June 15, 2012
Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: Case 12-F-0036 -In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment.
Dear Secretary Brilling:
This letter is a supplement to the Cape Vincent Town Board's earlier comments submitted to you in a letter dated May l7, 2012. After reviewing the comments (May 29, 2012) from Mr. Richard Chandler, Director, BP Energy North America, we need to respond once more, since Mr. Chandler's comment states that BP will be submitting a proposal for an industrial wind project for Cape Vincent that far exceeds anything we have seen in the past and BP's comments suggest an insensitivity to the health and safety of our community.
Responses keyed to Chandler-BP comments:
Introduction: "The Cape 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. "
BP announced in their introductory comment that its proposed project for Cape Vincent suddenly increased by 43 percent. Previously, in a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Supervisor on February 6 and in a Watertown Daily Times article on April 26, both noted the combined project "could produce approximately 200MW." BP could have chosen a better method for announcing expansion plans to a community than through the Article 10 rule-making process. Perhaps the additional capacity will come from expansion in an adjoining community? Regardless, BP's ambitions continue to grow affecting a community that does not want bigger, but rather, prefers smaller.
B - Local Laws: "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." and "... 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 refitted by an applicant. "
This was an important point in our May 17 letter. The draft regulations for determining the degree to which local action is unduly burdensome begins with BP's request for a determination. We support the rules in their current form where BP would also have to
justify the supplanting local law.
The suggestion by BP that standards for communities with existing wind projects in New York should be used by the Article 10 Siting Board to guide their application is totally unacceptable and insensitive to local requirements. Standards for our community should be our choice based on the interests of our citizens; not those from another community with entirely different concerns, resources and needs.
Our town is currently working hard to adopt a local zoning law that will guide industrial wind development and protect our citizens. Therefore, our revised zoning law should not be dismissively brushed aside by either the applicant or the Siting Board. Furthermore, during the deliberations of a wind law committee I established in 2010, Mr. Chandler's predecessors at BP lobbied intensively to weaken sections of our draft law that were designed to protect the health and safety of our community and BP's efforts eventually prevented the committee from reaching agreement. We are very sensitive to any entity, either corporate or State, discarding our local laws.
C - Study Area: "A Study Area extending five miles from all project components is overly burdensome and may result in work unrelated to the project. The Study Area should be restricted to the project footprint... .."
A 285 MW project could mean nearly 200, 1.5 MW wind turbines scattered throughout our town. For BP to suggest their study area would end at their project boundary, and not consider assessing the impacts on our extensive river and lake front residents situated less than a mile away from the nearest turbines is woefully inadequate. Visual, property and noise impacts extend well beyond any project boundary and a five mile requirement should be retained.
D - Duration of steps in process: "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, discounted, or required to be reproduced. .."
On page 3 of the memorandum of draft regulations issued by the Siting Board (March 27) it notes that "Experience has demonstrated that active and adequate public involvement can be critical to the success of an Article 10 review process." In contrast, however, the memorandum also states, "whereas poorly conducted public involvement programs by applicants tend to exacerbate differences and conflicts." Our view is that BP's six-year history in our community has fostered differences, divisions and conflicts within our community. Because of that questionable history, BP should not be requesting to forgo additional public involvement activities described in the draft rules, but should be embracing an opportunity to do a better job. Increasing the size of their proposed project by 43 percent without any notification to local officials is not an example of good public involvement policy. The Siting Board should insist that applicants adhere to the public involvement rules, regardless of their past history in a community, whether good or bad.
E - Business sensitive and confidential information: "Applicants should not be required to submit detailed cost and meteorological data, as such information is proprietary and confidential and will not assist the Siting Board in its work. "
If applicants refuse to provide financial information then they should not be allowed to insist that local laws are financially burdensome to their proposal. Applicants cannot on the one hand claim their financial information is proprietary and should not be revealed, yet later assert restrictive local regulations would "kill" their project proposal. The Siting Board must be consistent on the issue of assessing the impact of costs.
F - Public comment period: The timeframe for allowing public comment on a proposed stipulation should be defined rather than using the current language ("a reasonable opportunity to submit comments"). We should suggest using 5 days."
