore serve as the most important areas for groundwater recharge and for maintenance of aquatic habitats in the headwaters of streams that support trout and other species. The reduction of groundwater recharge in the Appalachian mountains will ultimately result in drought conditions throughout the watershed.

New Creek Mountain is one of the essential mountain ridges providing groundwater recharge and maintaining unique aquatic habitats in the headwaters for the Potomac River watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey and the “World Book Encyclopedia and Learning Resources” provide internet websites showing maps of precipitation amounts throughout the state of West Virginia, stating that, “Rain is plentiful throughout the state. It is the heaviest in the mountains and lighter on the east and west borders”. The DEP report provides that, “Groundwater is extremely important to West Virginia. Because surface water recharge is dependent mostly on groundwater, an understanding of the groundwater resource is imperative. In some areas of the state, utilization of the groundwater resource assures yearround domestic and commercial supplies.” The overhead trees on the Appalachian mountain ridges, such as New Creek Mountain, intercept rainfall so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff. This means that 1) the rain will gently fall to the ground and recharge groundwater and 2) the surface flow of rainwater on the ground will be slower than in cleared areas, thereby reducing the velocity and quantity of stormwater drainage. Conversely, in cleared areas, such as those cleared for construction of wind turbines,

6 increased stormwater drainage results in habitat destruction within streams and the consequent death of aquatic organisms, including trout. The watershed headwaters are so important because they create habitats where the food chain begins: the overhead trees provide shaded areas which create conditions suitable for organisms at the bottom of the food chain - primarily insects which shred organic materials to provide organic compounds for flora and fauna downstream. Not only would the AES Corporation clear- cut the forests on the ridgetop of New Creek Mountain, but also they would increase the amount of stormwater drainage during construction of the access roads, causing reduction of groundwater recharge.

Laws were enacted in West Virginia to protect watersheds and all wildlife. If the PSC approves a siting certificate to AES for a wind project on New Creek Mountain, the Commissioners will effectively be allowing AES to break the law The Water Pollution Control Act (§22-11-2) is “declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia to maintain reasonable standards of purity and quality of the water of the state consistent with (I) public health and public enjoyment thereof, (2) the propagation and protection of animal, bird, fish, aquatic and plant life.. .” and includes “setting standards of water quality applicable to both the surface waters and groundwaters of this state. The Water Pollution Control Act specifically protects against the loss of any game fish or aquatic life. The Groundwater Protection Act (922-12-2) provides for the protection of groundwater because over ninety percent of the state’s rural population depends on groundwater for drinking water. This Act further recognizes that ‘West Virginia’s groundwater resources are geologically complex, with the nature and vulnerability of groundwater aquifers and recharge areas not fully known.” Construction of the turbine towers includes excavating an area approximately 50 feet in diameter and at least as much as 50 feet deep. This excavation into bedrock requires blasting, which typically causes changes in groundwater flow. Additionally, the material excavated from these foundation areas must be placed somewhere, probably on the hillside. This results in disturbing the headwater habitats and allowing a tremendous threat of sediment entering streams. Storm drainage ditches or ponds, as well as sediment, will cause changes to groundwater flow and will harm stream habitats. Storm water drainage channels greater quantities of surface water at greater velocities to streams. This greater quantity and velocity of water destroys stream habitats. The Natural Streams Preservation Act (§22-13-2), which is to “secure for the citizens of West Virginia of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of free-flowing streams possessing outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, botanical, historical, archeological or other scientific or cultural values.” 0 The State Natural Resources Law (§20-2-1), which assigns protection and “ownership of and title to all wild animals, wild birds, both migratory and resident, and all fish, amphibians, and all forms of aquatic life in the state of West Virginia”, such that it is illegal to “kill, destroy, ... wound or injure any wildlife”. It is well known that unacceptably high numbers of birds and bats, including endangered species, are killed by industrial sized windmills. 0 In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the approximately ZOO-page “Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual” (httD://WWW.epa.aov/volunteer/stream/),which emphasizes that watersheds are important because if natural land becomes impervious:

7 o “Less precipitation is evaporated back to the atmosphere. (Water is transported rapidly away via storm drains and is not allowed to stand in pools.) o Less precipitation is transpired back to the atmosphere from plants. (Natural vegetation is replaced by buildings, pavement, etc.) o Less precipitation percolates through the soil to become ground water. (This can result in a lower water table and can affect baseflow.) o More surface runoff is generated and transported to streams. (Streamflow becomes more intense during and immediately after storms.)”

