Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury

Construction on Record Hill Wind has begun. Aerial photos...

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:00:00 -0500

Construction on Record Hill Wind has begun. Aerial photos courtesy of Gary Steinberg.

Hedgehog Hill, Old Turk and Blue Mountain from near the outlet.

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:14:59 -0400

Hedgehog Hill, Old Turk and Blue Mountain from near the outlet.

Rebuttal of NRCM's misguided support of RHW

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:09:24 -0400

Mr. Voohees,
I have read with dismay your ill informed comments to the DEP regarding wind power in general and Record Hill Wind LLC in particular. It is clear that your organization has transformed from a force for the protection of Maine’s precious natural resources to a force for the destruction of Maine’s mountains in the name of some hoped for future benefit based on the politically and industrially influenced, and poorly understood science known as Climate Change.

It would be very helpful, I believe, if your organization was upfront about its apparent revised mission statement, and stated in clear terms exactly what Maine has to fear from climate change, what known forces, both natural and man made contribute to it and to what degree, what knowledge gaps exist which prevent our understanding of the climate, and how over 1000 wind turbines on Maine’s mountains will make a difference that is worth the sacrifice of not only the ridges, but the peaceful existence of communities below them, the wildlife that will be killed by the turbines or forced to flee habitat nearby because of turbine noise, the watershed and groundwater degradation that is sure to occur as a result of blasting, filling and roadbuilding in fragile mountain ecosystems, the economic loss to our tourism based economy, to name just a few.

I hope you have had a chance to review my report on the flawed noise model that RSE is using in Maine. Perhaps you would be interested in revising your support for RHW LLC knowing that they have misrepresented the noise levels of the turbines to the same degree that was done at Mars Hill, Stetson II and Rollins. There is no excuse for their failure to use line source modeling and the application of the required 5 dB penalty for the notorious “blade thump” that is the cause of so many turbine noise complaints world wide.

The Roxbury Pond community enjoys dead quiet nighttime sound levels in the 20 dB range as stated in the Maine’s technical assistance bulletin #4 Noise, (which is an excellent document for any community interested in controlling the noise of intrusive land uses.) Turbine noise, if properly predicted, can be expected to exceed Maine’s nighttime limits at many protected locations. As you should be aware, nighttime noise levels 10 dB above background are found to be objectionable to almost 100% of the population, and will cause sleep disturbance and the cascade of physical and mental problems that follow in unknown numbers of citizens. No community in Maine should be subjected to this type of abuse.

If you read the analysis I sent you about the criteria by which Maine’s Finest lakes were identified, as they apply to Roxbury Pond, you will understand that Roxbury Pond has equal value to Tumbledown as an asset of statewide significance and that the visual impact of the turbines at only one mile from this magnificent body of water will be unduly adverse for the numerous recreational users of this lake, who come not to marvel at the world’s tallest industrial machines, but to revel in the pristine beauty of this place. Certainly you are aware that the quantity of tourists visiting a pond is not a criteria by which Maine’s Finest lakes were judged. Many of the ponds on the list are remote and see relatively minimal human activity.

Attached is an article you may have missed about Roxbury Pond, written by Michael Perry, former director of the LL Bean Outdoor. His accurate description of the viewshed from Roxbury Pond leaves nothing more to be said about the necessity of protecting it.

Your defense of turbines, that they will not cause genocide among species (except perhaps bats), ignores the threat they pose to loons and eagles at Roxbury Pond. Giant Cuisinearts in the sky over Flathead Mountain will most certainly emperil the bald eagles of French Island, a threatened species that has maintained a rookery here for 25 years. Their use of the thermals on Flathead Mt, and their frequent foraging trips over the ridge to the Swift River when the pond is frozen will put them in harms ways countless times. One of those times will be the last. The Record Hill Wind DEP application is silent about loons, as you were in your proclamation of support. Loons need long distances across the water to achieve flight. It is entirely possible that the loons of Roxbury Pond will not reach a safe altitude when they migrate or fly to other nearby ponds to fish, nor will they be conditioned to avoid the spinning blades of the turbines and know to avoid them.

To summarize your mathmatical justification for wind turbines, 2000 MW of installed capacity will have a capacity factor, at 25%, of only 500 MW. The ISO NE grid operates at a daily demand of about 20,000 MW and has total generation capacity of about 33,000 MW. So Maine’s turbines will contribute, erratically and unreliably, about 4% of the daily demand of the grid. During periods of high demand during hot summer days, wind power will typically be unavailable and will contribute nothing. How can you make any statement about significant reductions in GHG emissions or coal consumption when Maine’s windplants will contribute such an insignificant amount of the grid’s demand.