A 5-day review period is inadequate and an attempt to impose such a standard will be viewed as hindering public involvement; not improving it. Consulting with engineering and legal aides would require more time to be fair. Section G of the Pre-application Procedures stipulates a 21-day period to accept comments on the preliminary scoping statement. We would consider a three-week period much more reasonable than 5 days suggested by BP.
J - Design specifications: "Similarly, rather than provide manufacturer's specifications on proposed equipment to be used, it would be more helpful to instead describe parameters of the equipment."
If the applicant cannot specify the equipment used, in particular the model and make of wind turbine, then any assessment of noise impacts should be delayed until such time as BP can specify what turbine it will be using for a project.
L. Noise and Vibration: "An unduly large emphasis is placed on the assessment of low frequency and tonal noise. The current language proposes assessing compliance at property lines of noise sensitive receptors, which introduces uncertainty from a modeling perspective for a windfarm. We would propose that the SitingBoard adopt the language
changes proposed by ACENY."
Mr. Chandler and BP seem to be misinformed regarding the issue of low frequency noise. Requirement for C-weighted, low frequency assessment and modeling was dropped from the draft rules; therefore, BP should be satisfied with the current draft. However, many municipalities are deeply concerned that low frequency assessment and modeling are not part of the rules. There have been a number of requests, ours included, to re-instate low frequency turbine noise evaluation into the section on noise in the draft rules. We are insistent that to be competent the final rules must responsibly address low frequency sound.
If the PSC is entertaining more language regarding noise standards, background sound surveys, compliance testing etc., then the Town of Cape Vincent would urge the Siting Board to consider the detailed changes proposed by Dr. Paul Schomer to the PSC in early March (see attached). In the following I quote a section from Dr. Schomer's CV that speaks to his unique set of qualifications for dealing with a noise standard for the Article 10 draft rules:
"Dr. Schomer is chairperson of the United States delegation to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Acoustics and Noise committees, past chairperson of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee dealing with noise, chairperson of the ISO working groups which deal with environmental noise and with impulsive noise measurement, chairperson of the ANSIIASA working group which deals with environmental noise, and he is the United States representative to the International Organization for Standardization in the areas of aircraft noise and impulsive sources. He is the Standards Director for the Acoustical Society of America, a past member of the Society of Automotive Engineers Aircraft Noise Committee, a principle contributor to current efforts in the area of standardizing airport noise monitoring, and former Executive Director, past vice-president for membership, and twice a past member of the board of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. He is also a past adjunct Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Acoustics) and member of the graduate faculty of the University of lllinois."
Mr. Chandler and BP propose that the Siting Board adopt changes proposed by ACENY for the noise issue. In ACENY's comments, however, they fail to mention who drafted their suggested changes and their qualifications: "We have consulted with a nationally recognized sound expert and others with experience on this issue and have substantive comments described here and contained in the attached redline of the proposed regulations." This is not how the Article 10 rules and policy should be promulgated - using phantom sound experts and vague, unsupported standards.
Dr. Schomer's credentials, on the other hand, are impeccable and he has provided the Siting Board with a complete re-write of Exhibit19 on Noise (see attached). I would urge the Siting Board's inclusion of rules based on recognized national and international standards to protect people and proposed by the Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America, rather than a standard designed to enhance the wind industry's bottom line.
The zoning law that we are about to adopt in Cape Vincent is built on protecting the health, safety and general welfare of all our citizens. However, BP in its comments and past actions in Cape Vincent suggests that our concern with health, safety and general welfare may be unduly burdensome to their project and financial interests. The credibility of their comments must be considered with that in mind - BP is here in Cape Vincent to make money and we were elected to protect people. However, we welcome any development so long as it does not jeopardize the health and safety of our citizens and also recognizes the special assets and resources that make Cape Vincent special and attractive as a community.
Thank you for allowing municipalities the opportunity to supplement their comments to the board.