INDUSTRIAL-SCALE WIND TURBINE FACILITIES PROVIDE NO BENEFITS TO WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS

It is well established that negative impacts to our groundwater, which sustain streams during meteorological drought conditions, and to streams also have a negative impact to the West Virginia economy. The following information is provided in the DEP report: “WV Department of Agriculture figures indicate that West Virginia aquaculture (primarily for trout stocking) is a $2 million-a-year sub sector activity that generates an additional $1 million in related income and taxes. Anglers’ visits alone generate $2.5 million per 20,000 fishing trips. According to the DNR, trout stocked in 1999 were significantly smaller than previous years due to drought conditions that started in the summer of 1998 (1.9 trout per pound down from the average 1.5 - more than a 20% production loss). Groundwater sources for commercial fishery production and adequate stream flows to attract anglers and protect fish habitat are important economic resources that are sensitive to natural flows.”

The most recent (2007) West Virginia tax law (engrossed as Senate Bill 441) pertains as follows: “gl1-6A-5a of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended and reenacted; that §I1-13-20 of said code be amended and reenacted; and that said code be amended by adding thereto a new section, designated 311-13-2p”. These sections of the WV Code restrict property taxes on wind turbines to only as much as 79% of the salvage value of the wind turbine. The West Virginia State Tax Department determines the salvage value and the counties tax accordingly. The wind turbine is defined as “The rotor, consisting of the blades and the supporting hub; the drive train, which includes the remaining rotating parts such as the shafts, gearbox, coupling, a mechanical brake, and the generator; the nacelle and main frame, including the wind turbine housing, bedplate, and the yaw system; the turbine transformer; the machine controls; the tower; and the tower foundation”. The tower foundation would obviously not be available for salvage. The tower is made of steel and would therefore have salvage value. It is unclear how the fiberglass blades could have salvage value. The remaining parts are very specific for use as a wind turbine and could only have minimum salvage value. The B&O tax section of the law provides, “That for taxable periods beginning on or after the first day of January, two thousand eight, the taxable generating capacity of a generating unit utilizing a turbine powered primarily by wind shall equal twelve percent of the official capability of the unit”. So, for the total wind facility with a 160 megawatt nameplate capability of the wind turbines proposed for New Creek Mountain, this would be a tax on 19.2 megawatts. It is further explained that the rate of tax imposed shall be equal to, “For taxpayers who generate or produce electricity for sale, profit or commercial use, the product of twenty-two dollars and seventy-eight cents multiplied by the taxable generating capacity of each generating unit”. Also, up to 50% of the B&O state taxes

8 can be offset as a tax credit to a county, school, or municipality provided there is a “Qualified contractually agreed contribution“. There have been no reports of such contracts in Grant County. AES has made claims concerning the amount of taxes that will go to the state and to the county. However, there is no document providing the salvage value determined by the WV State Tax Department and there is no documentation of a “qualified contractually agreed contribution to Grant County.

Federal tax on wind turbines allows for double declining balance depreciation such that there is no tax after 5 years.

The Federal Production Tax Credit provides $0.019 per kwh of electricity estimated to be generated by a wind turbine facility during the first 10 years. A typical wind project with 50 wind turbines would make more than $5 million. AES Corporation has provided information on its website about wind investment characteristics. Concerning tax efficiency, AES points out that, “US equities optimize value of Production Tax Credit” and that there is a “Favorable tax situation in most other target country markets”. Concerning cash flow, AES states that, “USequity structures projected to provide return on all capital and development fees within five years” and that there are “Additional cash distributions to AES after third party equity achieves target return”.

