May 7,2008 West Virginia Public Service Commission P. 0. Box 812

May 7,2008

West Virginia Public Service Commission P. 0.Box 812 Charleston, W 25323

Reference: Case Number 08-0 109-E-CS-CN

Gentlemen:

I am making these comments in strong opposition to the granting of the application for a siting certificate to authorize the construction and operation of a wholesale electric generating facility and associated ~nter~~e~ion facilities for the Laurel Mountain Wind Power Project in Barbour and Randolph Counties, West Virginia.

In December 2004 it was announced that an application for siting an industrial wind energy project in Pendleton County had been filed with the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Because I had no idea of the affect the proposed project would have on our county, I embarked on a fact-finding project to determine what industrial wind energy projects are all about and if the claims of the project developers were valid. I started my fact finding with a review of websites of both proponents and o psnents of industrial wind energy, atte~ded~eet~~gs and had conversations and interviews with re~resentativesof both groups as well as ind~vidua~sliving close to existing ~ndust~~alwind energy projects. I have traveled to as many as six industrial wind energy projects in the United States and Canada, those in West V~~~iaI've visited on a dozen or more occasions, to see fipst h~dthe ind~s~al wind energy projects in action. Based on that research, I have concluded that the cumulative negative impacts, environmental and other, far outweigh the benefits to be attained and that it is not in the public interest to permit the ~ndu~~li~tionof one acre of the pristine mo~ta~tops in the Eastern United States with dustr ria^ wind energy projects.

The history of human technology innovation is littered with projects that have had to be abandoned because they were based on a narrow theoretical view that failed to take into account the whole picture. I believe the commercial exploitation of industrial wind energy projects in the pristine mountains of the Mid-Atlant~cRegion is fast showing signs of such failure.

The last ten years in Europe provides ample opportunity to evaluate the real costs and claimed benefits of industrial wind turbines based on actual operating experience and statistics.

.Studies now challenge the very assumption upon which the ecological value of in~ust~ialwind energy is based: that it reduces carbon emissions.

* Reports show that industrial wind energy is proving to be especially expensive to consumers once the required backup and additional infrastructure are factored in. The high cost is caused by the need to provide backup generating reserve for the times that the wind does not blow, the requirement to stabilize the grid when wind produces power that is not needed by the current demand and the magnitude of the Government subsidization and 1 tax benefits for the wind industry. 0 Studies show that the perceived benign environmental footprint of industrial wind turbines does not correspond to the latest studies of migratory bird and bat mortality.

* Growing public protests over noise and health effects are being provoked by industrial wind energy projects.

Certainly these documented facts cannot be ignored!

The current political wind is in favor of the developers and industrial wind energy interests, thereby significantly influencing the pressure on the natural environment. If the trend continues, how much of our National, State and Private Forests will remain when our fast expanding population will likely be desperate for a little breathing room in the future-25, 50 and 100 years from today? I am well aware of the issues of “Global Warming” and the nation’s energy requirements and am convinced that industrial wind energy projects on the ridge tops of the mountains iri the Eastern United States is not the solution.

A major reason for the increasing opposition to the development of large industrial wind projects is loss of visual amenity, the effects of highly visible vertical man-made structures with rotating blades located in predominantly horizontal, static natural hillscapes. The loss of beautiful scenery, favorite views and inspiring landscapes are objections dismissed by large corporate developers as emotional and subjective. Locating large industrial wind projects in the scenic mountains throu~outthe Eastern United States is not appropriate. Tbey are in the wrong place. That assessment is neither emotional nor subjective.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission is responsible for the review and approval or disapproval of applications for the siting of industrial. wind turbine projects in the State of West Virginia and has published siting application rules and requirements for these industrial projects. In addition, the Public Service Commission has made efforts to safeguard and protect the public interest through special provisions in licenses issued to such projects. While these are admirable efforts, these provisions remain inadequate until such time as all appropriate studies are completed concerning the cumulative affects of the industrial wind energy projects sited t~o~~outthe mountains. There are currently twenty one industrial wind energy projects that have been identified in West Virginia (one complete , one in the const~ct~onphase, two approved and not yet started, this one with an app~icat~onfiled with the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the r inder in some level of the ing stage). Two that is in the p~ann~ngstage would be located in the Ge shington National Forest in Pend~eto~and Hardy Co~t~es~

Currently licensed projects have had and will continue to have irreversible affects on our environment by destroying important wildlife and wildlife habitat, killing huge numbers of bats, destroying highly prized scenic vistas (the viewshed surrounding these projects extends for miles), impacts on local tourism-dependent economies (in West Virginia tourism is our fasting growing industry and in our mountains it is critical to local economies) and residents by impai~entof property values, significant noise pollution created by the rotors and mechanical equipment for residents living in close proximity to the turbines and undue stress to the health and safety of residents living in close proximity of the turbines.