Urban Hirschey, Town Supervisor
Brooks Bragdon, Town Councilman and Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne, Town Councilman
Clifford Schneider, Town Councilman
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Friday, June 15, 2012
Cape Vincent Supplemental comments to Public Service Commission
Our town is currently working hard to adopt a local zoning law that will guide industrial wind development and protect our citizens. Therefore, our revised zoning law should not be dismissively brushed aside by either the applicant or the Siting Board.
June 15, 2012 Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: Case 12-F-0036 -In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment.
Dear Secretary Brilling: This letter is a supplement to the Cape Vincent Town Board's earlier comments submitted to you in a letter dated May l7, 2012. After reviewing the comments (May 29, 2012) from Mr. Richard Chandler, Director, BP Energy North America, we need to respond once more, since Mr. Chandler's comment states that BP will be submitting a proposal for an industrial wind project for Cape Vincent that far exceeds anything we have seen in the past and BP's comments suggest an insensitivity to the health and safety of our community.
Responses keyed to Chandler-BP comments:
Introduction: "The Cape 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.
" BP announced in their introductory comment that its proposed project for Cape Vincent suddenly increased by 43 percent. Previously, in a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Supervisor on February 6 and in a Watertown Daily Times article on April 26, both noted the combined project "could produce approximately 200MW." BP could have chosen a better method for announcing expansion plans to a community than through the Article 10 rule-making process. Perhaps the additional capacity will come from expansion in an adjoining community? Regardless, BP's ambitions continue to grow affecting a community that does not want bigger, but rather, prefers smaller.
B - Local Laws: "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." and "... 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 refitted by an applicant.
" This was an important point in our May 17 letter. The draft regulations for determining the degree to which local action is unduly burdensome begins with BP's request for a determination. We support the rules in their current form where BP would also have to justify the supplanting local law.
The suggestion by BP that standards for communities with existing wind projects in New York should be used by the Article 10 Siting Board to guide their application is totally unacceptable and insensitive to local requirements. Standards for our community should be our choice based on the interests of our citizens; not those from another community with entirely different concerns, resources and needs.
Our town is currently working hard to adopt a local zoning law that will guide industrial wind development and protect our citizens. Therefore, our revised zoning law should not be dismissively brushed aside by either the applicant or the Siting Board. Furthermore, during the deliberations of a wind law committee I established in 2010, Mr. Chandler's predecessors at BP lobbied intensively to weaken sections of our draft law that were designed to protect the health and safety of our community and BP's efforts eventually prevented the committee from reaching agreement. We are very sensitive to any entity, either corporate or State, discarding our local laws.
C - Study Area: "A Study Area extending five miles from all project components is overly burdensome and may result in work unrelated to the project. The Study Area should be restricted to the project footprint... ..
" A 285 MW project could mean nearly 200, 1.5 MW wind turbines scattered throughout our town. For BP to suggest their study area would end at their project boundary, and not consider assessing the impacts on our extensive river and lake front residents situated less than a mile away from the nearest turbines is woefully inadequate. Visual, property and noise impacts extend well beyond any project boundary and a five mile requirement should be retained.
D - Duration of steps in process: "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, discounted, or required to be reproduced. ..
" On page 3 of the memorandum of draft regulations issued by the Siting Board (March 27) it notes that "Experience has demonstrated that active and adequate public involvement can be critical to the success of an Article 10 review process." In contrast, however, the memorandum also states, "whereas poorly conducted public involvement programs by applicants tend to exacerbate differences and conflicts." Our view is that BP's six-year history in our community has fostered differences, divisions and conflicts within our community. Because of that questionable history, BP should not be requesting to forgo additional public involvement activities described in the draft rules, but should be embracing an opportunity to do a better job. Increasing the size of their proposed project by 43 percent without any notification to local officials is not an example of good public involvement policy. The Siting Board should insist that applicants adhere to the public involvement rules, regardless of their past history in a community, whether good or bad.
E - Business sensitive and confidential information: "Applicants should not be required to submit detailed cost and meteorological data, as such information is proprietary and confidential and will not assist the Siting Board in its work.
" If applicants refuse to provide financial information then they should not be allowed to insist that local laws are financially burdensome to their proposal. Applicants cannot on the one hand claim their financial information is proprietary and should not be revealed, yet later assert restrictive local regulations would "kill" their project proposal. The Siting Board must be consistent on the issue of assessing the impact of costs.
