REMARKS BY WILLIAM GILMER, SR. PRESENTED AT THE SCC HEARINGS WYTHE COUNTY JULY 22, 1999 Good Afternoon. My name is William Gilmer, Sr.

I am a resident property owner in Wytheville. My wife and I have lived here for five years, after having retired from a position in technology development with a major international oil company. Like many others, we were attracted to this area by a combination of attributes, chief among which were the relatively unspoiled scenic beauty, the rural character of the countryside, and the small community atmosphere. It was gratifying for us to later learn that these same values were shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this county. In a county-wide survey conducted in the fall of 1997, the above three items were ranked at the very top of a list of 18 things that Wythe County citizens liked best about living here. Unlike some of our neighboring counties to the east, we have not chosen the path of rapid industrial development and population growth. We are still a predominantly rural county and wish to remain so. We are, in short, not interested in sacrificing our quality of life for the sake of growth. Much has been said by other speakers about how devastating it is to the property owners who have the misfortune to be in or near the path of a 765kv power line. These are not imagined effects -- they are real and they are substantial. And they have been cited in case after case from experiences that our people have had for the past 26 years with the existing 34-mile-long 765 kv line through Wythe County. Perhaps even more tragic than having ones property condemned, and being forced to vacate the home that you have spent years to improve and personalize, is the fate of the family whose property is devalued because of its proximity to the power line but who receive no compensation for this lost value. They cannot afford to sell at the reduced price that their property would now command and, therefore, have no alternative but stay and endure the noise, the visual impact and the ever nagging concerns over what effects the powerful electromagnetic radiations may have on their health. The injustices visited on the property owners in the path of the power line, the likely contamination of household water supplies from aerial spraying of herbicides, the additional visual blight on the scenic landscape with its attendant adverse impact on our tourist industry, the unnatural intrusions into our scenic trails and parks -- these are the more local and the more direct effects of the proposed project. Previous speakers have spoken with eloquence and deep feeling on these questions. I would like to focus the balance of my remarks on the adverse effect this project would indirectly have, not only on the counties through which the power line would pass, but on the whole of the southern Appalachians highlands. I am referring to the increased air pollution that would inevitably attend such a major addition to AEP's transmission capabilities. This is a threat that is easy to overlook but one that, because of the large land area affected, is potentially even more devastating than the others that have been discussed. To better appreciate the air pollution aspect of this project, one has to consider AEP's corporate position in the industry, and what corporate strategy would best serve its purpose for maximizing shareholder profit. In so doing, one can readily understand why AEP is so intent on obtaining approval for this project. Consider the case. AEP has within its system an enormous amount of unused generating capacity in its coal burning stations in the Ohio River valley. These are old plants -- mostly built in the 50's and 60's and largely without effective pollution controls, thanks to the grandfathering provisions of the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. Estimates are that these plants release from four to ten times the amount of toxic substances to the atmosphere than would equivalent plants with modern emission controls. Moreover, in accord with EPA approved practice during the period in which these plants were built, they all have very tall stacks, up to a 1000 feet or more, in order to better disperse the toxic emissions. This has been referred to as " the dilution solution to pollution". Of course, what goes up must come down -- and, come down it does, as much as several hundred miles downwind. As a result, it is our Appalachian Highlands, from the Virginia's, through eastern Tennessee and into the Carolinas and Georgia that is bearing the brunt of this environmental assault. So -- AEP has the capability of generating substantial amounts of additional electricity at very low cost from existing, fully-depreciated plants, fueled with relatively inexpensive coal with minimal investments in emission controls. In a deregulated market , this could become a very profitable situation indeed for the company, a real boon to the shareholder and to corporate management. All the company lacks is the means to transmit this additional power to the appropriate markets. These markets lie generally to the east and south of their service area; hence, the push to build the power line through southwest Virginia. Discharge of toxic substances to the atmosphere from current AEP plant operations is already enormous. If the company is permitted to construct this additional transmission line, substantial additional emissions would follow in quick order. According to EPA's national Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), AEP's