Entries in wind ordinance (17)
2/2/10 Wind Wars: Wind industry continues to deny negative health impact in spite of increasing numbers of complaints from wind farm residents AND Let's review: What do night time noise levels have to do with an increased risk of coronary heart disease?
“The new data indicate that noise pollution is causing more deaths from heart disease than was previously thought."“Until now, the burden of disease related to the general population’s exposure to environmental noise has rarely been estimated in nonoccupational settings at the international level.”---Deepak Prasher, professor of audiology, University College in London
It is a bright mid-September day. Hal and Judy Graham are sitting in the living room of their restored 19th century farmhouse, which looks out over the still-green rolling hills near Cohocton, a rural community in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York.
The pastoral view is punctuated by two 420-foot-high structures. The sleek towers, almost alien in appearance, are wind turbines. One of them stands 1,000 feet from the farmhouse, on a neighbor's property. The second is 2,000 feet away on the Grahams' own land.
On this afternoon in the late summer of 2009, the twin Goliaths are still. One was shut down last winter after a flurry of attempted repairs, and the other has unaccountably been shut down for just a couple of days. But the Grahams expect it to be only a temporary respite. When the winds are high and the turbines are spinning fast, "it sounds like a jet engine taking off in your backyard," says Judy Graham. "Only it never stops."
In 2004, the Grahams signed a contract that permitted a company named UPC Wind (since renamed First Wind) to construct and operate a wind turbine on their property as part of a 50-turbine "farm" that stretches across a number of properties. Later, the town of Cohocton passed an ordinance that effectively exempts leaseholders from any noise controls.
"They told us that the noise at 900 feet would be no louder than the hum of a refrigerator," says Hal Graham. But he says the reality has been far different. "We can't sleep. We can't watch TV. This has been a disaster for us and our neighbors."
Wind power is one of the current darlings of the movement to find alternative energy sources, and in 2008 the United States surpassed Germany as the world's leading producer of electricity generated by wind. "With the right government policies, this cost-effective source of energy could provide at least 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030, create thousands of jobs, and revitalize farms and rural communities-without consuming any natural resource or emitting any pollution or greenhouse gases," says the American Wind Energy Association on its website.
But an increasingly vocal minority says there is another, more sinister, side to wind power. They acknowledge that, from a distance, the towering sentinels seem to spin lightly and noiselessly in the wind. But closer up, they insist, turbines emit stomach-jarring whooshes and rumbles, and an impossible-to-ignore rhythmic hum that disrupts sleep and causes headaches, nausea and fatigue in some people.
Another problem is shadow flicker, caused when the spinning blades chop up sunlight, creating a swooping pattern of shadows that some people say makes them woozy and sick.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., at the north edge of Adirondack Park, has coined the phrase wind turbine syndrome to describe the cluster of symptoms-sleeplessness, headaches, depression, dizziness and nausea-that she has identified in people she has studied who live within a mile of industrial-size wind turbines. In November, Pierpont published a report on some of her research, Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Pierpont's findings have been criticized by some in the wind energy industry, partly on grounds that her study looked at fewer than 40 people.
• • •
The growing contentiousness over the health effects of wind turbines already has resulted in some sharp legal fights -with more sure to come-over where turbines should be located and how they should be regulated. And because wind power can be harnessed most efficiently in wide-open spaces-the largest wind farms contain hundreds of turbines-the task of sorting out these issues has fallen primarily on local government bodies representing communities such as Cohocton.
According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce webpage titled "Project No Project," which tracks energy projects that have been stalled or killed, more than 70 wind farm proposals around the country are bogged down by moratoriums, restrictive ordinances, environmental challenges and lawsuits filed by community groups.
Although the states and even the federal government are inexorably being drawn into the issue, for now it is local government taking the lead to craft ordinances and zoning regulations that try to answer questions like these: When it comes to placing wind turbines near residences, how close is too close? And how loud is too loud?
Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, land use generally is regulated at the local level through the police power of towns, cities and counties to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their residents, says Glenn M. Stoddard, an attorney in Eau Claire, Wis., who has helped local governments in his state develop wind ordinances.
Generally, a local government can't just ban an industry outright, Stoddard says. "There's a zoning doctrine that basically prohibits what we call ‘exclusionary zoning' in which a local government simply discriminates against a certain type of land use," he says. There must be a rational reason for restricting an industry that is related to the health, safety or general welfare of the populace.
This is a tricky standard when it comes to regulating noise. "There's plenty of evidence that noise makes people sick," says Arline L. Bronzaft, a New York City psychologist who has conducted landmark research linking classroom noise to learning deficits in children. According to the World Health Organization, noise can interfere with sleep, speech, learning and social behavior, as well as cause stress, cardiovascular problems and, at high decibel levels, impaired hearing.
But there are no national standards defining just how much noise is too much. The U.S. Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972 promised to "promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare." But the Office of Noise Abatement and Control created to enforce the law has been defunded since the Reagan administration.
The EPA's website contains guidelines on acceptable noise levels based on the agency's 1974 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety-commonly known as the Noise Levels Document. But Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, Vt., says these guidelines were developed with the residents of noisy urban environments in mind. Too often, he says, the guidelines are applied without making the adjustments suggested by the Noise Levels Document for quieter rural areas or for noise with characteristics that make it particularly troublesome.
• • •
On Sept. 19, the town board of Italy-a tiny hamlet about 15 miles northeast of Cohocton-met to hear comments on a proposal by Ecogen Wind of West Seneca, N.Y., to erect 18 wind turbines on the surrounding hills.
Many opponents of the proposal wore black T-shirts emblazoned with "50 dBA No Way."
The slogan refers to daytime noise limits measured at property lines near wind turbines. A limit of 50 decibels on the A-weighted scale-the most common measure for sounds perceived by the human ear-is the standard set by most local wind ordinances. Most also require a minimum setback from residences of 1,000 feet.