F - Public comment period: The timeframe for allowing public comment on a proposed stipulation should be defined rather than using the current language ("a reasonable opportunity to submit comments"). We should suggest using 5 days.
" A 5-day review period is inadequate and an attempt to impose such a standard will be viewed as hindering public involvement; not improving it. Consulting with engineering and legal aides would require more time to be fair. Section G of the Pre-application Procedures stipulates a 21-day period to accept comments on the preliminary scoping statement. We would consider a three-week period much more reasonable than 5 days suggested by BP.
J - Design specifications: "Similarly, rather than provide manufacturer's specifications on proposed equipment to be used, it would be more helpful to instead describe parameters of the equipment.
" If the applicant cannot specify the equipment used, in particular the model and make of wind turbine, then any assessment of noise impacts should be delayed until such time as BP can specify what turbine it will be using for a project.
L. Noise and Vibration: "An unduly large emphasis is placed on the assessment of low frequency and tonal noise. The current language proposes assessing compliance at property lines of noise sensitive receptors, which introduces uncertainty from a modeling perspective for a windfarm. We would propose that the SitingBoard adopt the language changes proposed by ACENY.
" Mr. Chandler and BP seem to be misinformed regarding the issue of low frequency noise. Requirement for C-weighted, low frequency assessment and modeling was dropped from the draft rules; therefore, BP should be satisfied with the current draft. However, many municipalities are deeply concerned that low frequency assessment and modeling are not part of the rules. There have been a number of requests, ours included, to re-instate low frequency turbine noise evaluation into the section on noise in the draft rules. We are insistent that to be competent the final rules must responsibly address low frequency sound.
If the PSC is entertaining more language regarding noise standards, background sound surveys, compliance testing etc., then the Town of Cape Vincent would urge the Siting Board to consider the detailed changes proposed by Dr. Paul Schomer to the PSC in early March (see attached). In the following I quote a section from Dr. Schomer's CV that speaks to his unique set of qualifications for dealing with a noise standard for the Article 10 draft rules:
"Dr. Schomer is chairperson of the United States delegation to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Acoustics and Noise committees, past chairperson of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee dealing with noise, chairperson of the ISO working groups which deal with environmental noise and with impulsive noise measurement, chairperson of the ANSIIASA working group which deals with environmental noise, and he is the United States representative to the International Organization for Standardization in the areas of aircraft noise and impulsive sources. He is the Standards Director for the Acoustical Society of America, a past member of the Society of Automotive Engineers Aircraft Noise Committee, a principle contributor to current efforts in the area of standardizing airport noise monitoring, and former Executive Director, past vice-president for membership, and twice a past member of the board of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. He is also a past adjunct Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Acoustics) and member of the graduate faculty of the University of lllinois.
" Mr. Chandler and BP propose that the Siting Board adopt changes proposed by ACENY for the noise issue. In ACENY's comments, however, they fail to mention who drafted their suggested changes and their qualifications: "We have consulted with a nationally recognized sound expert and others with experience on this issue and have substantive comments described here and contained in the attached redline of the proposed regulations." This is not how the Article 10 rules and policy should be promulgated - using phantom sound experts and vague, unsupported standards.
Dr. Schomer's credentials, on the other hand, are impeccable and he has provided the Siting Board with a complete re-write of Exhibit19 on Noise (see attached). I would urge the Siting Board's inclusion of rules based on recognized national and international standards to protect people and proposed by the Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America, rather than a standard designed to enhance the wind industry's bottom line.
The zoning law that we are about to adopt in Cape Vincent is built on protecting the health, safety and general welfare of all our citizens. However, BP in its comments and past actions in Cape Vincent suggests that our concern with health, safety and general welfare may be unduly burdensome to their project and financial interests. The credibility of their comments must be considered with that in mind - BP is here in Cape Vincent to make money and we were elected to protect people. However, we welcome any development so long as it does not jeopardize the health and safety of our citizens and also recognizes the special assets and resources that make Cape Vincent special and attractive as a community.
