Gary Hessong Testimony

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

 

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *         

FREDERICK COUNTY’S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

BY GARY HESSONG

Q.        PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CURRENT POSITION.

A.        My name is Gary Hessong.  I am the Director of the Division of Permitting and Development Review (“DPDR”) for Frederick County, Maryland.  My work history was summarized in the Frederick County “Director’s Profile” attached as an exhibit to my previous testimony on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners for Frederick County, Maryland, (“BOCC”) in this proceeding that was adopted and presented by Ms. Betsy Smith of my office at the December 9, 2004 hearing in this matter.

Q.       ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPOSAL OF SEMPRA ENERGY RESOURCES’ SUBSIDIARY – CATOCTIN POWER, LLC. - TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING FACILITY ON THE EAST ALCO FACILITY IN FREDERICK COUNTY?

A.        Yes.  DPDR staff and I have been involved with this project through reviewing the project’s proposed site plan including the co-ordination of all other agencies’ input in the review of this project.  DPDR staff and I have also met several times with Sempra representatives to review this project.

Q.        ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ (“BOCC”) CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CATOCTIN POWER PROJECT?

A.        I was present on May 27, 2004 when Sempra presented the proposed project, including its request to purchase the County’s treated wastewater, to the BOCC and at the BOCC’S subsequent July 12, 2004 public hearing on this proposed project.  I am also familiar with the BOCC’S testimony previously filed in this proceeding by Michael Marschner and Betsy Smith (who adopted my previous testimony on behalf of the BOCC) relating to site plan, water and land preservation issues.  I am presenting the BOCC’S rebuttal testimony in this PSC proceeding. 

Q.        ARE YOU AWARE THAT AT THE HEARING HELD IN THIS PROCEEDING ON DECEMBER 9, 2004 QUESTIONS AROSE CONCERNING THE BOCC’S REQUEST FOR LAND TO BE PLACED IN PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL OR PARK PRESERVATION AND WHICH WOULD SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PLANT AND THE COMMUNITY, HOPEFULLY INCLUDING ST. MATTHEW’S CHURCH LOCATED ON BALLENGER CREEK PIKE?

A.        Yes. I am aware that on October 21, 2004, the BOCC moved by a 3 to 1 vote with one Commissioner absent to request that the PSC require, as a condition to any CPCN that might issue in this proceeding, that Sempra / Catoctin Power work with EastAlco Aluminum to place approximately 313 acres of land into permanent agricultural or park preservation.  This specific property was to consist of the following: (1) account identifier – district 23, account number 437457, tax map 94, grid 3, parcel 76 – 144 acres west of Ballenger Creek Pike adjacent to St. Matthew’s Church that is owned by EastAlco; and (2) account identifier – district 01, account number 005391, tax map 94, grid 4, parcel 3 – 169.17 acres located on the east side of Ballenger Creek Pike, also owned by EastAlco, and located directly across the road from St. Matthew’s church and which wraps around the church cemetery.  A map identifying these specific parcels, which are zoned agricultural, is attached as Exhibit A to my testimony.  If the identified properties could not be obtained for preservation, the BOCC’S motion then directed Sempra to work in good faith with EastAlco to identify 250 acres that would accomplish the BOCC’S intent of placing land into permanent agricultural or park preservation to act as a buffer between the Catoctin Power plant and the community, hopefully including St. Matthews’ church that is located north of the proposed Catoctin Power facility and is on Ballenger Creek Pike.  Finally, if Sempra was not able to obtain and place this land into permanent agricultural or park preservation by working with EastAlco, Sempra must work with the Carrollton Manor Land Trust to identify and obtain 250 acres of land to be placed in permanent agricultural or park preservation.  The Adamstown area of Frederick County, which includes the EastAlco property where the proposed electric power plant is to be located, is within Carrollton Manor Land Trust’s area of responsibility.  To the extent that there is a cost involved with placing this land in permanent agricultural or park preservation (and conceivably EastAlco could voluntarily choose to so restrict land that it owned including the two specific parcels identified by the BOCC) this cost was to be at Sempra’s expense.

Q.        WITH RESPECT TO THE BOCC’S PREFERRED PROPERTY PLEASE DESCRIBE ITS GENERAL LOCATION AND PRESENT ZONING?

A.        The two specific parcels identified by the BOCC are owned by EastAlco and zoned agricultural.  On the attached map (Exhibit A) they are shown as being located north of EastAlco’s general industrial zoned property and essentially wrap around St. Matthew’s church, being located to its east, west and south (between the church and Sempra’s proposed plant).

Q.        SINCE THE INTENT OF THE BOCC’S LAND PRESERVATION REQUEST IS TO CREATE A BUFFER FOR THE COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING ST. MATTHEW’S CHURCH, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT LAND OTHER THAN THE TWO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED PARCELS WOULD HOPEFULLY BE LOCATED IN THE SAME AREA?

A.        I understand that the BOCC was concerned with creating a buffer between St. Matthew’s church and the proposed Sempra plant to at least mitigate visual impacts of the proposed plant and to prevent encroachment of additional non-agricultural activities near the church.  Therefore, if the two preferred parcels are not available, the BOCC would hope that other land could be found that would serve this function.  As is shown on the attached map (Exhibit A) EastAlco owns other property, presently zoned general industrial, that is located between the proposed Sempra plant and St. Matthew’s church that could also serve as this buffer.

Q.        ARE YOU ALSO FAMILIAR WITH SEMPRA’S QUESTIONS AT THE DECEMBER 9, 2004 HEARING DIRECTED TO BUFFER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY IN FIGURE 2, ENTITLED “SITE PLAN”, GENERAL NOTES, ITEMS 12, 18 AND 19?

A.        Yes.

Q.        WHAT DO ITEMS 12, 18 AND 19 REQUIRE, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, AND HOW DO THESE REQUIRMENTS DIFFER FROM THE SPECIFIC LAND PRESERVATION BUFFER THAT THE BOCC HAS REQUESTED BE MADE A CONDITION OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (“CPCN”) THAT MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?

A.        Item 12 requires compliance with Frederick County’s forest resource ordinance; item 18 indicates that landscaping and perimeter screening shall be provided; and item 19 indicates that buffer areas may be established, if necessary, to screen the project from Manor Woods Road and Ballenger Creek Pike.  The intent of these site plan requirements, to which I understand Sempra has agreed, is to establish an appropriate perimeter around the proposed plant that, to some extent, would screen the north portion of the project site closest to St. Matthew’s church.  These are general provisions, though, primarily focused on perimeter screening, that will have to be implemented by Sempra in the future and I assume that there will be some discussion as to what these provisions will actually require.  It is my understanding that the BOCC’S specific land preservation request is intended to be in addition to the screening requirements of the site plan.

Q.        AGAIN, WHILE THIS MAY BE SOMEWHAT REDUNDANT WITH YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY, WHAT IS THE BOCC’S PURPOSE IN REQUESTING THAT THE APPROXIMATE 250 TO 313 ACRES BE PLACED IN PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL OR PARK PRESERVATION?

A.        The BOCC is concerned with creating a buffer between the proposed Sempra plant and St. Matthew’s church that will at least address visual concerns (and I understand that the State of Maryland has also recommended that a visual buffer between St. Matthew’s church and the proposed plant be required) and prevent encroachment of further non-agricultural activities near St. Matthew’s church.  I also believe that the BOCC felt that if this land was placed into permanent agricultural or park preservation, it would help offset the negative impacts of a $300 million 640 MW natural gas fired electric generating plant being located in the Adamstown community.

Q.        DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND?

A.        Yes