That would seem to be in line with EPA guidance, which suggests an outdoor noise limit of 55 dBA, though the Noise Levels Document also suggests that, in quiet rural areas, 10 dBA be subtracted from this level.
Some argue that wind turbine noise may be a problem even at this level. "It appears that the noise that comes from wind farms bothers people at lower decibel levels than aircraft noise and road noise," says Jim Cummings, executive director of the Acoustic Ecology Institute in Santa Fe, N.M.
For one thing, the whirling of the blades causes a rhythmic pulsing that Bronzaft likens to "the drip, drip, drip of the faucet that makes you crazy, crazy, crazy." Noise that pulses should be adjusted down by 5 dBA, suggests the EPA's Noise Levels Document.
Then there's low-frequency noise-sound that vibrates relatively slowly and is pitched low on the scale of sounds audible to the human ear. It travels farther and penetrates walls and windows more efficiently than high-frequency noise, making it hard to block out. Think of the pulsing sound you hear when a car blasting its stereo pulls up next to you at the stoplight-that's low-frequency sound, stripped of its higher frequency components by the closed car windows.
According to the World Health Organization, low-frequency sound can accentuate the negative health impacts of noise, and even sounds below 30 dBA can disturb sleep.
The American Wind Energy Association and other wind power advocates generally dismiss claims of conditions like wind turbine syndrome. In December, the association and its Canadian counterpart issued a report concluding that, while some people may be "annoyed" by wind turbine noise, there is no reason to believe such noise creates health risks.
Some wind advocates suggest that, in certain cases, claims of health concerns may be a smokescreen for another reason why some people oppose wind turbines: They don't like the way they look.
"My impression is that a lot of the opponents are people who want to stop the turbine coming into their backyards, and not because they think that it will cause this or that health problem," says Patricia E. Salkin, director of the Government Law Center at Union University's Albany Law School. She also is a past chair of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law.
A study conducted in the Netherlands, for instance, found that people disturbed by the look of wind turbines were more likely to be bothered by the noise, as well.
"What's clear is that there are people making claims" about the health impact of wind turbines, says Jeff Deyette, a senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a strong advocate of wind power headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. "But there are really not a whole lot of, or hardly any, epidemiological studies to bear them out."
Trey Cox, an attorney at Lynn Tillotson Pinker and Cox in Dallas, represented a wind farm developer in what he says is the first nuisance claim based on noise impacts to be heard by a jury.
The plaintiffs lived in the vicinity of the Horse Hollow Wind Farm near Abilene, Texas. With 421 turbines spread out over 47,000 acres, Horse Hollow, owned by FPL Energy, is the world's second-largest wind farm. The nearby property owners sought injunctive relief based on claims of nuisance. At trial, defense sound experts testified that, after logging 675 hours of sound measurements at plaintiffs' residences, they found that wind turbine noise averaged 28 dBA at a distance of 1.7 miles from the wind turbines, and 44 dBA at 1,700 feet. In an 11-1 verdict, the jury found that these noise levels did not constitute a nuisance.
At trial, Cox was struck by the testimony of a plaintiff he described as "a wonderful woman, a salt-of-the-earth type," who testified that the sound of the wind turbine on her land was equivalent to the sound of a B-1 bomber.
"Well, I knew that was impossible," says Cox. "A B-1 bomber makes a sound around 101 decibels. I think that when people don't like the wind turbine, they become bigger, they become louder and they become uglier in their minds."
On appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals in Rankin v. FPL Energy, the nearby property owners argued that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury not to consider aesthetics in deciding whether the wind farm was a nuisance to those on nearby properties. The appellate court upheld the trial court, however, on grounds that aesthetics are not a basis for nuisance claims under Texas law.
Cummings says the argument that opposition to wind turbines is primarily a matter of what they look like "drives me crazy." He acknowledges, however, that there is a strong psychological component to noise perception, as well as a wide variation in individuals' responses to sound. The same low-frequency pulsing sound that drives one person up a wall can be imperceptible to another, and to a third it is soothing background noise.
"But one of the questions is: How much of the population living around a wind farm is it OK to disturb?" Cummings says. "If 20 percent of the residents are bothered, is that OK?"
• • •
It is clear from the prevalence of pro-wind posters displayed in yards and windows in Cohocton that the wind farm enjoys strong support from many residents. In 2007, town supervisor Jack Zigenfus defeated anti-wind activist Judy Hall by a vote of 506-210, according to local press reports. By 2008, Zigenfus was boasting about a 30 percent reduction in local taxes because of cash incentives First Wind paid to the town.
In neighboring Italy, however, opposition to its proposed wind farm has been fueled by the complaints of people living or working within earshot of the Cohocton wind turbines. At the town board meeting in September, a Cohocton man asked Italy to reject a wind project proposed by Ecogen Wind because "I may need someplace with peace and quiet to move to."
Others, though, urged the board to approve the project, some because they hoped for lower taxes and some because they feared that the developer would sue if the town didn't go along with the plan.
"They've got a lot more money than we'll ever have," said one speaker. Another said, "You have to choose your battles, and I think this battle here, we're going to lose if we fight it."
John Servo, a resident of neighboring Prattsburgh, scoffed at giving in. "If people in 1776 had that attitude, we'd still be part of the British empire," said Servo, who belongs to Advocates for Prattsburgh, which opposes a proposed wind farm outside of that community.
But the fear of being sued is real. In 2006, after Italy repeatedly extended a six-month moratorium that was first imposed in 2004, Ecogen sued the town in federal court. Ecogen argued that the moratorium was facially unconstitutional because it denied the company the use of property without due process.