Thank you for allowing municipalities the opportunity to supplement their comments to the board.
Urban Hirschey, Town Supervisor
Brooks Bragdon, Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne, Town Councilman
Clifford Schneider, Town Councilman
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
June 15, 2012 Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: Case 12-F-0036 -In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment.
Dear Secretary Brilling: This letter is a supplement to the Cape Vincent Town Board's earlier comments submitted to you in a letter dated May l7, 2012. After reviewing the comments (May 29, 2012) from Mr. Richard Chandler, Director, BP Energy North America, we need to respond once more, since Mr. Chandler's comment states that BP will be submitting a proposal for an industrial wind project for Cape Vincent that far exceeds anything we have seen in the past and BP's comments suggest an insensitivity to the health and safety of our community.
Responses keyed to Chandler-BP comments:
Introduction: "The Cape 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.
" BP announced in their introductory comment that its proposed project for Cape Vincent suddenly increased by 43 percent. Previously, in a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Supervisor on February 6 and in a Watertown Daily Times article on April 26, both noted the combined project "could produce approximately 200MW." BP could have chosen a better method for announcing expansion plans to a community than through the Article 10 rule-making process. Perhaps the additional capacity will come from expansion in an adjoining community? Regardless, BP's ambitions continue to grow affecting a community that does not want bigger, but rather, prefers smaller.
B - Local Laws: "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." and "... 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 refitted by an applicant.
" This was an important point in our May 17 letter. The draft regulations for determining the degree to which local action is unduly burdensome begins with BP's request for a determination. We support the rules in their current form where BP would also have to justify the supplanting local law.
The suggestion by BP that standards for communities with existing wind projects in New York should be used by the Article 10 Siting Board to guide their application is totally unacceptable and insensitive to local requirements. Standards for our community should be our choice based on the interests of our citizens; not those from another community with entirely different concerns, resources and needs.
Our town is currently working hard to adopt a local zoning law that will guide industrial wind development and protect our citizens. Therefore, our revised zoning law should not be dismissively brushed aside by either the applicant or the Siting Board. Furthermore, during the deliberations of a wind law committee I established in 2010, Mr. Chandler's predecessors at BP lobbied intensively to weaken sections of our draft law that were designed to protect the health and safety of our community and BP's efforts eventually prevented the committee from reaching agreement. We are very sensitive to any entity, either corporate or State, discarding our local laws.
C - Study Area: "A Study Area extending five miles from all project components is overly burdensome and may result in work unrelated to the project. The Study Area should be restricted to the project footprint... ..
" A 285 MW project could mean nearly 200, 1.5 MW wind turbines scattered throughout our town. For BP to suggest their study area would end at their project boundary, and not consider assessing the impacts on our extensive river and lake front residents situated less than a mile away from the nearest turbines is woefully inadequate. Visual, property and noise impacts extend well beyond any project boundary and a five mile requirement should be retained.
D - Duration of steps in process: "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, discounted, or required to be reproduced. ..
" On page 3 of the memorandum of draft regulations issued by the Siting Board (March 27) it notes that "Experience has demonstrated that active and adequate public involvement can be critical to the success of an Article 10 review process." In contrast, however, the memorandum also states, "whereas poorly conducted public involvement programs by applicants tend to exacerbate differences and conflicts." Our view is that BP's six-year history in our community has fostered differences, divisions and conflicts within our community. Because of that questionable history, BP should not be requesting to forgo additional public involvement activities described in the draft rules, but should be embracing an opportunity to do a better job. Increasing the size of their proposed project by 43 percent without any notification to local officials is not an example of good public involvement policy. The Siting Board should insist that applicants adhere to the public involvement rules, regardless of their past history in a community, whether good or bad.
E - Business sensitive and confidential information: "Applicants should not be required to submit detailed cost and meteorological data, as such information is proprietary and confidential and will not assist the Siting Board in its work.
" If applicants refuse to provide financial information then they should not be allowed to insist that local laws are financially burdensome to their proposal. Applicants cannot on the one hand claim their financial information is proprietary and should not be revealed, yet later assert restrictive local regulations would "kill" their project proposal. The Siting Board must be consistent on the issue of assessing the impact of costs.
