Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Swain residents urge commissioners to block Duke Energy's proposed Needmore transmission route
Summary
Residents from Needmore and surrounding areas urged Swain County commissioners to demand transparency from Duke Energy and review alleged changes to deeded rights of way before the utility proceeds with surveys and landowner negotiations for the proposed substation and transmission line.
Residents and landowners told the Swain County Board of Commissioners on July 21 that Duke Energy's proposed substation and transmission line through the Needmore corridor threatens private-property rights, local businesses and the natural resources that support county tourism.
"The issue is really more than about a power line. It's about property rights, transparency, trust, and the future of the people that live along Needmore Road," said Renee Coleman during public comment. Coleman told the board she believes a supplemental deed filed when Duke sold game-lands in 1999 changed the originally intended transmission route and that residents have not been provided environmental studies or scoring analysis comparing alternate routes.
Multiple speakers said Duke has surveyed seven candidate routes and selected the most cost-effective option, which uses Needmore Road as a distribution corridor and would require new easements or potential eminent-domain actions for construction. John Close presented deed and plat materials he said were filed with the utilities commission and urged the board to scrutinize right-of-way claims and any abandonment clauses that might invalidate older rights.
County staff told commissioners they met with a Duke representative, who confirmed surveys are under way and that Duke intends to negotiate purchases with affected landowners before resorting to eminent domain. The staff member also said Duke indicated significant route changes would likely require successful litigation. Speakers urged the county to seek legal review of supplemental deeds and to consider a temporary moratorium while residents and the commission examine the paperwork.
The board did not adopt a moratorium at the meeting; staff placed Duke's project materials in commissioners' packets and offered to convene follow-up meetings with residents and Duke representatives. The staff member said he will provide the project paperwork to commissioners for additional review.
