In an appeal to the Public Service Commission BP expresses concern about local zoning laws.

In a comment letter to the Public Service Commission, Richard F. Chandler Director of Development for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Project wrote the following concerning Local laws ~any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process. Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements are appropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally, to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets community standards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than having the Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant.
~~~
BP realizes that Zoning laws are a stumbling block for their project development consequently; BP wind energy had wind lease holders sign what they call Good Neighbor Agreements.
 BP crafted these agreements in order to subvert our communities zoning law. These agreements are nothing more than land use variances; BP has no authority to write land use variances.
Additionally, Chandler wrote: BP Wind Energy has already been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project and such work should not be ignored.

Cape Vincent is in the process of developing an updated zoning law Past efforts to update our zoning laws have been thwarted by BP.

BP came to Cape Vincent, like a thief in the night;
their plan was to steal Cape Vincent’s future by secretly signing, land owners & Board members to wind contracts with loyalty clauses. One of BP's first moves was to sign Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall to wind contracts thereafter using him as a tool to do their bidding.

As land owners signed away their wind rights they were signing away Cape Vincent’s hope for a prosperous future. These contracts would seal Cape Vincent’s fate by turning our tiny community into an industrial wasteland and destroying any hope for economic prosperity.
There would be great economic gain but, ultimately only for BP.

Yes, Mr. Chandler BP Wind energy has been engaged with the local community for years and such work should not be ignored…

 UPDATE~ Additional info~
By now we all know about the insidious cooperation clause that has
been exposed in wind lease agreements, here are links to both
Acciona and BP lease agreements which show nearly identical language.
The agreements require lease holders to assist and fully cooperate with the wind companies getting their projects approved. This isn't a big deal for a regular green-shirted lease holder, but it is a
VERY BIG DEAL if the lease holder happens to also be a town official.

Link here to read entire BP Good Neighbor agreement

**  link here to BP Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Senator Patricia Ritchie ~ Comments to the Public Service Commission, Re: A 10 law

May 29,2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary
NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 122 12 – 1350

Dear Secretary Brilling:
I am pleased to offer the following comments for filing to be included in the record as part of the public comment period on the proposed regulations regarding the siding of electric generating plants in New York State. While the proposed implementing regulations issued by the Department of Public Service (DPS) under the new Article 10 law allow for more input by the affected localities, I want to express my strong belief that regulations, once finalized, do more than just consider the implementation of local laws.

I voted against the reinstatement of article acts as drafted last year because I felt local government should be able to have a significant say in the siding of power generation plants in their communities. While developers have the ability under the new law to request the Siting Board rule that a local law is unduly burdensome, I would hope that the board take into consideration all comments provided by the host community.

The issue is critically important in relation to the siting of wind turbines. Localities must be able to be a key participant in the siting process and allowed to take into consideration the myriad of issues that wind turbines can present such as aesthetics, tourism, military deployments/maneuvers, and the negative impact on the local economy.

Specifically, it is important that the statute which provides a standard for “overriding” local laws, and the proposed regulations which narrowly interpret that standard, provide local governments with greater standing during the approval process. The fact that the proposed regulations contain three different tests in order to qualify for a local law override, and the siting law does not, is a step in the right direction. However, it is critical that the needs and desires of the local communities play an integral role in the approval process.

With respect to the proposed regulations which allow wind turbines to be moved within 500 feet of their originally identified location, I believe this distance threshold should be drastically reduced. The public needs assurance that if a project is approved, it will be located close to where it is proposed to be.

Finally, I support provisions in the proposed regulations which provide for quasi-judicial review whereby a party can force a hearing by showing that issue is “material and relevant.” It is paramount that these provisions are not deluded or eliminated so that all issues may be addressed prior to the siding and construction of electric generation facilities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



Patricia A. Ritchie
State Senator

---

President of Ebbing Acoustics~Comment Letter to NYS Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Dear Secretary Brilling,
I am Charles Ebbing, President of Ebbing Acoustics, and am actively involved as an Acoustical Consultant on Noise and Vibration Issues associated with Industrial Wind Turbines and from the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning) Industry.
I worked from 1967 to 1999 for Carrier Corp, in the Research Division as Technical Leader in Acoustics, as Product Manager, and as the Carrier Corporate Noise Control Consultant.
After retiring from Carrier, as an Adjunct Professor, I taught Graduate Noise Control Courses at RPI and at Syracuse University associated with Building Mechanical Noise, Noise Control in Buildings, and the Use of Noise Criteria in the design of occupied spaces.

Overview
The Industrial Wind Industry continues to assert that Low Frequency Noise need not be evaluated for Industrial Wind Turbines and that dBA provides the information needed to access the noise impact on the adjacent community.