F - Public comment period: The timeframe for allowing public comment on a proposed stipulation should be defined rather than using the current language ("a reasonable opportunity to submit comments"). We should suggest using 5 days.
" A 5-day review period is inadequate and an attempt to impose such a standard will be viewed as hindering public involvement; not improving it. Consulting with engineering and legal aides would require more time to be fair. Section G of the Pre-application Procedures stipulates a 21-day period to accept comments on the preliminary scoping statement. We would consider a three-week period much more reasonable than 5 days suggested by BP.
J - Design specifications: "Similarly, rather than provide manufacturer's specifications on proposed equipment to be used, it would be more helpful to instead describe parameters of the equipment.
" If the applicant cannot specify the equipment used, in particular the model and make of wind turbine, then any assessment of noise impacts should be delayed until such time as BP can specify what turbine it will be using for a project.
L. Noise and Vibration: "An unduly large emphasis is placed on the assessment of low frequency and tonal noise. The current language proposes assessing compliance at property lines of noise sensitive receptors, which introduces uncertainty from a modeling perspective for a windfarm. We would propose that the SitingBoard adopt the language changes proposed by ACENY.
" Mr. Chandler and BP seem to be misinformed regarding the issue of low frequency noise. Requirement for C-weighted, low frequency assessment and modeling was dropped from the draft rules; therefore, BP should be satisfied with the current draft. However, many municipalities are deeply concerned that low frequency assessment and modeling are not part of the rules. There have been a number of requests, ours included, to re-instate low frequency turbine noise evaluation into the section on noise in the draft rules. We are insistent that to be competent the final rules must responsibly address low frequency sound.
If the PSC is entertaining more language regarding noise standards, background sound surveys, compliance testing etc., then the Town of Cape Vincent would urge the Siting Board to consider the detailed changes proposed by Dr. Paul Schomer to the PSC in early March (see attached). In the following I quote a section from Dr. Schomer's CV that speaks to his unique set of qualifications for dealing with a noise standard for the Article 10 draft rules:
"Dr. Schomer is chairperson of the United States delegation to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Acoustics and Noise committees, past chairperson of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee dealing with noise, chairperson of the ISO working groups which deal with environmental noise and with impulsive noise measurement, chairperson of the ANSIIASA working group which deals with environmental noise, and he is the United States representative to the International Organization for Standardization in the areas of aircraft noise and impulsive sources. He is the Standards Director for the Acoustical Society of America, a past member of the Society of Automotive Engineers Aircraft Noise Committee, a principle contributor to current efforts in the area of standardizing airport noise monitoring, and former Executive Director, past vice-president for membership, and twice a past member of the board of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. He is also a past adjunct Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Acoustics) and member of the graduate faculty of the University of lllinois.
" Mr. Chandler and BP propose that the Siting Board adopt changes proposed by ACENY for the noise issue. In ACENY's comments, however, they fail to mention who drafted their suggested changes and their qualifications: "We have consulted with a nationally recognized sound expert and others with experience on this issue and have substantive comments described here and contained in the attached redline of the proposed regulations." This is not how the Article 10 rules and policy should be promulgated - using phantom sound experts and vague, unsupported standards.
Dr. Schomer's credentials, on the other hand, are impeccable and he has provided the Siting Board with a complete re-write of Exhibit19 on Noise (see attached). I would urge the Siting Board's inclusion of rules based on recognized national and international standards to protect people and proposed by the Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America, rather than a standard designed to enhance the wind industry's bottom line.
The zoning law that we are about to adopt in Cape Vincent is built on protecting the health, safety and general welfare of all our citizens. However, BP in its comments and past actions in Cape Vincent suggests that our concern with health, safety and general welfare may be unduly burdensome to their project and financial interests. The credibility of their comments must be considered with that in mind - BP is here in Cape Vincent to make money and we were elected to protect people. However, we welcome any development so long as it does not jeopardize the health and safety of our citizens and also recognizes the special assets and resources that make Cape Vincent special and attractive as a community.