Please don’t insult our intelligence with your “wind power will supply the electricity needs of all the homes in Oxford County” wind industry propaganda. Without a wholesale buyer for their electricity, a fossil fuel generator forced to buy Renewable Energy Credits, and the giant net of subsidies and now stimulus fund loan guarantees that prop up the wind industry, this industry could not, and would not exist. If any homes in Oxford County or elsewhere depended on the electricity from Record Hill Wind they would be in the dark 75% of the time and the rest of the time they would be experiencing constant voltage fluctuation.

2000 MW of 2 MW wind turbines spaced approximately 1000 feet apart will require nearly 200 miles of ridge line, not including the roads to the ridge tops. Who is going to enforce your call for strict standards of compliance? You know what happened at Kibby last fall. The state is ill prepared to monitor compliance, monitor the work of 3rd party compliance people, or see that stop work orders are issued when called for, or obeyed when issued. There is already a huge compliance problem in Maine from poorly enforced forrestry standards. Your call for responsible construction and maintenance practices will have no teeth even if such conditions are included in permits.

Finally your support for this project, without knowledge of when or if the necessary transmission infrastructure will be available, and without knowledge of the environmental and community impacts associated with wider rights of way, or taller towers, is irresponsible. Without transmission capacity this project does not have title, right, and interest to proceed. The cost associated with any transmission line work must be calculated in the cost of the project. By my estimates Record Hill Wind LLC will spend over $100 per MW to generate electricity over the 20 year life of the project. The cost of transmission lines could add $10 per MW to this cost. Electricity sells for less than $40 per MW in the day ahead ISO NE market, and less in the longer term markets. How can you possibly justify $60 to $70 per MW in subsidized costs during a recession when rate payers and tax payers are already suffering from job losses and reduced business activity?

Your support for the project, as you were quoted by Terry Karkos in the Sun Journal article, extends to the support for the free electricity offer which has yet to be negotiated. Offering free electricity to Roxbury only encourages more energy consumption, not less. Offering long term employment to Roxbury and surrounding towns in weatherization programs, or offering “Kill a Watt” electricity monitoring devices would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the community than merely encouraging the use of free electricty, which will no doubt lead to the purchase of inefficient 110 volt space heaters, etc. The free electricity deal was nothing more than a bribe to get Roxbury voters to agree to change their zoning ordinance to the language required by King and Gardiner. Ironically, the change they required was only a slight change in the definitions in the ordinance. Since rural Roxbury does not permit industrial uses, the ordinance was merely footnoted to say that 400 foot tall, 120 ton, noisy, animal killing, people sickening wind turbines, the largest machines currently manufactured on this planet, are simply not considered to be “an industrial use.”

I would appreciate a more timely response than the last time. We are planning a statewide media campaign urging a boycott of NRCM. Your group no longer represents the interests of those of us who appreciate the value of Maine’s revered mountains, or common sense approaches to fossil fuel reductions.

Sincerely,
Steve Thurston

A Discussion of the Wind Industry's Flawed Noise Prediction Model

Mon, 25 May 2009 12:06:35 -0400

Following is testimony submitted to the DEP for the Record Hill Wind LLC application. Exhibits referenced in the text can be found in the “More Information” section of this website.

Ms. Beth Callahan, Coordinator, Record Hill Wind LLC application.

Maine DEP

Dear Beth,
Having read the decisions on the Stetson II and Rollins projects I feel the need to submit additional testimony into the record regarding noise. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and the pdf attachment containing the exhibits referenced in the following narrative.
Thanks very much,
Steve Thurston

The failure of both the Stetson II and Rollins decisions to address three major issues that are of paramount importance is extremely problematic, both in legal terms, in that the findings of fact and conclusion did not address important testimony that was submitted into the record, and in practical terms, in that the failure to properly predict noise levels merely repeats the experience at Mars Hill, where measured turbine noise has been found to be 10 decibels or more higher than the model predicted. The three issues are:

1. The application of a 5 dB penalty for the notorious short duration repetitive (SDR) “thumping” sound which is the hallmark of wind turbine noise complaints around the world.

2. The necessity of accurate prediction of low frequency noise levels and the requirement that all components of turbine noise remain within MDEP limits, instead of simply averaging all bandwidths to “mask” the intensity of the low frequency noise.