thirteen coal-fired electric utility plants released 113 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment during 1998, placing the company at or very near the top within the electric utility industry. (1) This total toxic chemicals release is more than double the 52 million pounds reported for the previous year for all of Virginia's other industries combined. (2) Most of AEP's toxic emissions, about 96 million pounds (or 85% of the total), were released into the air. This included about 77 million pounds of hydrochloric acid aerosol, 13 million pounds of sulfuric acid aerosol and 5 million pounds of hydrogen fluoride aerosol. Among the other chemicals released to the air was 9000 pounds of mercury, a substance that has been linked to serious neurological and developmental disorders. Altogether, EPA has identified a total of 14 chemicals emitted by power plants whose health effects they say need further study. Not included in the list of AEP's combined plant releases, but reported separately in the same news story was the release of 94 million pounds per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from just one of AEP's plants, the Amos plant. Oxides of nitrogen are directly related to smog generation and attendant health risks. What is the effect of all these toxic substances discharged into the atmosphere? -- on the health and well-being of the citizens of this area? -- on the flora and fauna of our woods and fields and streams ? And, how much worse will the situation become if AEP increases the output of its coal-fired generating plants to fully use their proposed new 765kv transmission line? ? One effect, very apparent to everyone living in this area, is the almost unprecedented haze that has engulfed us for the past week or more. This haze is the direct result of the reaction of unburned hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, both products of combustion of fossil fuels, in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone, the principal contributor to atmospheric smog. This Los Angeles type smog not only blocks the view of our surrounding mountain ranges but also poses a health hazard, especially for small children and the elderly, and to anyone with respiratory problems. Federal health standards have been set for ground-level ozone, as measured by hundreds of monitoring stations across the country. According to results to date, this summer may well set records in Virginia for ozone health violations. As reported by the Roanoke Times, for the period between May 1 and June 10, "Virginia exceeded the standard 67 times, almost three times the 27 violations recorded last year during the same period". The article goes on to state that, "the violations have occurred not only in urban areas. Rural areas in Southwest Virginia have also seen an increase in unhealthful air -- four violations in Wythe County alone." (3) In this same article, Jeff Gleason of the Southern Environmental Law Center is quoted as saying that the older coal-burning power plants in Virginia and neighboring states are among the major contributors to this smog. (quote) Updating these plants (by installing modern pollution controls) -- resulting in the pollution-reduction equivalent of removing 4 million cars from Virginia's roads -- would relieve those who suffer from respiratory diseases . . . and let our children and elderly breath easier.(unquote). Under these circumstances, it would seem most imprudent for the SCC to approve any application, such as for this proposed transmission line, that would increase the health hazards to Virginians beyond the already-alarming present level. Now, lets consider what impacts the huge discharges of toxic substances from coal-burning power plants are having on our forests and streams, and the wildlife that live there. Although our focus will be mainly on the mid-Atlantic area impacted by AEP's plants, the picture is much the same for the entire Appalachian chain from Maine to Georgia. Clearly, the most visible change that has occurred in recent years is the dead and dying trees in the higher elevations. In the words of Harvard Ayers, Professor of Anthropology and Sustainable Development at Appalachian State University: (quote) Hikes on Grandfather Mountain, Mt. Rogers and Roan Mountain tell the same story -- essentially all forests in the region above 4500 feet are in deep trouble. Century after century, these forests have survived the ravages of bugs, diseases, harsh climate, and even rapacious human logging. Occasionally, single species have declined, or in one case, the chestnut, disappeared (due to a blight introduced nearly 100 years ago). But never (before) have we witnessed the decline and mass death of almost all the major tree species of entire ecosystems (unquote). (4) Such a dramatic decline in alpine forests was first observed in Europe some 40 to 50 years ago, and then somewhat later in this country in the northeastern states, and eventually down the entire Appalachian chain. In many instances, the proximate cause of death could be attributed to a particular disease or organism, such as the woolly adelgid in the case of hemlocks, or the anthracnose fungus in the case of dogwoods, but in many other instances no such means could be identified. (5) Considering the number and variety of species that have been affected -- red spruce, balsam fir, mountain maple, sugar maple, yellow and white birch, hemlock, dogwood, oaks and hickory -- it is simply not believable that all of these could be coincidentally affected without