They also contend that Low Frequency Noise from Industrial Turbines is not a major problem, and thus dBC noise measurements it should not be required in the final Article X Guidelines.
They also assert that collecting dBC Noise data imposes an unrealistic burden on the Industrial Wind Industry.
I challenge the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and Experience as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.
should not be required in the final Article X the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.

I am the lead author of the Book, “Application of Manufacturers’ Sound Data” that resulted from ASHRAE Research Project RP-786, Oct 1, 1998 (WWW.ASHRAE.ORG). The book has an extensive discussion of the use of RC Criterion to evaluate the expected low frequency noise level in occupied spaces and determine the required noise reductions to meet the Noise Goals established for Occupied Spaces in Buildings.
It is important to realize that industrial wind turbines are basically electrical generators turned by very, very large turbine blades. Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the turbine blade.
The noise producing mechanisms for HVAC fans are quite similar except that the fans are much smaller in Building Air Conditioning Systems and are driven by electrical motors and produce much less Low Frequency Noise.
Fan Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the fan blade that is induced by the fan blade rotation.
The Spectrum of the noise produced by Turbines and that produced by HVAC Fans both produce more Low Frequency Noise than Mid or High Frequency Noise.
In operation, the fan blades and the turbine blades both generate broad band and tonal noise which increases at low frequencies and decreases at the higher frequencies.
Wind Turbines produce increased Low Frequency Noise when the air flow entering the Turbine Blades deviates from Laminar Flow. The Wind Industry rates the noise from their units striving for the most laminar flow entering the turbine blades.
Similarly fans produce increased noise with highly turbulent inlet conditions or poorly designed ductwork in the fans discharge.
My field experience with HVAC Units that produced unacceptable time varying low frequency Rumble was because of the excessive time modulation of the noise in the 63, 31.5, and 16 Hz bands.
The characteristics of the wind turbine sound emissions are similar to those of problematic HVAC systems

My field experience is that tenants of new office buildings with Rumble from HVAC systems were unable to “tune out” the amplitude modulated low frequencies and wanted to return to their old offices to get away from the noise.
It was only when we able to reduce the Low Frequency Noise Radiation in the first three Octave Bands, to that indicated by the ASHRAE RC curves, that the occupants were satisfied.

The Low Frequency noise source ratings of the Turbines are needed to estimate the low frequency impact in the Homes of Occupants of interest. This impact cannot be determined from just considering the dBA noise levels of the Turbines. The literature shows that the dBA high frequency noise reduction of homes is significant, whereas low frequency noise reduction coupled with amplification from resonance of homes vary but on average the expected dBC reduction is close to zero.
Based on my experience the is no way to evaluate or anticipate Low Frequency Noise LFN Problems from Wind Turbines unless a proper study is conducted and that cannot be done if the focus is only on dBA.

Further, the types of symptoms that are being reported from people with long term exposure to Low Frequency Noise in their homes from Industrial Wind Turbines are similar to the reactions, I witnessed from many LFN exposed knowledge workers inside of occupied spaces which were generated by Buildings HVAC fans.

The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community. The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. They cannot estimate this without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home. Low frequency noise problems cannot be anticipated or prevented from dBA data.
Data collection of both dBC and dBA as well as octave or 1/3 Octave band is not considered difficult and burdensome by the HVAC industry. Why should the Wind Industry claim that that it is too difficult and burdensome for them, when they use the same high quality acoustical instrumentation that the HVAC Industry uses to collect the noise rating of their machinery?
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
It is apparent that the Wind Industry has not chosen to recognize that the HVAC Industry has effectively dealt with the low frequency noise problems of its industry since the mid 80’s.
Below is an ASHRAE listing of the research projects


The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community.The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. This cannot be estimated without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose as a minimum , both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home.
Low frequency noise problems cannot be evaluated or anticipated from dBA data.
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
The ASHRAE Research that follows should not be ignored in setting Article X noise standards for evaluation of the expected noise from Wind Farms.

[Note: I am having difficulty with the way these charts display on my blog~ I am working on it!]
k


SHRAE Research

Charles Ebbing
President Ebbing Acoustics
LaFargeville, NY

Bp ~ Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Excerpt~
In New York, Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP Wind Energy, is developing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project in Jefferson County. With the acquisition of the neighboring St. Lawrence Wind Farm project in February 2012, theCape Vincent Wind Farm now can reach upwards of approximately 285 MW in size.Given its long-standing and substantial investment in this project, BP Wind Energy is seeking an Article 10 process that will facilitate its development and construction.Toward this end, below we offer comments that we hope the Siting Board will considerin finalizing the implementing regulations for Article 10.
~~~
B. Local laws
Any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process.Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements areappropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally,to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets communitystandards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than havingthe Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant

BP Comments Re: Article 10

Wind Power Ethics Group comments to the Public Service Commission ~ Re: A 10 Law

 May 24, 2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12212-1350

Dear Secretary Brilling,

RE: In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

HISTORY:

WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP LLC was formed in 2006 due to the fact that two industrial wind turbine developers proposed over 250 wind turbines in our small town of Cape Vincent which is five miles along Lake Ontario and fifteen miles along the St Lawrence River. At the time our Town and Planning Boards consisted of officials with wind turbine leases. They appeared to make decisions based on their self interest, rather than what might be best for the entire community. Our organization financially invested in studies, educational presentations and awareness for the concerned public regarding all aspects of wind turbine development. To do this we investigated and researched the information that was provided by the wind turbine companies. As a result of these efforts an increased number of citizens have voted into office non-conflicted board members who are making decisions for the best interest of the whole community. We believe in home rule and feel that our town and planning boards should not be left out of the future planning for any energy development in Cape Vincent.

COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT REGULATIONS:

Local laws:

First, we ask that the applying local substantial laws continue to be the default position. The wind developers are asking that locally laws be preempted entirely. We remind you that the actual language passed by the legislature and governor was clear that the local laws would be applied unless "unduly burdensome". The applicants should bear the burden of proving local laws are burdensome. New York State is historically a home rule state and each municipality has carefully developed its own laws for its unique area.

1000.15 Acceptance of a Certificate

(a) Upon issuance of a final decision by a Board granting a Certificate, an applicant shall, within 30 days after the issuance of such decision, file either a written unqualified acceptance of the Certificate or a petition for rehearing, but not both. We ask that this paragraph be amended to include the municipality has the right to ask for a rehearing also. We find it an unfair advantage that an applicant has more rights than the local municipality.

 Public Involvement:

The NY Power Act clearly states the Chair shall make decisions in consultation with the Board exclusive of the ad hoc members. Considering all the rhetoric about public involvement it seems important that the decisions be made by a vote including the ad hoc members. The fact that the ad hoc members are not required for a quorum is additional injury to real public involvement and should be necessary for a quorum. Siting Board meetings should take place within the municipality where a project is proposed.

This comment period has only been 60 days and some of the time the PSC web page carrying the draft regulations has been offline. Town Boards meet only once a month and this time period is inadequate to carefully consider issues that will have a lasting impact on their communities. A 30 day extension to this comment period is requested.

Socioeconomic Effects:

One issue we experienced firsthand was weighing the possible benefits of a development against the losses. Currently the draft regulations only consider the benefits such as jobs, PILOTS, secondary industries, and so forth. It is obvious that virtually every development has some negative impact on the involved local community. We ask that an economic analysis include the entire effects; not just the benefits.

Noise Issues:

Sound studies have been a huge issue in our community. The developers sound studies have shown a large discrepancy with two independent sound studies. Developer studies have completely ignored the issue of low level sound vibration and it is clear communities need to be protected from damaging sounds and vibrations. We would like a cap on sound: 5 dba above ambient as recommended by the DEC or not more than 35dba at non participating property lines. Measuring low level vibration should also be a requirement especially as more and more data is available demonstrating harmful effects of low level vibration(C weighting) and sound in general.

Wildlife Protection:

Ornithologists take the position that bird and bat studies should continue for three years to account for seasonal variation. Applicants should be expected to present verifiable wildlife studies to protect the local wildlife. The 86 wind turbine complex on Wolfe Island, Canada, just two miles away from Cape Vincent in the St. Lawrence River has some of the recorded highest bird kills in the world. Documented reports show the short eared owls moved away from the turbines, the osprey immigrated into Cape Vincent and 15 red tailed hawks were killed within the wind turbine development area. Valid studies take time, the regulations should make sure studies are at least a year in length at the very minimum.

 Naiveté:

As a community that has seen the most well publicized and unscrupulous behavior from wind developers we must point out the naiveté of this point made in the regulations: "Opponents of noise and proponents of new facilities should be able to agree that they share an interest in a robust review of noise issues to ensure adequate protection against and mitigation of adverse impacts and to maintain the viability of future projects." The wind developers in this community presented fraudulent sound studies which are flawed in methodology and conclusions.

Our organization has invested many hours of research concerning wind turbine development issues and hope our experience will be of benefit to the final regulations of Article X.

Respectfully submitted,

Sarah F. Boss, Chairman

Wind Power Ethics Group, LLC

To read original link to Public Service Commission  

Town of Cape Vincent Comment Letter to NYS Public Service Commission Re: Article 10