3. The necessity of using line source as well as point source in the noise prediction model.

1. SDR penalty
Warren Brown recommended that the SDR penalty be imposed in the Rollins application but instead of respecting the opinion of the third party expert hired to advise the department, the department allowed the developer to ignore this fundamental rule of noise propagation in the prediction model. As Richard James pointed out in the testimony I submitted at the DEP hearing in Rumford, there is ample evidence that the SDR thumping sound can be expected to exceed 10 dB, and in fact the Mars Hill post construction noise study proves the point.

The data from the RSE post construction noise monitoring at Mars Hill, Sept. 5, 2008 Figure 7▴1, (Exhibit A) clearly shows nearly +7 dBA amplitude modulation “peaks” even at 5 second measurement intervals. As Richard James points out in his analysis of the data, a measurement interval of .125 (Lfast) would add 6 dB or more to the peak to trough levels during amplitude modulation. (Exhibit B)

The thumping sound is the primary complaint of Mars Hill residents. It penetrates the walls of their homes even when their own noise meters show less than 45 bBA outside their homes. The reason for this is that the SDR noise from turbines is low frequency noise that is discounted to a degree on the dBA bandwidth.   If dBC bandwidth was used the thumping noise would show a higher measurement, since atmospheric attenuation of low frequencies is much less than higher frequencies. Given the seriousness of the turbine SDR noise complaints at Mars Hill, there was no basis for the department to ignore Warren Brown’s concerns in the Rollins decision, nor should the DEP ignore this evidence in the RHW LLC application.

As is noted in the Rollins decision, the application of the SDR 5dB penalty could put the predicted noise levels above the 45 dBA nighttime limit at some protected locations:

EnRad recommends further evaluation for excessive amplitude modulation and potential SDR sound that might trigger application of the 5 dBA penalty to be applied to measured or modeled sound levels. If SDR sounds occur for a significantly large percentage of time, application of the 5 dBA penalty could result in locations with measured sound levels of 43 dBA or greater exceeding the 45 dBA limit for periods of the SDR sound event.

Instead of heeding this damning evidence, the DEP chose to ignore it in favor of post construction noise studies and a “compliance plan”.   There is no mitigation available for this thumping sound, as has been shown at Mars Hill.   Once the project is constructed no compliance plan will eliminate this noise component of turbine operation unless the turbines can be automatically controlled by wind or noise sensors placed at appropriate locations.

2. Low frequency noise.
Low frequency turbine noise is the source of the SDR “thumping” sound mentioned in the majority of windplant noise complaints at Mars Hill and around the world. Low frequency noise travels much further through the atmosphere, an example being the rumble of distant thunder. The long drawn out rumble of distant thunder is produced by low frequency sound waves bouncing off the terrain and atmosphere, creating multiple echoes which reach the listener over a period of seconds, even though the initial event which caused the thunder, an instantaneous lightning flash, from close by was followed immediately by a loud high pitched crack and a loud explosion. From miles away the only sounds that remains of this short duration event are the lowest frequencies. All of the higher frequencies associated with the original sound have been attenuated by moisture, temperature, terrain and vegetation.

So it is with turbine noise. As shown in the Mars Hill noise study on virtually every graph showing sound power levels by frequency band at the various monitoring locations the lower frequencies are much higher (Exhibit C), this despite the fact that the sound emitted by the turbines at the source contains louder noise in the higher frequencies. Table 7▴1 Mars Hill noise study Dec. 2008 (Exhibit C)

3. Line source vs point source
The failure to use line source in the prediction model is another reason that Mars Hill turbine noise measurements exceed RSE’s prediction by more than 10 decibels at some locations.   The findings of fact on Stetson II and Rollins fail to acknowledge the concept of line source although in Rollins there was testimony submitted that should have been addressed in the findings of fact.

In his book Wind Energy Comes of Age, wind industry expert Paul Gipe explains line source:

Multiple turbines complicate matters further. From relatively long distances, an assembly of machines appears as a point source, and doubling the number of turbines merely doubles the acoustic power, increasing noise levels 3 dB. Closer to the turbines, they appear as a line source. The decay rate for line sources is 3 dB per doubling of distance, not 6 dB for true spherical propagation.

Paul Gipe’s bio reads:

PAUL GIPE is an internationally recognized authority on wind energy. After nearly two decades of working with wind energy, he has hands▴on experience in nearly every aspect of the technology. Gipe has served as the West Coast representative of the American Wind Energy Association and as Executive Director of the Kern Wind Energy Association. In 1988 he received the American Wind Energy Association’s highest honor for his contribution to the field. He has written two previous books: Wind Energy: How to Use It and Wind Power for Home and Business, both known for their frank, no▴nonsense approach. He is a contributing editor to Independent Energy magazine and lectures widely on wind energy, both in the United States and abroad.