some underlying cause. By the mid-70's, scientists in this country and Europe had assembled enough evidence to document the increased mortality of certain species of trees, and to identify acid deposition as at least a significant contributing cause. From that time on, information began to accumulate from additional investigations in Europe, Canada and the U. S. concerning the mechanism by which this acid deposition affects the tree health, and also on other contributing effects of pollution on tree mortality. (6) The means by which acids stress the trees was determined to be by way of the soil, and is two-fold in nature. First, the acids act to break down the molecules of aluminum silicate present in the mountain soils, and free the aluminum to be absorbed by the plant's root system. The free aluminum ion damages the root system, reducing its capability to absorb essential nutrients. The second effect is that these essential nutrients (potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium) are themselves leached from the upper soil levels by acid deposition and therefore unavailable to the plant. (7) (8) Ozone, which has already been mentioned for its effects on human lungs, also works to the detriment of the leaf structure through which plants breathe. Affected trees have increased mortality because, in their weakened condition, they are more likely to succumb to insect infestation, blights and harsh weather. The major source of low-level atmospheric ozone is from motor vehicles, but utility smokestacks are also a significant contributor. Excess nitrogen fertilization, by way of smokestack and automotive emissions, mostly in the form of ammonia, can also be very damaging to plant health. This is especially true at higher mountain elevations where other nutrients are in limited supply, and a certain balance of nutrients is necessary for plant survival. (9) It is not just the plant life that suffers from power plant stack emissions; so, also, do the fish and other aquatic species, for example, that populate our mountain streams. According to a University of Virginia study, only about 50% of Virginia's mountain streams now support trout, down from about 82% for the preindustrial era. Unless acid emissions from power plants and other sources are reduced drastically from current levels, further substantial reductions in the number of streams capable of supporting trout can be expected. Computer modeling studies, based on detailed water chemistry data from 60 geologically representative Virginia trout streams, were used to reconstruct past water chemistry and predict future water chemistry. These studies indicate that a 70% reduction in acid deposition from 1991 levels would be required just to maintain the health of the trout streams we presently have. (10) My remarks have barely scraped the surface of what has been reported in the literature concerning the polluting effects of toxic discharges from coal-burning utility plants. I hope they have been sufficient, however, to help persuade the SCC that granting approval for this 765kv transmission line would greatly exacerbate an already very bad situation. In conclusion, I want to add my voice to that of many others that some combination of the alternatives proposed by Congressman Boucher be employed, and that they be employed incrementally, and only as needed, to meet the growing needs of AEP's service area. AEP's arguments against this approach essentially comes down to a question of cost, but their costs figures are internally generated and lack credibility. They have a huge vested interest in securing approval for a 765kv line, and can hardly be expected to generate cost analyses that support any other alternative. Furthermore, and more importantly, their cost figures include only those cost that the company would bear. The true cost would be much, much greater if it were to include fair compensations to the affected property owners, the negative impact on tourism, and the devastating effect that the increased pollutant emissions would have on our woods and streams and wildlife throughout the Southern Appalachians. This is known as "externalizing your costs" -- making others pay the costs. It is grossly unfair and should not be permitted. REFERENCES: (1) "Big John Amos Plant a Leader in Power, Pollution", Charleston Gazette, July 11, 1999 (2) "Utilities Among Biggest Polluters", Greg Edwards, Richmond Times Dispatch, June 1999 (3) "Virginia's Air Quality Violations Increase" , Ron Nixon, The Roanoke Times, June 25, 1999 (4) "An Appalachian Tragedy: Air Pollution and Tree Death in the Eastern Forests of North America". p2, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1998 (5) "Long Term Fates of Declining Forests", Richard M. Klein and Timothy D. Perkins, Science of Global Change: Impact of Human Activities on the Environment., American Chemical Society (1992) (6) "Changing Perspectives on Air Pollution Stress", F. H. Bormann and G. E. Likens, Bioscience 37 (1987) (7) "Effects of Acid Deposition on Tree Roots in Swedish Forest Stands", Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85 (1995) (8) " Acid Rain's Dirty Business: Stealing Minerals from the Soil", Science 272 (1996) (9) "Nitrogen Saturation in Northern Forest Ecosystems". John D. Aber, et al. Bioscience 39 (1989) (10) " Acid Rain: Current and Projected Status of Coldwater Fish Communities in the Southeastern US in the Context of Continued Acid Deposition". Art Bulger et al. Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia. June 1998