“Green Energy” brokers sell certificates for electricity produced by renewable energy sources, including wind and solar. The certificates for electricity produced by wind projects are based on the rated capacity of wind turbines. The brokers buy the certificates from the wind developer, who makes approximately $0.015 per kWh. This equates to as much as $5 million per year for a project with about 50 windmills rated at a capacity of I.5 megawatts per wind turbine. The brokerage companies, such as Bonneville Environmental Foundation and Community Energy, Inc., as well as the wind companies, are reaping great profits. Wind plants do not reduce the number of coal- fired electrical generating plants. Considering that carbon dioxide continues to be emitted by coal-fired backup plants, the green energy certificates are essentially meaningless and constitute a scam on the American public.

I respectfully request the Public Service Commission to deny a siting certificate to the AES Corporation. There is simply no need for an industrial-scalewind turbine facility on New Creek Mountain and no amount of money could be worth the cumulative environmental damage to West Virginia. If AES is granted a siting certificate, the PSC is essentially granting a permit for AES to break West Virginia and Federal environmental Jaws.

Sincerely,

Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D. Registered Professional Geologist

9 Arthur W. Dodds, Jr. Professional Cartographer P.O. Box 217 Montrose, WV 26283

January 20,2009

Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary IV N Public Service Commission of West Virginia P.O. Box812 bx Charleston, W 25323

Su biect: Case Number 08-21 05-E-CS AES New Creek, LLC, Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Interconnection Facilities in Grant County, West Virginia

Dear Ms. Squire,

I oppose the granting of a siting certificate for this facility for the following reasons:

Statement of Need: There is no need for this facility. Reject AES’s request to waive this requirement!

AES asserts the wind turbines will be a source of new generation capacity needed for future demand and will replace outdated facilities. However, industrial wind turbines can only operate if the electric grid is powered to be equal to or greater than the maximum output of the turbines. Also, the parasitic loads for the wind turbines to operate properly require electricity from the grid to the wind turbines.

This does not constitute dispatchable power required of a generating facility. The Interconnection Agreement with PJM requires AES to provide a portion of the spinning reserve maintained for large-scale power failure of a facility. The wind turbines are not capable of providing a spinning reserve; therefore, AES must contract for this service with another generating facility placing an additional burden on the coal-fired generating facilities.

Over 70% of the power generated in West Virginia is exported, the highest in the nation. During times of the greatest demand on the system, 17% of the generators are idle in West Virginia. AES states an estimated a 1.6% annual growth in demand. As the turbines are not dispatchable/reliable power, they have no effect on additional generating capability. AES asserts there will be a federal requirement for all states to have a renewable portfolio standard to offset carbon dioxide emissions. However, during the past 20 years in Europe and 8 years in California and Texas, there remains a large gap in the ability of the conventional power plants to interface with the variable nature of the wind turbines. Recently, California and Texas have purchased natural and oil fired generators to try to more efficiently interface with wind turbines in order to reduce the waste in fossil fuel generators. Current estimates indicate 8% to 10% more fossil fuel is required when wind turbines are in use.

The state of West Virginia has significant jobs in the coal mining industries and in power production. A Renewable Portfolio Standard for West Virginia would cripple the entire northeast corridor‘s production of electricity who depend on West Virginia. This would eliminate thousands more jobs than the wind turbines would create on the short term during construction.

Problems with AES’s Application:

AES is proposing to use one of two vastly different wind turbine designs, with vastly different siting, viewshed, hydrological, and grid interconnection requirements.

In the application, AES describes the wind turbines as being either 66 1.5 MW wind turbines totaling 99 MW or 53 2.5 MW wind turbines totaling 132.5 MW. However, the maximum output is described as 160 MW for the facility and is also described as 160 MW (with a 32 MW capacity) in PJM’s Generation Interconnection Feasibility Study Report. In May, 2008, PJM assigned a 13% capacity to all wind facilities. If the total is 160 MW, the capacity would thus be 20.8 MW. The discrepancies among the statements in the application relating to the facility size are unacceptable. Based on the discrepancies in the information provided, there is no reasonable way to evaluate the facility. It appears that the information provided to PJM is different from the information that was provided to the PSC in the AES application.

