Hardy County last week joined a growing number of counties formally pushing back against the proposed Valley North transmission line, with the County Commission putting forward a resolution saying it does not support the massive infrastructure project as currently proposed.
The move comes just three weeks after the Commission held a public meeting to gather resident input. That meeting saw virtually every speaker urge the Commission to oppose the Valley Link project.
The resolution, as presented at the Commission’s regular monthly meeting, raises concerns ranging from the need for the project and its potential effect on property values to agriculture, tourism, future development, and the costs that West Virginia electric customers may ultimately bear.
Notably, the five-page resolution does not flat out reject the project; instead, it lays out a detailed list of questions and concerns it says should be answered before the project is allowed to move forward.
“Based upon the information presently available, the Hardy County Commission does not support the Valley Link Transmission Line Project as presently proposed,” the resolution states.
That puts Hardy alongside other West Virginia counties that have taken formal positions against the project. Berkeley County unanimously adopted an opposition resolution in August, while Barbour, Upshur, and Hampshire counties have also formally opposed the project. Jefferson County has adopted two resolutions opposing the proposed line.
Hardy’s resolution will bring the number of counties formally opposing the project to 14.
According to project plans that are evolving, as many as 20 W. Va. counties may be affected.
The proposed Valley North project would build a new 765-kilovolt transmission line across the state toward Frederick County, Md. Valley Link Transmission is a joint venture involving Dominion Energy, FirstEnergy Transmission, and Transource Energy.
Hardy County’s resolution acknowledges the importance of a reliable electric grid and future energy and infrastructure needs, but it also points out that infrastructure of this scale may have long-lasting consequences for property owners, agricultural land, natural resources, scenic areas, economic development, and the character of communities through which it passes.
The Commission says significant questions remain about Valley North’s necessity, routing, costs, benefits and both its short- and long-term effects on Hardy County.
The resolution groups those concerns into eight areas.
First, Commissioners want Valley Link to more clearly demonstrate why the project is needed, including the specific reliability, capacity, generation or electricity-demand conditions it is intended to address. They also want an examination of less disruptive alternatives, including different routes and transmission configurations.
Environmental impacts are another concern. The Commission calls for examination of potential effects on forests, streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat, sensitive environmental areas and watersheds, along with alternative routes or designs that could avoid or reduce those impacts.
The resolution also asks for a more comprehensive accounting of the consequences for people living along or near the eventual route, including construction impacts, rights-of-way, proximity to homes, noise, visual impacts, property access, safety and quality of life.
Property values are also considered. Commissioners want what the resolution describes as “credible and objective analysis” of potential effects on residential, agricultural, commercial and undeveloped land, including properties that may not be crossed by the line but could experience market impacts because of their proximity to it.
Agriculture and tourism are singled out because of their importance to Hardy County’s economy and rural identity. The Commission wants potential effects on farms, productive agricultural land, forestry, recreation, scenic resources and tourism-related businesses considered over both the construction period and the longer term.
Commissioners also argue that the line should be evaluated against Hardy County’s future economic-development goals. The resolution asks how a new transmission corridor could affect land available for future residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational and tourism-related development.
Another major question is who pays.
The Commission is seeking more information about the project’s total cost, how those costs would be allocated and what portion, if any, would ultimately fall to area electric customers. It also wants to know what direct or indirect benefits W. Va. ratepayers could expect in return.
Finally, Hardy officials want regulators to consider Valley North not simply as a stand-alone project, but alongside other existing, proposed or reasonably foreseeable major infrastructure projects affecting the county and region.
“The Commission believes that the cumulative burden placed upon a rural community is an important consideration when determining whether additional large-scale infrastructure is appropriate and, if so, where and under what conditions it should be located,” the resolution reads.
The Commission also spells out what it would expect if the project continues through the regulatory process.
It calls for Valley Link to work directly with county officials, affected landowners, businesses and agricultural interests on ways to avoid or mitigate local impacts. Among the measures identified are route changes to reduce effects on homes, farms and sensitive areas; equitable compensation for affected property owners; measures addressing documented property-value losses; restoration of agricultural land and natural resources; screening and setbacks; repair of county roads damaged during construction; coordination with emergency services; and community investments to offset long-term impacts.
The resolution does not, however, close the door on the Commission reconsidering its position.
It says commissioners will continue evaluating information as it becomes available and reserve the right to “modify, strengthen, or otherwise amend” their position based on additional analysis, public input, regulatory review or information from the developer.
That makes Hardy’s position a rejection of Valley North as currently proposed, coupled with a demand for additional study and greater local involvement rather than an absolute rejection of any future version of the project.
The County Commission itself does not have final authority to approve or reject Valley North. In West Virginia that authority sits with the state Public Service Commission, and the project had not yet been formally filed with the PSC when other counties began adopting their opposition resolutions this summer.