Many federal, state and local officials are extremely concerned with the cumulative affect of siting thousands of these industrial wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Additional studies of the cumulative effects of industrial wind energy projects on the environment, citizens, state and co~uni~economics and the cost effectiveness of wind power as an alternative energy source must be completed before any additional industrial wind energy projects are approved. State of West Virginia agencies, which should be involved in these studies, are playing catch-up and by their own admission are not empowered to examine questions concerning these projects and their potentiai impacts. Even worse, the West Virginia Public Service Commission is not required to seek the assistance of those same agencies (wherein the professional experts in matters significant to these applications are employed by the state and paid for by our tax dollars) in its review of a proposed industrial wind energy project application and the required info~ationprovided therein. State agencies with the expertise to assist the Public Service Commission and provide a state wide governmental review of applications submitted to the Public Service Cornmission must be utilized to adequately represent “We the People” of West Virginia.

2 The claims of the benefits of industrial wind energy facilities on important public policy goals, such as the reduction in our use of imported petroleum, green house gas emissions and electrical grid reliability have been proven to be non-existent.

Given that wind only produces electricity and given that we use so little oil for electricity production, even if large numbers of wind turbines displaced the one percent of our electricity now powered by oil, the region would still be heavily depen~enton coal and gas, power sources often described as ”dir@y”-and we would still be mightily dependent on foreign oil, contrary to what the wind industry claims.”

The claim that industrial wind energy facilities will reduce green house gas emissions was addressed in the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, National Research Council study “Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects” summary concerning Co2, SO2 and NO2 emissions which can be found on the Academy website. The Committee concluded that “development of wind powered electricity generation using the current technology probably will not result in a significant reduction in the total emissions of these pollutants from the electricity sector in the mid- At~ant~cregion”.

The claim that industrial wind energy facilities will ~~~~~~ electrical grid reliability is false. Industrial wind turbines have variable power outputs. The amount of power generated at any moment in time is determined by the wind speed at that particular moment. In addition, industrial wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Today’s models may begin producing some electricity at wind speeds of about 8 miles per hour, reach rated capacity around 33 MPH, and cut out around 56 MPH. Because their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable, the electricity they produce has less value than electricity from reliable (“dispatchable”) generating units. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency etc.), so one or more reliable, dispatchable generating units must be immediately available at all times to “back up” the unreliable wind generation. The reliable, backup units must ramp up and down to balance the output f?om the wind turbines. Wind turbines therefore detract from grid reliability and would be of no value in restoring an electric grid when there is a blackout. Wind turbines have virtually no “capacity” value.

Indus~~~wind turbines are huge structures that produce an ins~~ificantamount of electricity, only when the wind blows w~th~certain spee ges. E~ect~c~~generated from ~ndustria~win energy fac~~~tiesdoes not reduce emissions from traditional fossil fueled generating plants which must be available ~mediate~ybecause of winds intermittent nature. Those generating plants will be running at less than full capacity or in “spinning reserve” and will be producing emissions while in a backstopping mode.

AES, the developer of the proposed industrial wind energy facility has not emo on st rated documented information the “substantial positive impact on the local economy” nor does it provide realistic “estimates of the effect of the project on the local and state econ~my.~’They have portrayed economic benefit through the use of computer modeling which does not portray reality for small study areas such as Randolph and Barbour counties.

In conclusion, I am deeply concerned about ow environment and un~erst~~our nation’s need for energy sources. The negative issues, problems and drawbacks of siting industrial wind turbines on the pristine mountains is not the answer and I am asking that the Public Service Commission of West Virginia deny the AES application for a siting certificate to authorize the construction and operation of a wholesale electric generating facility and associated interconnection facilities for the Laurel Mountain Wind Power Project in Barbour and ~do~phCounties, West Virginia.

