|
Woodfin board rejects proposed power plant after public hearing |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 03 April 2007 |
By JIM GENARO
WOODFIN — A controversial proposal to build a $72 million power plant in Woodfin hit a roadblock last Tuesday evening, as the town’s Board of Adjustment unanimously voted to reject Progress Energy’s request for a conditional-use permit.
The 7-0 vote followed a lengthy public hearing at the Woodfin Community Center, which was attended by about 150 people. The majority of the speakers expressed objections to the plan, citing concerns about environmental issues and the potential effect such a plant could have on local property values.
The
proposed plant would have generated 130 megawatts of electricity by
burning diesel fuel at times of peak power needs — about 10 percent of
the time, according to Ken Maxwell, a manager for community relations
with Progress.
Before the
public comment portion of the hearing, Maxwell addressed the board,
discussing some of the environmental and economic impacts of the
proposal.
He noted that
the plan would have to be approved for an air quality permit and that
the plant would emit fewer pollutants than the total reduction in
emissions that has resulted from improvements to Progress’ Lake Julian
power plant since 2002.
Furthermore, the
plant would employ “the best available control technologies” for
limiting emissions of sulphur dioxide, Maxwell said.
However, one man
who spoke later noted that Maxwell’s statistics did not include any
data on emissions of carbon dioxide — one of the main greenhouse gases
that contribute to global warming.
Maxwell
responded that the air quality permit Progress is seeking does not
account for carbon dioxide, so he had not included it into his
presentation.
He also argued
that the proposed site — a 79-acre former landfill that the Buncombe
County Board of Commissioners recently agreed to lease to Progress for
$1 per year — was an ideal location for the plant because of its
heavy-industrial zoning designation and its history as a landfill.
Resident John
Paul Shraeder challenged Maxwell on this point, asking whether the
actual 18-acre section of the property on which Progress planned to
build the plant had ever been used as a landfill.
Maxwell conceded that it had not, prompting Shraeder to reply, “I’m just confused because you said it was landfill.”
Les Stowe questioned whether the proposed plant would meet the needs of new developments or merely meet current demands.
“You can’t open
the paper without reading about a development or a new development
being planned,” Stowe said. “Are we going to be here again in two
years?”
“Basically, this
will meet our basic needs for the foreseeable future,” Maxwell
answered, but added that it would probably only meet demands for about
four or five years. Progress, he noted, is working on a more long-term
development plan.
Other speakers
addressed the plant’s potential impact on health. One man asked what
would happen to the pollutants emitted by the plant once they were
dispersed into the atmosphere. He noted that an elementary school is
near the proposed site.
Maxwell replied that the air quality board would have to determine that. “That responsibility is on that agency,” he added.
“When it goes up, does it come back down?” a man asked, prompting laughter from many attendees.
Another speaker disagreed with Progress’ claim that harmful pollutants would be safely dispersed.
“With all due
respect to their air quality model ... the problem with the French
Broad River basin is, we don’t have dispersal — it all stays here,” the
man told the board.
Progress can
still challenge the ruling in court, but even if an appeal succeeds,
the proposed plant would still have to be approved by the regional air
quality board and the state utilities commission.
|
