From: elena s
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Wheeler, Ann <awheeler@pwcgov.org>; Angry, Victor S. <VSAngry@pwcgov.org>; peter candland <pcandland@pwcgov.org>; yvega@pwcgov.org; mfranklin@pwcgov.org; kboddye@pwcgov.org; abailey@pwcgov.org; Lawson, Jeanine M. <JLawson@pwcgov.org>; CMWinn@pwcgov.org; Chris Martino <cmartino@pwcgov.org>; pagrawal@pwcgov.org; Horner, Rebecca <RHorner@pwcgov.org>; Robl, Michelle R. <mrobl@pwcgov.org>
Subject: Haymarket Transmission Line fight lessons should not be ignored
Good morning,
As the community becomes more engaged with the ill-conceived proposals for data centers anywhere outside the overlay district, especially in the Rural Crescent, it will be critical for people to understand the impacts of what you are proposing. The recent meeting with Dominion Energy was very clear, even the proposals by 55/Catharpin will require a new transmission line and multiple substations. Something the Coalition warned about during the public hearing for the 4.5 million square feet of data center campus in the Gainesville Crossing Application approved by the previous Board.
Please, don’t drag your community through another battle.
Michelle Roble was key in the conversation to understand the framework by which the County Board of Supervisors, unanimously, donated 30,000 dollars to the Coalition to Protect PWC to ensure our collective goal, the partially buried hybrid route, as the only fair solution. How long ago that feels and yet it was only a mere four years ago when we were in Richmond as the primary Respondent to represent the entire community impacted by each route Dominion Energy proposed, like darts on map, you never knew where they would land.
The SCC record has all the facts. And the facts deserve to have some light shined on them.
Pages 6-8 :
“The record developed herein reveals that the Company (Dominion) has already constructed at least two transmission projects to extend service to new data center loads, similar to that requested by the Customer (Amazon)in this application, which have not developed as expected or at all. Thus, in viewing these “line extensions” to large contingent loads, the Commission (SCC Judge) may wish to require the customer requiring such project to put some of its own skin into the game. Otherwise, the general public (your constituents), already burdened by the environmental and aesthetic impacts of otherwise unneeded transmission projects, is not also burdened with 100% of the otherwise unnecessary costs.”
Alternatively, should the Commission issue a certificate for the 1-66 Hybrid project, then the Customer could be responsible for paying the considerable incremental costs of the underground part of the Project, while garnering very little of the environmental and esthetic benefits of such construction, which would flow almost entirely to the general public in the area.
A significant number of public witnesses and comments filed with the Commission expressed concern regarding the potential loss of property values as a result of the 1-66 Overhead. While such impacts are uncertain, any potential loss in home value would be avoided or reduced with the 1-66 Hybrid.
In a nutshell. Wealthy multi billion dollar tech company data center projects impact the residents in our community in disproportionate negative ways, first by decreasing property values of those in the direct path of their transmission lines routes and substations, decimating the environments they run through, the carbon footprint that cannot be ignored, and finally, we get to the honor of then paying for their millions upon millions of energy infrastructure.
How is that equitable or fair?
In the reply back from Ms. Winn, it should have been crystal clear to everyone, there is not enough communication and planning between the different departments, and yet we all know that land use policy ,especially, is interconnected. I wasn’t necessarily expecting an answer to my question about the integrity of our watershed with the proposed data center development, but that that critical aspect to healthy sustainable communities is not a part of anyone’s conversation planning the future for our county is troubling, especially given the challenges we face with climate change. People are literally freezing to death and burning alive in their own homes to due extreme weather events, isn’t about we time we started approaching how we plan our communities in a holistic way, not just pay lip service?
Data Centers contribute as much carbon as the aviation industry. Did you know that? As long as government officials like you are willing to put the burden of the infrastructure costs on the back of citizens, nothing is going to change, the way to incentivize innovation in data storage that will benefit everyone, will have to be done by forcing these bulk load customers to pay their own way. Period. THAT is fair, THAT is equitable.
The climate resolution you passed isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if you worship at the feet of these tech companies.
The biggest, covering a million square feet or more, consume as much power as a city of a million people. In total, they eat up more than 2 percent of the world’s electricity and emit roughly as much CO2 as the airline industry. And with global data traffic more than doubling every four years, they are growing fast.
We all use data, but we ALL don’t participate in the profit. The people in Prince William County deserve to know what they are trading in your plan for data centers outside the overlay district. What you are setting the stage for is that only data centers have value. The ultimate result of your vision for this beautiful unique county is industrial blight. There is NO compatibility with Data Centers in the rural area, or even in many places outside the overlay district. You do understand I hope several thousand people engaged in the Amazon transmission light fight because at one point ten different routes were on a Dominion Map, and most of those were in the Development Area, just like the Carver Road Route.
Some people may not like me, they may not like the people in the community who feel it’s their right, or even their responsibility to engage in public policy that impacts their lives, but that will not change the facts on the record. For anyone who doesn’t understand the case, the line extension policy was being applied in a novel way and those who DO know the case, know exactly where that novel approach originated.
I certainly don’t remember Supervisors like Anne Wheeler running on a platform of industrial blight in the Rural Area, I must have missed that talking point. And anyone who believes you can trade industrial blight for conservation understands little to nothing about how sustainable conservation works. Please don’t treat the community like we are stupid and don’t suggest we are telling lies or crying chicken little. The facts say otherwise.
Is this our new motto in PWC? “Come tour our beautiful national parks and open spaces but don’t mind all the transmission lines, substations and massive concrete buildings that are responsible for destroying our watershed”. Oh, I just had an idea, maybe we can PAINT murals on the sides of these concreate buildings of scenes of the environment that USE to be there…….
Life is about finding balance, passing an innovative long overdue AAOD is a farce and so is your climate resolution if you continue along this path of developing the rural area with data centers and high-density housing.
Warmly,
Elena Schlossberg
Coalition to Protect PWC