Respectfully submitted,

Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, Inc. Waypoints on Map of Proposed industrial Wind Projects

Waypoint Transmission Number Location Source Line MW Turbines Company County1 Statel County2 State2

001 x Beryl PJM Queue N47 138kV 135 67 US Wind Force, LLC Mineral wv 002 x Elk Garden PJM Queue R22,T158 138kV 90 45 Unknown Mineral wv 003 x SnowyCreek PJM Queue Q55 Not Listed 100 50 Unknown Preston wv 004 x Afton PJM Queue N33 138 kV 60 30 Atlantic Wind Preston wv 005 x Albright PJM Queue P52 138kV 80 40 Unknown Preston wv 006 x Belington PJM Queue P59 138kV 125 63 AES Randolph W Barbour WV 007 x Henry PJM Queue M23 138kV 150 75 Mt. Storm Wind Force, LLC 1 Grant wv 008 x Grassy Falls PJM Queue M24,N09 138kV 186 93 Beech Ridge Greenbriar wv 009 x GreenlandGap PJM Queue H21 ,W68 & K?1 500kV 300 150 Nedpower Grant wv 010 x Backbone Mountain PJM Queue B28,WOI & K19 138kV 90 44 Florida Power & tight Tucker wv Preston w 01 1 x Canaan - Seneca PJM Queue P58 138kV 4 50 75 pJt. :siorr;fr i/\!illij Frrxe, 1.LC 2 Randolph wv 012 x Jackklountain PJM Queue J07 & K26 138kV 155 50 Liberty Gap Wind Force, LLC Pendleton wv 013 Shenadoah Mountain FOlA Request Unknown Unknown Unknown West, Inc. (Consultant) Pendleton WV Hardy W 014 Rich Mountain -West Peter Unknown Unknown Unknown US Wind Force, LLC Randolph vw 015 Rich Mountain - East Gamesa Unknown 150 75 Gamesa Randolph vvv 01 6 Dobbin Ridge Gamesa Unknown 100 50 Gamesa Tucker wv 017 Drennen Gamesa Unknown 60 30 Gamesa Nicholas? w 018 Stone Steps Gamesa Unknown 60 30 Gamesa McDowell w 019 Great North Mountain FAA Documents Unknown 2627 131 Unknown Hardy wv 020 x New Creek Mountain PJM Queue TI57 500kV 160 Unknown Unknown Mineral w 021 Nicholas Gamesa Unknown Unknown Unknown Gamesa Nicholas w May 6,2008

Public Service Commission of West Virginja P.O. Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323 Re: Case Number 08-0109-E-CS D Dear Commissioners,

My name is John Terry an I own about 290+ acres in ~o~trose, apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in Elkins today but respons~bil~t~esout of the state make it impossible. There are two issues we would have liked to raise if we were there.

Since the AES Laurel Pl~untainproject has surfaced we have spent a great deal of our time studying "industrial strength'' wind energy and nowhere can we find impa~ialdata that shows that wind farms reduce greenhouse gasses or have any effect on ~mpo~edenergy. There are dozens of ~ommunitieswhere ~istingor proposed wind farms have split communities, lowered pro values and altered daily life for the worse and each of these communjt~~has a website. On the wind energy prod side we find dozens of vag~eprom~s~ many of which are ~np~venand some downrig~t impossible that play on ut global warmjng and foreign oil, Our conclusiQn is that these wind farms are solely profit mot~~ated to the public welfare or the conse~uencesof the ~nst~~lat~onto the com~unit~es where the are bcated.

We were in Ca~ifornjatwo weeks ago and made a detour to observe the Altamont Pass wind farm, a 4,900 turbine facility that was built in t re in West Virginia.

Plontrose just like those in the pi~~res,

he is affected by i is within a half mile of th a long hollow run to the ridge of ~au~~ rbines. Turb~n~are floi Ca~~fQrnia~~~~ines and those on Back appears that the m~v~n~air noise increases greatly with the he~~htof the tower and the ~engthof the blades. Towers of 400+ feet will catch wind even when it is w~nd~e~on the ground such as at night. The quiet of a stili night is one of our most favorite things about ~ ES doc~men~m~n~on that t ere are only four ~we~~ingsaffected by the pmjed in ~ickeris a p~~~ernand that they have made financial arrange men^ ge that all property in their seven "flicker zones" would be affected as re dw~l~~ngspresently exist. To my knowledge, they have made no ~omm~tmentto the ~ompeflsate owners who's prope~d~c~i~~ in vatue due to t farm. I wou~drecom~~nd th me~t,and that all fin~nc~a~arr~n~emen~ b LaureB ~~u~tain and all go~ernmentalagencies and corpo~ateentities be made public.