Judge David G. Larimer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Rochester rejected Ecogen's argument, however, ruling the moratorium, though "suspicious" in its length, could serve a legitimate public purpose. Still, the town had to pay fees and costs of $80,000 when Larimer rejected its claim that they be paid by Ecogen.
And as the issue heated up again during 2009, the town board sent a letter to residents in July expressing fears that if the town didn't eventually accept Ecogen's proposal, "because of wind resources in the town of Italy and the push for renewable energy, industrial wind turbines will eventually be forced on the town by either the state or federal government."
Several states, including Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin, have passed laws restricting local control over wind turbine projects.
A 1982 Wisconsin statute, for instance, allowed local governments to regulate solar power projects only when the health and safety of residents were specifically involved.
Local regulation was prohibited as a matter of the general welfare. The state legislature amended the statute in 1993 to extend the same restrictions on local government bodies regarding wind energy projects.
Still, some local governments, basing their actions on health and safety concerns alone, have passed ordinances blocking or limiting wind energy projects that developers say are equivalent to imposing a ban on the industry. Stoddard helped draft an ordinance adopted by the town of Wilton, about 75 miles northwest of Madison, establishing setbacks of 2,640 feet from residences and noise limits of 40 dBA or 40 dBC (decibels measured on the C-weighted scale, a better assessment of low-frequency noise) within 100 feet of any residence, and no more than 5 dBA or dBC over ambient noise levels.
On Oct. 2, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle signed Senate Bill 185 into law, directing the state's Public Service Commission to develop standards for siting wind power facilities-including noise levels and setbacks-that local governments will not be permitted to exceed.
"What it really boils down to is a kind of classic legal battle over rights," says Stoddard. "If someone has enough clout, they can override someone else's rights."
A law like Wisconsin Senate Bill 185 would be a tough sell in New York, which has a strong tradition of home rule, says Clifford C. Rohde, an associate at Cooper Erving & Savage in Albany who maintains the Wind Power Law Blog.
Nevertheless, there have been calls for the New York legislature to revive Article X of the New York Public Service Law, which took siting decisions for power facilities out of the hands of local governments. The law expired in 2003.
Salkin says the federal government should step in, as it did with regard to cellular communication towers, which had also faced tough local opposition due to concerns about possible health effects caused by the radio frequency radiation emitted by the towers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 barred local governments from considering the environmental impact of radio frequency radiation emissions when regulating the placement of cell towers.
Fearing the possibility that federal or state government might force wind farms on them, some local government bodies are seeking to strike the best deals they can get with developers while they still hold some of the cards, says Arthur Giacalone, an attorney in East Aurora, N.Y., near Buffalo, who represents homeowners in disputes relating to wind power.
A town board may, for instance, offer a wind farm a special-use permit instead of requiring the developer to obtain a rezoning. "Once a project has been given a special-use permit, the developer can do pretty much what it wants to do," Giacalone says.
In some cases, towns skimp on, or even bypass, the environmental review mandated by New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act. The review is supposed to take into account the impact of the project on noise, human health, aesthetic resources and community or neighborhood character.
Giacalone represented a group of residents in a successful bid to overturn a wind ordinance that had been adopted by the town of Hamlin, west of Rochester, on this basis. Upholding the challenge in HPG v. Hamlin Town Board, Justice David Michael Barry of the trial-level New York Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 5, 2009, that the town had failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the environmental impact of wind energy development.
Some members of town boards might have their own reasons not to take a hard look at wind farm proposals. Typically, developers interested in setting up a wind farm first negotiate contracts with local landowners that offer annual payments of $3,000 or more to construct and operate one or more wind turbines on their properties. Then they take their plans to the town board for approval.
But in small agricultural communities, members of the town board often are major landowners as well, says Rohde. By the time the wind project developer approaches the town government, board members or their relatives might have financial stakes in the project. In July 2008 the New York attorney general's office launched an investigation into alleged improper dealings between wind farm developers and local officials, leading to a voluntary code of conduct by which 16 companies, accounting for 90 percent of wind energy development in the state, have agreed to abide.
• • •
The sense that they were up against a combination of moneyed interests, as well as federal and state policies, left some opponents of the Italy project discouraged. At the town board meeting in September, 119 people spoke in opposition to the project while 20 expressed support, according to a tally kept by an anti-wind group. Still, one opponent said, "I don't know if anybody is listening."
But on Oct. 5, the Italy town board surprised both opponents and supporters of the project. Despite being offered a package of amenities-including a one-time cash payment of $1.6 million for a new town hall addition, a salt barn and a new all-wheel-drive truck, as well as additional cash payments estimated at $300,000 to $400,000 per year-the board voted to deny Ecogen's application.
Dallas attorney Cox says wind project developers would much prefer that such decisions be made higher up the governmental ladder-at least at the state level. "The problem from the energy generators' point of view," he says, "is that when you consider how much they invest in a project, it's a pretty scary thing to turn it over to 12 people to decide if this billion-dollar project is going to be taken down."
But Cox also says the industry should be flexible about responding to concerns. One approach would be to extend setbacks to keep wind turbines farther away from residences. "I don't think that turbines are a nuisance by sound or by sight even if you put them 300 or 500 feet from residences," says Cox, "but if you put them farther away it'll go a long way toward alleviating people's complaints."
In a move that sent shock waves throughout the industry, the minister of energy for the Canadian province of Ontario in September proposed setbacks of about 1,800 feet from any residence, and at least 3,000 feet for wind turbines producing more than 106 dBA of noise at their bases. The Canadian Wind Energy Association estimated that these guidelines would eliminate or require extensive redesign of 79 of the province's 103 "shovel ready" wind projects.
Others question the value of mandatory setbacks. They may be an oversimplistic solution that would unnecessarily limit the number of sites that can be developed as wind farms, says Dwight H. Merriam, a partner at Robinson & Cole in Hartford, Conn., who is chair-elect of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law (and the section's liaison to the ABA Journal). At the very least, he says, setbacks should be rebuttable, allowing developers to go to court and argue that they can be modified in some cases.
