A Dragon in Sheep’s Clothing

Chesapeake City Council says no to ethanol plant

By Mike Saewitz The Virginian-Pilot © November 21, 2007

(CHESAPEAKE) The City Council voted 7-2 early today to reject a controversial proposal to build one of the country’s largest ethanol plants on the Elizabeth River’s Southern Branch, a half mile from a residential neighborhood in Portsmouth.

The vote came around 3:30 a.m., after more than five hours of public comment on the proposed plant.

Council members were won over by Portsmouth and Chesapeake residents concerned about increased traffic, air emissions and water usage generated by the plant.

“Nothing should be forced on a community,” said Councilman C.E. “Cliff” Hayes Jr., who made the motion to deny the proposal. “The people most closely affected are saying, ‘No.’ That’s not a difficult decision for me.”

The vote disappointed several dozen business leaders, who pleaded with the council to approve a $400 million project that would bring 150 jobs and as much as $4 million in annual tax revenue to Chesapeake.

Representatives for developer International Bio Energy Virginia LLC said they would look to build the ethanol plant in South Carolina. They also said they had firms interested in the Chesapeake land they purchased. “We felt this was a wonderful location,” said Sidney Harrison, the firm’s managing partner.

Mayor Dalton Edge and Councilwoman Patricia Willis were the only two who supported the plant. Edge said the United States needs to do something to cut its fuel reliance on the Middle East. “Those people got us by the throat,” he said. He said some Middle Eastern countries are building luxurious hotels, even indoor ski slopes.

“Whose money do you think they’re using to build those things?” Edge asked.

The ethanol vote drew an unusually large crowd to City Hall. More than the posted capacity of 290 people crowded into the council chambers to await the vote, and more spilled into the hallway. More than 120 of them signed up to address the council about the ethanol project, which was proposed for 97 acres on the Southern Branch.

Seventy-four people who signed up to speak — 24 in favor of the plant and 50 opposed — finally got their turn beginning at 9:50 p.m.

With 100 people in the audience, Hayes made the motion at 2:53 a.m., about eight hours after the meeting began. The vote actually happened at 3:32 a.m.

“I’m thrilled,” said Chesapeake’s Joan Mercer, one of the residents who led the battle against the plant. “I’m going to have a happy Thanksgiving and a good night’s sleep.”

The exhaustive meeting ended the alternative fuels storm that was unleashed upon Chesapeake earlier this year. A separate proposal to build the country’s largest biodiesel plant arrived in Chesapeake the very same March day as did the ethanol plant proposal. The biodiesel project was approved last month.

Council members couldn’t go for the ethanol plant, because of remaining questions over the proposal.

Councilwoman Ella Ward, who seconded Hayes’ motion to loud applause, said she was troubled by the plant’s need for 1.5 million gallons of water per day. That would have made the ethanol plant Chesapeake’s single-biggest water customer. As the vote neared, International Bio Energy said it would use less and less water.

“For me, the water was the big question mark,” Ward said. “Those numbers and figures kept changing.”

International Bio Energy believed the site was a perfect spot for a plant because it was close to port and rail. A Hampton Roads ethanol plant would be an easy source of fuel for customers all along the East Coast, developers argued.

Over the past six months, residents and officials have scrambled to learn more about what it would be like to host a fuel plant. In July, officials and residents from both Portsmouth and Chesapeake traveled to Wisconsin to tour two ethanol plants.

The ethanol project received vocal opposition from residents of the Portsmouth neighborhood of Cradock and the Chesapeake neighborhood of Brentwood.

“Vote for the people, and vote this thing down,” said Chesapeake resident Karen Smith.

Residents were bolstered this morning by strong testimony from Portsmouth City Council members and civic leaders. Portsmouth Councilman Doug Smith cautioned the Chesapeake board about believing the developer’s promise that the technology would work and minimize environmental impacts.

“What if you’re wrong, and the technology does not always work?” Smith asked. “Who will pay the price, and what will that price be?”

Some residents criticized the council for even considering the plant over Portsmouth’s opposition, especially after Chesapeake opposed the construction of a landfill in Camden County, N.C., and a trash port in Portsmouth.

“How can our city fight the landfill and the trash port and turn around and approve something in Chesapeake with such potential impact on another city?” asked longtime Chesapeake resident Jean-Marie Eagler.

In the end, the desire to cooperate with Portsmouth was a big factor for the Chesapeake council.

“What impacts Chesapeake does impact Portsmouth also,” Ward said. “There are other ways to come up with the revenue.”

The city developed a list of 75 stipulations — the most in city history — to monitor everything from air emissions to traffic to fire safety. Many argued that the stipulations would be impossible to keep track of.

Councilwoman Rebecca Adams said it was the project’s unanswered questions that bothered her.

“I wish I could go out on faith on this one,” Adams said. “But I’m just not comfortable.”