Thank you for hearing my cQflcer~s.I th~~ se this project and the best ~nteres~of the ~eg~onan

Thank you,

John &Joan Terry

, B T. ALL

TT Lawsuit Against AES Seen As Test Case - Bahamas Business News Archive Page 1 of3

5aIiamas: News: Lawsuit Against AES Seen As Test: Case

Baliarnas News Eahamas News Search Bahamas News - Home Bahamas Current News News Archive 1- business Advanced News Search Caribbean Bahamas B2B Blog: Lawsuit Settlement commentary Learn how you can Learn How to Receive a Lump Sum of Cash for entertainment promote your small Small Annuity Payments environment business, build PaachtreeSettie,i.ei?iFunding corn customer relationships headlines and generate publicity lifestyle for your company by Business Abusive Lawsuit polltlcs publishing an opt-in e- New! Stop Lawsuit Abuse Today. Get Facts & Bahamas Hotels newsletter. Bahamas Information. Take Action religion _I 628 Blog. ~wwvlrisr!:iJleForLegaiie~crt?i cmi \F11 south florida sports Bahamas Community Lawsuit Advances travel features &j& Lawsuit Settlement discussions on topics Apply Online Now to Qualify for a Cash Advance Learn How to Receive a world on Your Lawsuit ranging from current Lump Sum of Cash for events and Bahamian ww,,CmgCaa'7 cor' Small Annuity Payments ahamas ~n~~~~a~~o~issues to the %ari-treeSettlen ei-iFwdi ', co' Bahamas island Guides environment, art, music and culture. Post your Bahamas Weather comm uni ty Bahamas Map announcements for Bahamas Vacation &Travel free. Abaco Bahamas Beach Deals for Abaco Baharna: Bahamas Web Directory Beach A Limited Time Bahamas Real Estate Bahamas Business Offer. Bahamas Discussion Forums jiileSteo ~'0'11 Bahamas Classifieds Bahamas Events Calendar The precedent of sung an Amencan company for violating American Business Abusive laws oufsIde U S femfory IS whaf some see as the most Important ~~~~~s-~r~~~~~~~~~aspect of the case Lawsuit Plan vour Bahamas New! Stop Lawsuit Abuse Today Get Facts & vacation. Many pages of Dr. Max Puig, the Dominican Minister of Environment, said recentiy that free travel resources his government is certain that the lawsuit filed last Thursday on its behalf Information Take Action available on Bahamas- in U.S. federal court against power giant AES has every possibility of &bv v Itistit~teForLcgaiRefor~lCOI Travelmfo, including succeeding. information on Atlantis Bahamas. "For a long time people have been asking us to act, but we didn't want to Lawsuit Cash Advance be too hasty and decided to do all the necessary evaluations," Minister Get $500,000 in 48 Hour: Puig said. Fast Legal Funding No Credit Check "If we have taken this step it is because we are certain that the suit we I*wn LegelF iidsn? I con have started has all the possibilities of coming though successfully. Now, all the evidence and documentation that the lawyers have will be considered, and the start date of the trial will be set." Lawsuit Liabilitv AES Corporation is a US-based power company named in the lawsuit Free Online Injury Claim along with three of its subsidiaries, AES Atlantis, AES Puerto Rico and Evaluation Fast & Free AES Aggregate Services. Lawsuit Help. tvw/ Persont!!-itijiirv-iieip !JS The lawsuit has caught the attention of local officials given that they are considering a proposal from AES to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on Ocean Cay, near Cat Cay and Bimini.

The lawsuit also alleges that AES sought to dump the ash at Ocean Cay.

The other defendant in the Dominican suit is Silverspot Enterprises, and its CEO Roger Charles Fina, who the Dominican government says

http://www .bahamasb2b.codnews/wmview.php?ArtID=743 5 5/6/2008 Lawsuit Against AES Seen As Test Case - Bahamas Business News Archive Page 2 of 3

conspired with AES and corrupt Dominican officials to illegally dump thousands of tons of rock ash generated at AES Puerto Rico on pristine Dominican beaches between late 2003 and early 2004.

The Dominican government is seeking damages in excess of $80 million from AES, charging that "the defendants are liable for the destruction of the beaches, the pollution of international waters, numerous serious physical injuries including irreversible brain damage, permanent paralysis and permanent physical ill health, and for creating a public nuisance."