The initial statement regarding the siting was for a 20 foot pad. When you look at the specifications of each, you see 40 to 50 foot pads. No “micro-siting” has been done, such as core drilling, to determine the depth of the foundation requirements of the pad and the amount of blasting required. In conjunction with the lack of specific information about each turbine site, there should be pre- blasting surveys performed for buildings, cemeteries, springs, wells, reservoirs, watersheds, etc. Where blasting occurs for coal mining, it is required that pre- blasting surveys be conducted within at le st qng-h@fwnd preferably within &3..: $24 ... one mile of the blasting site. bv%*:l$->\;!$Ai~3 33w35 ,:-I \grid VA Metering requirements: Reject AES’s request to waive this requirement! This facility should be required to use net metering as the method to determine- the amount energy that may be sold by PJM, rather than just using estimates. This also will affect any carbon credits. The carbon dioxide emitted by the spinning reserve from coal fired plants contracted by AES should be deducted from sale of carbon credits.

Avian and Bat Studies: The surveys quoted by the AES’s consultants rank New Creek Mountain as significant as Hawk Mountain in Pennsylvania for the migratory raptor counts because they are part of the Eastern Continental Hawk Flyway. It is important to understand that mortality of migratory birds is a violation of State law, Federal law, international law, and international treaties. Previous sworn testimony to the PSC by the expert witness for Liberty Gap Wind Force, LLC, indicated that 4,000 bats are being killed annually at the Mountaineer Wind Site, located I7miles to the west. There is no reason to believe that the slaughter of bats by industrial wind turbines on New Creek Mountain will differ greatly from that of the Mountaineer site. The mortality rate for bats in this area is biologically significant and a violation of the West Virginia State Law. WHEN AND HOW WILL THESE LAWS BE ENFORCED?!II!III!!

The application is incomplete, misleading, a slap in the face to West Virginians who must deal with the environmental destruction, meaningless power that does not reduce the use of fossil fuels, destruction of the scenic “Wild and Wonderful”, and all for the profit to out of state and international corporations at the expense of the Federal and West Virginia tax payer.

I request that the AES siting certificate application to construct industrial scale wind turbines on New Creek Mountain in Grant County be denied based on the blatant inaccuracies and incompleteness of the application. *&WSincerely, ArthurW. Dodds, Jr. Margaret E. Crowson I14 Easy Street Elkins, WV 26241

January 20,2009

Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia P.O. Box812 Charleston, W 25323

Subject: Case Number 08-2 105-E-CS AES New Creek, LLC, Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Interconnection Facilities in Grant County, West Virginia

I respectfully request that you deny the AES siting certificate application to build wind turbines on New Creek Mountain in Grant County. I am alarmed at the number of mountains being targeted by the wind companies for construction of wind turbines. There have been no comprehensive studies concerning the cumulative impacts of regionally widespread wind turbines. There have been conclusive studies showing that thousands of bats are killed every year at the Backbone Mountain wind turbine facility in Tucker County. However, no one is enforcing the West Virginia laws that were meant to protect West Virginia wildlife, including bats and birds. So far, the studies of the impacts of wind turbines on bats indicate that nothing can be done to prevent the bat mortalities due to collisions with wind turbines. I request that the PSC be certain to respect our West Virginia laws protecting wildlife rather than giving permits to wind companies to violate our laws.

Small, residential windmills produce useful electricity, excesses of which can be stored in batteries for later use. These small windmills do not cause death to wildlife or harm to the environment. All the money that is spent on the large wind turbines would certainly be better spent on providing homeowners with useful, small residential windmills. Instead of providing useful electricity, the huge wind turbines use electricity from coal-fired plants in order to run properly. Also, when the coal-fired plants have to ramp up and down to use the wind energy, there is minimal, if any, offset of the use of coal.

The wind companies have not provided any scientific data to back up their statements that their huge wind turbines will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced. There must be complex, inclusive modeling studies based on data at coal-fired plants in order to provide any meaningful statements regarding the offset of coal usage or of carbon dioxide. These studies are simply lacking. Instead, it appears that the wind companies are receiving siting certificates based solely on their unsubstantiated claims.

1 Additionally, the wind companies claim to bring financial benefits to communities where the wind projects are located. Not one study has been based on the tax laws of West Virginia. Again, it appears that the wind companies are receiving siting certificates based solely on their unsubstantiated claims.

Please reject the AES siting certificate application to construct wind turbines on New Creek Mountain in Grant County. The only benefit that is substantiated is the amount of taxpayers' money that benefits the wind companies.

Sincerely,

y Margaret E. Crowson

2