Deyette at the Union of Concerned Scientists says regulators should not leap to the assumption that setbacks always will be the answer to complaints about wind turbines. In many cases, he says, the solution may be mitigation measures such as strategically planted trees that muffle low-frequency sound and block shadow flicker.
"Wind is a viable and necessary part of our climate change mitigation strategy," Deyette says. "And it's available today, so we should be wrapping it up as quickly as possible. That being said, if it's not being done appropriately, we're going to be experiencing increased pushback."
Cummings of the Acoustic Ecology Institute agrees that the wind energy industry must take opposition into account. "My concern is that if the industry is too aggressive about siting wind farms, it's going to make the next round of wind farm development more problematic," he says. "The Internet is already full of people talking about how horrible the wind farms are."
What's the connection between night time noise and coronary heart disease? What do wind turbines have to do with any of this?
According to the results of a peer-reviewed study made available by the National Institutes of Health, the connection between noise and coronary heart disease -particularly at night- is serious.
This article by M. Nathaniel Mead helps us understand why the 50 dbA noise limit for wind farms in Wisconsin is not enough protection.
NOISE POLLUTION: THE SOUND BEHIND HEART EFFECTS
“The new data indicate that noise pollution is causing more deaths from heart disease than was previously thought,” says working group member Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology at University College in London—perhaps hundreds of thousands around the world. “Until now, the burden of disease related to the general population’s exposure to environmental noise has rarely been estimated in nonoccupational settings at the international level.”
The separate noise-related working group first convened in 2003 and began sifting through data from studies in European countries to derive preliminary estimates of the impact of noise on the entire population of Europe. They then sought to separate the noise-related health effects from those of traffic-related air pollution and other confounding factors such as physical inactivity and smoking. In 2007, the group published Quantifying Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise, their preliminary findings on the health-related effects of noise for Europeans. Their conclusion: about 2% of Europeans suffer severely disturbed sleep, and 15% suffer severe annoyance due to environmental noise, defined as community noise emitted from sources such as road traffic, trains, and aircraft.
According to the new figures, long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for approximately 3% of CHD deaths (or about 210,000 deaths) in Europe each year. To obtain the new estimates, the working group compared households with abnormally high noise exposure with those with quieter homes. They also reviewed epidemiologic data on heart disease and hypertension, and then integrated these data into maps showing European cities with different levels of environmental noise.
The noise threshold for cardiovascular problems was determined to be a chronic nighttime exposure of at least 50 A-weighted decibels, the noise level of light traffic. Daytime noise exposures also correlated with health problems, but the risk tended to increase during the nighttime hours. “Many people become habituated to noise over time,” says Prasher. “The biological effects are imperceptible, so that even as you become accustomed to the noise, adverse physiological changes are nevertheless taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health.”
To further assess the noise-related disease burden, the working group estimated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to noise-related CHD. DALYs reflect how much the expectancy of healthy life is reduced by premature death or by disability caused by disease. This measure lets policy makers compare disease burdens associated with different environmental factors and forecast the likely impact of preventive policies. The working group estimated that in 2002 Europeans lost 880,000 DALYs to CHD related to road traffic noise.
Chronic high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline can lead to hypertension, stroke, heart failure, and immune problems. According to a review of the research in the January–March 2004 issue of Noise and Health, arousal associated with nighttime noise exposure increased blood and saliva concentrations of these hormones even during sleep. “Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that noise is a major stressor that can influence health through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems,” says Prasher.
Other recent support for an association of cardiovascular mortality with noise comes from a study published in the 1 January 2007 issue of Science of the Total Environment. The results showed an 80% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality for women who judged themselves to be sensitive to noise. “Given these findings, noise sensitivity is a serious candidate to be a novel risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in women,” says Marja Heinonen-Guzejev, a research scientist at the University of Helsinki and lead author of the paper.
There is also a potential interaction between noise and air pollution, given that individuals exposed to traffic noise, for example, are often simultaneously exposed to air pollution. Prasher is currently investigating the effects of noise alone and in combination with chemical pollution.
The broader implications of chronic noise exposure also need to be considered. “Noise pollution contributes not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to hearing loss, sleep disruption, social handicaps, diminished productivity, impaired teaching and learning, absenteeism, increased drug use, and accidents,” says physician Louis Hagler, who coauthored a review on noise pollution in the March 2007 Southern Medical Journal. “The public health repercussions of increasing noise pollution for future generations could be immense.”
Written by M. Nathaniel Mead Environ Health Perspect. 2007 November; 115(11): A536–A537.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wisconsin wind power, wind contract, wind easement, wind farm lease, wind farm noise limits, wind farm property values, wind farm setback, wind ordinance, wind turbine health effects, wind turbine noise, wind turbine shadow flicker, wind turbine syndrome
|
Comments Off
10/19/09 The big "IF": If one of WEPCO's Wisconsin coal plants is retired, the Glacier Hills project will reduce CO2. If not....same circus, same CO2 clowns.
THE BIG IF
Better Plan takes a closer look at some of the expert testimony on the Glacier Hills Docket.
Today's testimony comes from Jerry Mendl who was hired by Clean Wisconsin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Glacier Hills wind farm at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.
(NOTE: Mr. Mendl served at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as Director of the Bureau of Environmental and Energy Systems and also as Administrator of the Division of Systems Planning, Environmental Review and Consumer Analysis. Learn more about Mr. Mendl by clicking here)
[download Mr. Mendl's complete testimony by clicking here]
His testimony is frank and full of surprises, the greatest of which is this:
Unless WEPCO fully retires a coal plant, the Glacier Hills wind farm will not reduce Wisconsin's CO2 emissions, and could in fact, increase them. [1] [2] [3] [4][5]
(We were unable to find any indication that WEPCO wishes to completely shut down one of its coal-fired plants, or that they would be obligated by the PSC to do so.)