The D.R. seeks an award from the US. courts that would cover the costs of restoring the beaches to "their previously-pristine state" and "cover all other costs resulting from the (rock) ash waste disposal," and punitive damages "in an amount sufficient to punish (the) defendants for their egregious wrongdoings and prevent (the) defendants from illegally dumping waste in any developing country in the future."

AES has yet to answer the complaint.

The precedent of suing an American company for violating American laws outside US. territory is what Dr. Puig sees as the most important aspect of the case.

Dr. Puig also noted that other countries in the Caribbean have approached the government of the Dominican Republic for information on how to proceed with similar cases, notably Trinidad and Tobago.

Trinidad and Tobago is the world's leading exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the main supplier of LNG to the United States.

"The US Federal law establishes that when a (company) generates waste, (that waste) is (the company's) responsibility until it disappears. What the legal representatives have established is that this company violated the US federal laws in proceeding to get rid of the waste produced by creating phantom companies and hiding their responsibility," Dr. Puig charged.

The Dominican environment minister said that in filing the lawsuit, the Dominican government "has assumed a well thought-out, responsible and brave position."

AES has said that it had proper permits for disposal of the ash, which again AES says was not toxic.

However, the legality of those permits is also at issue in the lawsuit.

AES Vice President of Communications Robin Pence told the Journal that "the allegations are false, and the claims have no merit."

"We will defend the company vigorously against the allegations," Ms. Pence said.

By: Quincy Parker, The Bahama Journal

(View: 803 I Print, 48)

Next: * Hurricanes Cost 8 Percent Of GDP - March 31, 2006- 07:40

0 Grand Bahama Auto Show Postponed - March 31. 2006 - 07:38 Billionaire Does Good Thinqs - March 31, 2006 - 07.33

0 Contract For Lons Island AirDort Upgrade -March 30, 2006- 08:12

http://www .bahainasb2b. com/news/wmvi ew .php?AdID=743 5 5/6/2008 Lawsuit Against AES Seen As Test Case - Bahamas Business News Archive Page 3 of 3

No Down Payment Dilemma -March 30, 2006- 08:IO

Previous: Sale Of Roval Oasis Aqain Reporied To Be Imminent - March 28. 2006 - 06:48 Enerav ComDanv on Defensive - March 28, 2006 - 00:28 krnina Aclainst Egg Import Ban - March 27, 2006 - 08:21 No Decision On Proposed Abaco Ritz-Carlton Proiect -- March 27, 2006 - 0831 * Hutchison Whampoz.Defends Contract - March 27, 2006- 07:43

The Bahamas Network Bahamas B'2B.com is part of the Bahamas international rietwork of web sites, dedicated to the islands of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

The network has been developed over a number of years, utilising local and international resources. This particular news portal features all the latest breaking Bahamas news, including headlines and stories from a variety of sources, including local newspapers, major news wires and our own journalists.

For additional Bahamas news, information, resources, regularly updated weather with current conditions, maps, travel and vacation guides. links to other Bahamas websites and more, visit The Bahamas Network. Copyright 0 2005, BahamasB2B - National Website for the Islands of The Benelda.com - Bahamas Web desicln, website Bahamas maintenance

http://www .bahamasb2b.corm/news/wmview .php?ArtID=743 5 5/6/2008 08-01 09-E-CS

hen the ~~~ler~ra

1 claims that the project will help f~l~i~~the nee

ny plans to retire ~oal-f~~e writing that they had no plans to

power when it is M plant.

eny we^ will be

2 tur~inesinto the grid. The burden ~f this cost would e passed on to the electric custo

states that there will be ~~flima~vironme~ta~ damage. ased previous studies at the untaineer industrial-sca~ewind project

wind turbines. t study indicated t

~on~truct~onof the industr~a~-sc result in habitat ~ra~~e~tation.

hawks were o

Registered ~ro~~ssionaiGeolo

3 AC GE Public Service Commission Hearing Elkins WV 5/07/08

My name is Erika Stokes. I live in Elkins. I’m a retired Media Specialist from Maryland. My husband and I chose Elkins as our retirement home for many reasons. One was certainly the beautiful mountain setting. Like many retirees we bring our pensions and savings and volunteer hours.

I strongly oppose the building of wind turbines on Laurel and Rich Mountains because of the serious threat they pose to the to the ecology of the area and because they will damage tourism. Wind turbines bring the area only minor and temporary, economic benefits. However, they would result in major benefits to AES which can use green credits to trade for their polluting plants and tax credits to finance a major part of their cost.