Thank you for allowing municipalities the opportunity to supplement their comments to the board.
Urban Hirschey, Town Supervisor
Brooks Bragdon, Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne, Town Councilman
Clifford Schneider, Town Councilman
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Monday, June 11, 2012
The Town of Lyme ~ Comments to the Public Service Commission Re: A10 law
June 11, 2012
Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
New York State Public Service
Commission
Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
Dear Ms. Brilling,
New York State recently enacted
legislation known as the Power NY Act of 2011 and said
legislation amended the public
service law by adding a new Article X, which establishes a
New York State Board of
Electrical Generation Siting Board.
Said Board will have the
authority to permit the siting of electrical generating facilities in the
State which have a nameplate
generating capacity of twenty-five thousand kilowatts or
more.
As a home rule state, New York's
local municipalities, by virtue of decisions made by locallyelected
representatives, should
ultimately decide whether such development is in their
residents' best interests.
The Power NY Act of 2011 removes
said decision making from local municipalities,
and puts that authority into the
hands of a bureaucratic State Board which will have nominal
representation from affected
communities, and even that representation cannot be from
elected representatives of those
communities.
The new Board will have the
authority to ignore "any local ordinance, law or any local
standard or requirement if it
finds that such is unreasonably burdensome on ratepayers
whether located inside or outside
of such municipality".
The new law further states that "no
municipality may require any approval, consent, permit,
certificate or other condition for the construction
or operation" of such facility.
While the law provides for the set-aside of funds
for pre-hearing research on behalf of the
affected communities, said funds are controlled by
the Board and will be allocated as it sees
fit.
The large majority of the Board's
membership will have no connection to the affected
communities and will not be
directly affected by their decisions. While municipalities may be
a party to the siting hearings,
so may any individual within 5 miles of the proposed facility's
site, and therefore the
municipality itself, which purpose, by law, is to represent the
residents who elect its
officials, is diminished to the level of each individual within the 5 mile
radius, whether or not he/she
lives in the affected municipality.
Said law follows a disturbing trend in New York
State to remove powers from local
jurisdictions and therefore from the affected
electorate and transfer such powers to a
faceless bureaucracy which has no constituency.
The Town of Lyme opposes,
protests, and expresses its deep disappointment and concern
over the establishment of said
siting Board and of the enactment of the Power NY Act of
2011.
The people of the Town of Lyme,
with the assistance of the Jefferson County Planning
Department have worked for years
to produce a fact based zoning law that protects the
health, welfare, and safety of
the citizens of our community. This law is based on a
Comprehensive Plan done jointly
with the Village of Chaumont Planning Board, again with
help from Jefferson County
Planning, along with a great deal of community input. Although I
am sure everyone thinks their own
community is unique, our geography is indeed unusual
in that we have a very narrow
town with a great deal of waterfront. The waterfront land
makes up the majority of our tax
base and there is a serious concern over loss of property
value if the area is
industrialized. Our concern is not solely for waterfront residents, even a
small loss in home value would be
devastating to the many homeowners scattered
throughout the town. Our
Comprehensive Plan calls for development that preserves or
enhances the natural, historic,
and scenic qualities of the town, and we feel that we, the
people of the town are the best
judges of how to develop our town.
Respectfully,
Scott G. Aubertine
Town of Lyme Supervisor
PO Box 66
12175 NYS Rte. 12 E
Chaumont, NY 13622
Thursday, May 31, 2012
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
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Senator Patricia Ritchie ~ Comments to the Public Service Commission, Re: A 10 law
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
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
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
Friday, May 25, 2012
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
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
BP withdraws SLW ~ DEC permit applications
The letter below is from BP to the Department of Conservation, informing them of the purchase of the St. Lawrence Wind project and the notification of a formal withdrawal from consideration permit applications previously submitted by Acciona
The letter below is a notification letter from Acciona Project Developer Tim Conboy Re: BP's purchase of Acciona's St. Lawrence Wind farm.
The letter below is a notification letter from Acciona Project Developer Tim Conboy Re: BP's purchase of Acciona's St. Lawrence Wind farm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)