Other findings from Mr. Mendl's testimony:
WEPCO does not need additional capacity until 2024. Regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024 which it intends to sell. Additional capacity clearly is not needed to serve the projected load and reserve margin. [1] [2]
Because WEPCO intends to sell the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2 emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. [3]
Unless WEPCO agrees to take a coal-fired plant off line, the net result of building Glacier Hills to comply with Wisconsin RPS requirements and selling the excess capacity will be little to no reduction of CO2 emissions. The Glacier Hills wind farm itself won’t reduce CO2 emissions unless WEPCO retires a coal fired plant. [3]
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Another surprise in this testimony involves shutting down the Glacier Hills wind turbines in the summer in order to maintain profitability by burning coal instead. On page 18 of the testimony we find this:
Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs [locational marginal price] can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!
Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.
As far as Better Plan can tell, WEPCO has no intention of retiring a coal-fired plant and every intention of selling the excess energy. This is understandable in terms of a business plan where profit is the goal.
However if reduction of CO2 emmissions in Wisconsin is the goal, our question to the PSC is this:
What is the benefit of the Glacier Hills wind farm in terms of CO2 reduction to our state if WEPCO does not retire a coal plant?
If there is no CO2 benefit and if WEPCO has excess capacity until 2024 without the Glacier Hills wind farm, how can the PSC justify granting a Certificate of Public Need and Convinience?
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the lack of reliable CO2 reduction from this project , CLICK HERE To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
References from the testimony document: [download complete testimony by clicking here]
[1] P3:1-13. "Reduction in greenhouse gases, including CO2, is an important purpose of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) law that underlies the Glacier Hills proposal. The effectiveness of Glacier Hills project in reducing greenhouse gases can be best ensured if the Commission requires WEPCO (and other utilities in future RPS projects) to plan for corresponding retirements of existing coal capacity.
4. The opportunity to retire excess capacity exists because WEPCO, even without Glacier Hills, does not need additional capacity until 2024 under the updated forecasts that WEPCO witnesses relied upon for their supplemental testimony. When one adds Glacier Hills and additional wind generation to meet WEPCO’s RPS standard of 662 MW by 2015, WEPCO will not need additional capacity until at least 2026. Thus, it is clear that WEPCO could retire at least 100 MW of existing coal generation."
[2] P.5: 2-22 Q: Will the operation of Glacier Hills result in WEPCO having excess capacity?
A. Yes. According to its application in this docket, as amended by WEPCO’s updated forecast and supplemental direct testimony, WEPCO will have excess capacity through 2024, regardless of whether it builds Glacier Hills or other RPS facilities.
Q. Does WEPCO plan to sell excess accredited capacity? A. Yes. Although WEPCO has not identified specific plans, it has indicated that it intends to sell all capacity over the 14.5% reserve margin prior to each planning year. It has done so for 2009.
[3] P.6:17-20 Q:What effect would WEPCO’s planned sale of excess capacity have on the emission of greenhouse gases from WEPCO’s power plants?
A: If WEPCO sells the excess capacity and energy it produces, it is likely that the CO2emissions will not be reduced from Wisconsin plants. WEPCO’s EGEAS runs show a decrease in CO2 emissions to supply electricity used by WEPCO’s customers. However, if the purchaser of the excess capacity takes energy at levels equivalent to or greater than that forecasted by WEPCO for its own loads without Glacier Hills, the net CO2 emissions from WEPCO plants would not be reduced and may be increased.
[4] p.14:1-15 In concept, Wisconsin utilities may install renewable resources to meet the RPS objectives and to reduce greenhouse gases, and MISO could then dispatch the resources available without reducing the utilization of Wisconsin coal-fired power plants. In this example, Wisconsin’s CO2 emissions would stay the same, although MISO dispatch would reduce the utilization of power plants elsewhere in the MISO 5
footprint.
Q. Should that be a concern to this Commission? 7
A. Yes, for at least two reasons. First, if MISO dispatch displaces a highly efficient natural gas fired combined cycle plant with generation from Glacier Hills, the effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions will be far less than if MISO displaces a relatively inefficient coal-fired unit with much higher CO2 emissions per kWh.
Second, if CO2 emissions by state are ever used as a benchmark of global climate change performance, Wisconsin would be identified as an underperformer because MISO dispatch produced CO2 in Wisconsin plants, even though the energy was consumed elsewhere.
[5] P.18: 8-16 Q. Did your analysis raise any concerns that the Commission should consider?
A. Yes. The analysis suggests that particularly in the summer months, when strongly negative LMPs can occur, it would be in the economic interest of the wind generator to shut down the wind turbines, which have zero fuel cost and produce no CO2; and instead operate coal plants that incur fuel costs and generate CO2. In essence, the way the MISO market works, free energy with environmental benefits is too expensive!
Q. What can the Commission do about that?
A. A Commission requirement to retire one or more coal units would help mitigate this occurrence.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Glacier Hills wind park, Wind farm, Wisconsin wind farm, wind developer, wind easement lease, wind farm property values, wind ordinance, wind turbine, wind turbine moratorium, wind turbine noise, wind turbine setbacks, wind turbine shadow flicker
|
Comments Off
9/6/09 What's all the noise about wind turbine noise?
Home in Butler Ridge wind farm, near Iron Ridge, Wisconsin 2009
What's all the noise about wind turbine noise?