I would like to comment on the accusation that opposition to the wind turbines is a “not in my neighborhood ‘‘ response. Mountains cannot be defined as a “neighborhood”. They are a national treasure. They are an ecosystem that supports wildlife and habitats over which migrating birds travel. Mountains and their forests safeguard our water supply. Mountains, not wind turbines, are what attract people like us and thousands of vacationers to West Virginia.

Mountain top removal has already destroyed many WV mountains. Wind turbines will not stop mountain top removal. They will not reduce the need for coal here. The proposed wind turbines are simply another type of mountain top exploitation. I find it very difficult to understand why West Virginians put up with this ongoing exploitation.

There are other alternatives, other wind and solar projects that are less harmful. Even the proponents of the wind turbines have said that “siting” is very important. Putting them on our mountain ridges is not only poor “siting “ but shortsighted. I urge the Commissioners to reject the AES proposai and ins real, alternative energy solutions.

Erika Stokes 1 17 Grandview Ave Elkins WV 26241 304 636 621 May 7,2008

W. Hunter Lesser Route 2 Box 19 1-A Elkins, WV 26241 West Virginia Public Service Commission A D P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

RE: AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, Application for Siting Certificate to Authorize Construction and Operation of and Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Barbour and Randolph Counties, WV.

Greetings :

I strongly urge you to reject the application for a siting permit by AES Corporation for the proposed wind development project on Laurel Mountain. I believe the project is motivated by the Federal tax and energy credits AES will be eligible to gain. This project-and others like it-will not make America less dependent on coal or foreign energy imports. They are “green energy” in name only.

The many negative environmental effects resulting fiom the erection of giant wind twbines far outweigh the benefits to West Virginians. Further development of industrial wind energy projects on our mountaintops will adversely affect tourism-West Virginia’s second largest industry. Once again, outside interests will exploit our state for their own benefit-not ours.

Sincerely, This ~~~~i~testi~o~~ is to o the request for BE ting ~e~~~j~ate

ies in Euro~e, Texas are s~o~~~

ith all of the ex a~o~~~of fuel omain is an issue with the ~epart~entof ~~~hways. After attending a he i~prove~entof the roads necessary to ring the turbin~s partment of ~~~hwaysre~re~entat~ve stated they would be land for the i~prove~ents.

This would be an obvjous vio~atjonof prevents Eminent omain from being used t it would enhance the taxable returns for the

Q resolve this matter; and t they have fo~arde~

I strongly e~co~ra~ethe ission to ensure this issue is and the intent and s~~rit

January 7,2008 must be ~e~ormedto determine the iocat~oflof the turbance of the land aterial would allow

elieve that they have no other choice.

s, Jr.

6: ena at or Jon

January 24,200

Thank you for res~ondin to our letter of J our concerns re ur a~reementw per to faci~itatethe co~str~ e note in the a~reementthat AES not ‘~p~b~~cutj~~ty”.iln y~urrespo

operator.

oncer~e~that you have been given incorrect inf~rmation ration which has a~~owe~you to consider them a pu~l~c omain. This is not true. It is illegal for com~an~to have emi econo~i~~eve~op~ent: 54-1-2a(+l1). As a private comp rporation in ten^^ to construct an i~~ustria~-scale win^ turbine fac rivate ~conomicbenefit. ~e request that you make it clear to AES Corporation that it is not legal for the to exercise eminent domain. We request that you inform any landowner who could potentially be affected by the road construction, or anyone to whom you have sent ~rre§pond~flc@affirming that the AES ~orporati~nhas the r~ghtof eminent domain, that there is no right of eminent domain in this project, which solely serves the AES ~~rporationfor their trans ort of mater~a~sfor development of an i~~~str~a~-scal@wind turbine

incerely,

ec-6L a2 ~a~e~aC. an

Cc: Senator Jon

Senator Jay Rockefeller arch 24, 2008

hur odds, Jr. STATE OF WEST V~~~l~lA OFFlCE. OF THE ATTORNEY NE^

April 1, 2008 FAX: (304) 558.09

Dear Mr. &t Mrs. Etodcds:

Very truly yours,

ediatsr ~~~~urn~rProtection and Antitrust Division

~ov~rR~r~sOffice State Capital Co~~~~~ 1980 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25305