Hearing Canceled-Postponed Indefinitely

At the request of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Virginia State Corporation Commission has canceled the November 10 hearing regarding Highland New Wind Development's non-compliance with the SCC's "Final Order" approving the construction of a 19-turbine wind utility. No new date has been set.

On November 5, the Department of Historic Resources filed a "Motion for Continuance" on the grounds that it is seeking additional information regarding Camp Allegheny from the National Park Service. In the Motion, the agency stated that said it will be unable to review and analyze the Park Service data and consult with HNWD before Tuesday.

Click here to view DHR's Motion.

According to Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan's November 6 Ruling, "DHR maintained that after such review, analysis, and consultation, DHR would be in a better position to raise substantive issues, promoting judicial efficiency and economy. Therefore, DHR requested that this matter be continued generally. I have been advised that Highland Wind plans no response to the Motion."

Based on DHR's pleading, Mr. Skirpan found that the evidentiary hearing scheduled for
November 10, 2009, should be canceled and the matter postponed indefinitely.

Click here to view the Hearing Examiner's Ruling.

If DHR determines that the information and consultation provided by HNWD regarding the wind utility's evaluation and mitigation of impacts on archaeological and historic resources remains unsatisfactory, then the agency will inform the SCC and a new date for an evidentiary hearing will be set.

However, if DHR is satisfied with their consultation with HNWD, then the agency is at liberty to file a motion to have the case dismissed. If this happens, then no public, evidentiary hearing regarding the impact of the wind utility on Camp Allegheny Battlefield will be held.

We at Brightside remain deeply concerned about DHR's choice in requesting a "general continuance." Lacking a set date, public interest in this matter--already delayed twice--is certain to fade.

While it is easy to understand why HNWD seeks to avoid public presentation of evidence regarding the impact of their 40-story turbines on a National Register site, the fact that DHR seems equally committed to the avoidance of a public hearing is harder to figure.

What is the downside for DHR, a government agency funded by the taxpayers and committed to historic stewardship, to have all the evidence regarding HNWD's impact to historic resources presented in a public forum?