By Lynda Barry
"There can be no doubt that groups of industrial wind turbines ("wind farms") generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby," states Dr. Christopher Hanning in a recent report titled "Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbine Noise." [Click here to download full report]
For those of us who have stood directly beneath an industrial wind turbine on a clear afternoon, this statement will come as a surprise. What noise could Dr. Hanning be referring to? The only noise most of us hear at the base of a turbine is the swooshing of the blades above us.
Life in an industrial wind farm is something very few of us have experienced. Most of us don’t know that the quietest place near a turbine is directly beneath it. It’s a bit like standing beneath a speaker placed 40 stories above you. Step out about 1000 feet downwind from the turbine and you will have a different experience, especially after sundown. Though we may not know the physics behind the phenomenon, most us notice sound carries further at night, especially in open rural areas. This turns out to be especially true for wind turbine noise. The noise Dr. Hanning writes about is nighttime turbine noise.
Interestingly, very few (if any) of those responsible for creating the setback distances and turbine noise limits have spent any nights in homes near wind turbines. Nor have they sat through an hour of severe shadow flicker inside of a home.
Why should they? The modeling software used for siting virtual turbines near virtual homes assures them that they’ve gotten their calculations right. So if real people are having problems with real noise and real flashing shadows they must be making it all up.
But are they?
Daniel Haas, a Wisconsin wind farm resident who has been living with turbine noise for nearly two years put it this way in one of his many letters of complaint to the wind company. The setback from homes in this project is 1000 feet.
“I really do not know much about noise levels but what is the noise level of a commercial jet coming through the middle of your house at 2:00 in the morning?
I really am getting tired of the misinformation given to anyone with a complaint. There are different noise levels and you only talk about one.
The low level noise that I am concerned about is extremely loud and actually shakes the whole house. It wakes the whole family up at night. It also spooks our horses so bad that we can't even ride them on our trails anymore. Our dogs won't even come out of their kennel because they’re afraid of the noise.
As for the shadow flicker it is terrible. It affects all of my 100 acres. Yes all 100 acres. That is my home.”
In May of 2009, the Minnesota Department of Health issued a white paper that identified half a mile as the setback beyond which turbine noise and shadow flicker were not a major concern.
This setback is unacceptable to wind developers because it restricts the number of turbines they can profitably site in more populated rural areas which are also more likely to have the transmission lines they need nearby. Profits (and government subsidies) rely on being able to site the greatest number of turbines in the smallest amount of space. Their eyes are on a prize other than protecting the environment or protecting the health of those who will live inside of their wind farms. From a business standpoint this may make sense, but from a human standpoint it’s a formula for trouble.
Our legislature may also find safer setbacks unacceptable because our renewable energy mandates. Setbacks that are better for families mean fewer turbines for the state to make that goal. And though wind energy isn’t the only renewable energy choice, most consider wind to be the cheapest way of getting there, even if it means harming people in the process.
This is made much easier by a general misunderstanding about what the real problems are when wind turbines are sited too close to homes. How close is too close? If you go with a wind developers recommendations, 500 feet from your home is not considered too close. If you go with the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Research Service, The World Health Organization, the peer-reviewed study of wind farm residents by Dr. Nina Pierpoint, and Minnesota Department of Health, you’ll get a minimum setback of 2640 feet out to 1.5 miles.
The wind industry has not been able to provide any scientific or medical data which supports setbacks any closer than this, but they have been very good at dismissing and ridiculing those with complaints. For those of us who have witnessed well known instances of organized corporate denial of negative health effects caused by their product, this marginalization of wind farm residents who tell us their families are suffering raises red flags.
The general public knows very little about life in a wind farm. Most don’t know about the serious problems wind turbines cause when placed too close to our homes, or within ecologically sensitive areas such as migration corridors. For now, wind industry is enjoying its image of being a benign industrial-scale source of clean energy. Anyone who dares to challenge this Green Goliath should beware. The David who asks the hard questions about proper setbacks will be shouted down as an anti-wind, anti-environment, anti-green, NIMBY.
But the problem is not going away. As more families are forced to suffer because unsafe setbacks for the sake of wind industry profits and renewable energy deadlines, more Davids will appear. In the meantime, how many lives will be made miserable before we get this right?
In his report on turbine noise and sleep disturbance, Dr. Hanning finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem.
"Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance,” he writes, “Only humans can do so."
How close is too close? Wind farm residents now living in the wind farms in our state are trying to tell us,-- but right now, who’s listening?
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, host wind turbine, industrial wind turbine, shadow flicker, undefined, wind contract, wind developers, wind farm property values, wind ordinance, wind turbine noise, wind turbine syndrome, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
10/4/09 Rock County Towns and wind developers: What to do until the PSC comes up with rules?
Wind developers have proposed 67 wind turbines for the Town of Magnolia, and have included the Town of Spring Valley in their target map.
The turbines will be at least 40 stories tall. The developers would like to site them as close as 1000 feet to non-participating homes. Five Rock County Towns have created ordinances with setbacks of at least 2640 feet. None of these ordinances has ever been challenged on their merits.
The developers who plan to put 67 turbines in the Town of Magnolia will not provide a map of where the turbines will be.
We made our own map, just to show what that many turbines would look like if they were distrubuted evenly across the township. Each orange dot equals one turbine. There are only 66 in this picture. We couldn't figure out where to put the 67th.
At present, the state of Wisconsin has just over 300 industrial sized wind turbines in operation. 14,000 more will need to be sited to meet the state's renewable energy goals.
Towns Plan for a new wind siting law
By GINA DUWE
3 October 2009
JANESVILLE — Officials in Union and Magnolia townships consider moratoriums on wind turbines to be the temporary answer in response to a new state law.
Wind developer EcoEnergy has proposed projects in both communities.
Local residents are concerned the new process on siting wind energy systems signed into law this week will erase their work to protect themselves from negative effects.
Moratorium action includes:
– Union Plan Commission last month recommended the town board start a one-year moratorium. On Thursday night, the town board approved the moratorium, which will expire on Oct. 7, 2010.
Union officials feel confident in their ordinance if it were challenged on its merits, but with uncertainties about the state writing new laws, “we just thought (the moratorium) was the prudent thing to do,” plan commission co-chair Doug Zweizig said.
– Magnolia Planning and Zoning will discuss and likely make a recommendation to the town board on a moratorium at its meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday. The town board will consider the moratorium at a meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 13.
“We just really want to see where we stand with the state,” Magnolia town board member Dave Olsen said. “It seems as though they want to take the rights away to site the turbines, but they don’t want the responsibility that goes with it—to monitor the low-frequency sound, to look after the local residents.”
On Thursday, Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law Senate Bill 185, which puts the siting of wind projects under 100 megawatts into the hands of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Once the statewide siting rules are written, they will overturn local ordinances.
Projects 100 megawatts or more already go through the PSC.
PSC officials will appoint a committee to advise them on siting rules. No timeline has been established, a PSC spokeswoman said.
People suggested to Zweizig, the Union Plan Commission co-chair, that he should be on the committee, so he sent a letter of interest to the PSC and Doyle’s office. He hasn’t received a response.
The committee will comprise representatives of wind energy system developers, political subdivisions, the public, energy and environmental groups, realtors and land owners who live adjacent to or in the vicinity of wind energy systems and who have not receive compensation by or on behalf of owners, operators or developers of wind energy systems.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, host wind turbine, industrial wind turbine, shadow flicker, undefined, wind contract, wind developers, wind farm property values, wind ordinance, wind turbine noise, wind turbine syndrome, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
10/2/09 Three stories about one wind farm: What's going on in our neighbor state of Michigan?
Three views on the same wind farm: Which tells the truth?
Or could there be several truths at once?
The BPWI Research Nerd has found that no two homes in any wind farm are the same. Each has its own relationship with the terrain, wind direction, and turbine location both in distance from the home and direction from the home.
This is one of the problems with uniform siting standards. The issue of siting wind turbines near homes is more complicated than anyone anticipated.
Click below to watch a news clip about the 47 wind turbinesof Ulby, Michigan.
This report give the impression that there are no noise problems in that wind farm.
But this news report tells a different story:
Wind Park Complaints Considered
By Kate Hessling
After receiving another letter from residents who say wind turbines near their Ubly-area home are creating noise disturbances, county officials said they still are in the process of developing a way to respond to complaints received following a wind park’s construction.
“We thought it would be, as we were told from the beginning of the turbine project, ‘no louder than a clothes dryer,’” reads a letter David and Marilyn Peplinski sent to Huron County officials May 15. “Now we realize that no one wants to stand right next to a running clothes dryer 24 hours a day. This is the reality of it.”
The Peplinskis’ letter states while the audible noise level coming from the park has slightly improved with the spring thaw, the sound resonance has not.
“Our family’s ability to get good nights’ sleep is dismal, to say the least,” the letter reads. “The feeling we get from the spinning turbines is not only heard, but felt in our bodies as well.”
The letter notes the family has never had sleep issues in the past.
“Now, on many evenings, it takes an effort for several of our family members to fall asleep. Then, our sleep is being disturbed many times throughout the night,” the letter states.
Marilyn and David Peplinski’s letter describes the feeling their bodies experience from low frequency sound waves created by nearby turbines as “like when a heavy truck travels by your home, and you can feel the rumble, except that this is a constant rumbling feeling.”
“If you have ever felt a cement truck while the drum is mixing, or the sound energy given off of a large drum when tapped, this is the best way we can describe the feeling we are experiencing,” the May 15 letter states.
The Peplinskis’ letter includes seven questions the couple felt need to be addressed by Huron County officials and John Deere Wind Energy. The questions, which are listed in the breakout box included with this article, include whether Michigan Wind 1 is in compliance with the county ordinance’s noise level maximum and what kind of monitoring method is being used to ensure the noise level is not exceeded.
Huron County Commissioner Dave Peruski, who represents the Ubly area, said he is planning to attend this evening’s Huron County Planning Commission meeting to see what can be done to answer the questions posed in the Peplinskis’ letter and avoid the same problems cropping up in the future as new developments are built in the area.
He said he would like to see a group come together that’s comprised of representatives from the county board of commissioners, planning commission, building and zoning office and John Deere Wind Energy, to develop a complaint resolution procedure.
“That’s the approach I think we need to take,” Peruski said.
Commissioner: ‘We have to take them seriously’
Peruski said he’s met with the Peplinskis and believes their complaints are not without merit.
“We have to take them seriously,” he said, noting there are varying degrees of the problems the Peplinskis are facing that others in the county could face in the future as future wind developments are created. It’s important, Peruski said, to ensure the county’s zoning ordinance is crafted in such a way to avoid these problems from being repeated elsewhere.
David Peplinski said it is his goal these issues are considered in the siting and development of future farms in Huron County, because he wouldn’t wish the problems he and his family have experienced on anyone else.
He stressed he strongly supports alternative renewable energy projects, but feels the effects these projects will have on adjoining property owners need to be taken into consideration in the siting and zoning process.
Also, David Peplinski said, he is not a complainer and his family never wanted to be in the spotlight. Per procedure, his letter became public as soon as it was sent to the Huron County Board of Commissioners.
David Peplinski noted it wasn’t easy for him or his wife to submit the letter, particularly because they don’t want to hurt others in the community, because those living in the area are the family’s neighbors and friends.
As a result, he said he would also like to see there be a complaint mechanism created where when someone is having an issue, it can be handled in a manner other than submitting a letter to the board that will become public.
Regarding the response David Peplinski said he’s received, he noted both the county and John Deere Wind Energy have been very polite and quick in responding to his concerns.
Noise complaints made in March
Huron County commissioners received two letters in March from residents who said wind turbines near their Ubly area homes are creating noise disturbances.
Shortly after the letters were received, commissioners discussed how to address complaints received from residents after a wind development has been constructed and begins producing power.
The letters, which were submitted by Ubly residents Randy and Angela Weber and Dennis and Darcy Mausolf, reported problems of extreme noise increases and outside noise that resembles a distant jet with an intermittent whoosh sound.
“Inside our house, we have a low hum vibration that sounds like a truck running outside. This noise makes sleep difficult,” reads the letter the Mausolf’s wrote March 10.
That letter, in addition to the one written by the Webers, was obtained by the Tribune in March via a Freedom of Information Act request.
At the time county officials were discussing how to address the complaints, Huron County Building and Zoning Director Russ Lundberg noted the issue of measuring sound emitted from the turbines is more complex than just taking out a decibel reader to measure whether noise levels at/near Michigan Wind 1 exceed limits set in the county’s zoning ordinance.
Sound is measured by using units of decibels (dB), and A-weighting which compensates for the sensitivity of human hearing. A-weighted sound levels are measured by dB(A).
The county’s zoning ordinance’s primary noise standard states noise generated by an operating wind turbine can not exceed 50 dB(A) at all nearby sensitive receptor locations, which includes residents. The ordinance includes a second standard of ambient +5 dB(A), meaning at times sounds created by a wind turbine may cause total ambient noise to exceed 50 dB(A).
In March, Lundberg explained at some locations, particularly during late and early hours, operations of a wind turbine facility significantly increase ambient noise levels. For example, on a night with low wind speeds and little traffic and other outside activity, there may be an ambient rating of 20 dB(A). That rating may double when turbines are in operation, however, the overall limit of 50 dB(A) is not exceeded, though the noise of the wind park is noticeable.
In the daytime, particularly when there’s increased wind speeds, there’s other ambient noise — such as leaves rustling in the wind, cars on the road, tractors in fields, etc. — the sounds of a turbine in operation may not even be noticeable because it’s drowned out by the other ambient noise.
With this in mind, the issue is how to determine whether the 50 dB(A) levels are being exceeded and if so, whether it’s being exceeded by the actual turbines themselves or by a combination of the turbines and other existing ambient noise sources.
Because wind projects have to submit a noise study to prove a wind farm will not exceed the 50 dB(A) limit, the county’s assumption is it’s not the turbines themselves that are exceeding the 50 dB(A) level, Lundberg previously noted. But how to check this assumption is the question officials were mulling over in March.
That is because in order to check the wind park’s noise levels, the other ambient noises would have to be identified through a noise study.
Previously discussed avenues
During March’s discussion, it was noted the county has three possible options. First, the county could have John Deere Wind Energy conduct a wind study, Lundberg said. Another option for the county would be to go it alone, by purchasing the necessary decibel metering equipment and have Lundberg learn the noise consulting expertise needed to conduct a noise study.
The third option would be for the county to hire an independent noise consultant study to conduct a post-construction noise study, which would be paid for post-construction fees (of $400 per turbine) that already are built in the county’s ordinance to fund post-construction reviews.
The planning commission included those fees for post-construction matters so it would not take any money away from the county’s general fund if additional review is required after a wind park has been developed, Lundberg explained in March.
During March’s discussion, it appeared the board favored pursuing the first option that’s a teamwork approach with John Deere Wind Energy.
Since that meeting, Huron County Commissioner Kurt Damrow — who chairs the Legislative Committee, which has been charged with following up on this issue — has said the county planning commission more than likely will make an amendment to the county’s wind ordinance to include a section that deals with how to address complaints made after a wind park’s constructed.
“We just want to work with the planning commission to come up with a … thorough and specific procedure,” Damrow said.
He noted identifying and correcting any problems a wind farm may be causing will only benefit the wind park’s purchaser and developer. That is because the projects currently are under warranty and any repairs/replacements that need to be made will be covered by under warranty from the turbine’s manufacturer for the first year or two after the project’s been constructed, Damrow said.
Questions he said need to be addressed include what is a legitimate complaint, and what — if any — burden should be placed on the developer as far as proving the wind farm is in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
Another solution Damrow said has been proposed is increasing the county’s setback distance, which is the minimum distance a turbine can be placed to an existing structure, from 1,000 feet to 1,320 feet.
Damrow said this is a standard DTE Energy officials told him they would be on board with. He added existing wind farms will be grandfathered in at the current 1,000-foot setback.
Also, Damrow said the county’s discussed obtaining a meter to get an immediate readout of sound so the county could independently monitor sound levels.
Damrow said the county needs the business the wind industry has given the area, however, the well-being of the residents cannot be compromised if developers cannot meet the established wind ordinance in Huron County.
“They’ll have to do whatever it takes to make sure they meet the ordinance requirements,” Damrow said. “We don’t want any undue burden on our residents, and we’ll do everything we can to help everyone.”
The Questions
1. Does the county have the ability to monitor the county’s zoning ordinances on the noise level?
2. Has John Deere Wind Energy been in compliance with the noise level ordinance since they began operation?
3. How is John Deere Wind Energy going to maintain the turbine noise at or below the ordinance?
4. What method of documentation is going to be used to show compliance?
5. Has the noise level been above the ordinance maximum level?
6. What monitoring method is being used to ensure the noise level is not exceeded?
7. What is the county’s ordinance on inaudible low frequency noise waves?
By Kate Hessling
4 June 2009
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the image below to see another news story about the turbines of Ulby, Michigan. This one inclueds interviews with wind farm residents who are having trouble with turbine noise.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, host wind turbine, industrial wind turbine, shadow flicker, undefined, wind contract, wind developers, wind farm property values, wind ordinance, wind turbine noise, wind turbine syndrome, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off