The methods used to predict noise based on the source are the subject of an entire Chapter, #5 Sources, in Leo Barenek’s seminal book, Noise and Vibration Control, first published in the 1960s, and republished many times as late as 2005.   This is the textbook which all acousticians have studied from cover to cover while learning their profession.

As this authoritative “required reading” of the acoustics profession makes clear, there is no question that the use of multiple point sources, each decaying at 6 dBA per doubling of distance is not an academically, or professionally correct method to be used when a long row of mutilple sources are focused on the receiver, which is the case for many of the protected locations on Roxbury Pond that have a line of sight relationship to most if not all of the turbines in the 3+ mile long string. In this instance line source modeling must be used with its corresponding 3 dBA decay rate per doubling of distance.

Additional research which uses Leo Barenek’ s classic mathematical constructions to evaluate turbine noise is found here:

NASA Technical Paper 3057 DOE/NASA/ 20320▴77 1990
NationalAeronautics and Space Administration
Office of Management
Scientific and Technical Information Division
Wind Turbine Acoustics

Harvey H. Hubbard
Planning Research Corporation
Hampton, Virginia
Kevin P. Shepherd
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

Work performed for .S. Department of Energy
Wind/Hydro Ocean Technologies Division
and
Solar Energy Research Institute
Solar Technology Information Program
under Interagency Agreement DE▴AI01▴76ET▴20320

Quoting from page 27:

Effect of Distance from a Single Row
Figure 7▴26 shows calculated sound pressure levels for one row of the example wind power station, as a function of downwind distance for various rates of atmospheric absorption. Also shown are reference decay rates of ▴3 dB and ▴6 dB per doubling of distance. For an atmospheric absorption rate of zero, the decay rate is always less than that for a single point source (Figure 7▴18). At intermediate distances, the row of turbines acts as a line source, for which the theoretical decay rate is ▴3 dB per doubling of distance or ▴10 dB per decade of distance. Only at distances greater than one row length (900 m) does the decay rate approach the single▴point▴source value of ▴6 dB per doubling of distance (▴20 dB per decade). Decay rates increase as the absorption coefficient increases.

Richard Bolton, in his critique of the Mars Hill as built noise study conducted by RSE, and submitted to the Maine DEP on June 21, 2007 wrote:

4.2 Spherical Attenuation

RSE correctly states that sound diminished at 6dBA for each distance doubling. This is a result of simple geometrical considerations for a point source emitter and applies likewise to any similar emitter such as a light bulb. However this is only true for a single emitter. For a long line of emitters the attenuation is not at a ▴6 dBA rate it is actually lower due to the cumulative addition of the adjacent emitters. This is elementary physics, see for example Feynman, (Ref. 13). Mars Hill project is a long line of emitters, see Fig. 9.

Fig. 9: Scale Drawing of Mars Hill turbine farm (from Ref. 1, Fig. 3.3) (not shown)
For a very long line of emitters the noise diminution becomes ▴3 dBA/doubling instead of ▴6 dBA. The emitters must be in phase, that is all the blades must be rotating synchronously with the blades in the same orientation among all turbines. The degree of phasing precision depends on the source frequency and at low frequencies the phasing becomes less demanding. Mars Hill’s 28 turbines therefore will have an estimated attenuation coefficient of ▴4 to ▴5 dBA. This is for a consideration of simple atmospheric attenuation without other factors such as frequency dependent absorption and refraction/reflection effects. Nothing can be found in Cadna/A’s documentation and the output plots do not show any characteristic alteration of iso▴contour predictions that would be expected if these factors were included in their model.

I am not aware of any research that suggests that the sound propagation rules described above do not apply to wind turbines. If RHW LLC or Warren Brown are aware of such research it needs to be part of the record.   The copy of the RSE map that I included with my previous testimony showing the corrected dB contours accurately reflects the proper use of line source modeling. I did not include the 5 dB penalty in the revised calculations on that map, but even without the penalty it is clear that 47 decibels or more will be experienced at most of the homes near Roxbury Pond on quiet nights when the turbines are operating near capacity due to sufficient wind above the ridge. Even if the wind is coming from the west, turbine noise below the ridge will encounter very little wind and attenutation of low frequencies will be minimal.

There is no room for compromise, or professional disagreement on this. Line source modeling is simply the correct way to do it and for any consultant to insist otherwise only proves that their goal is to get a permit for their client, or to ensure their continued employment with a department that is intent on issuing permits, using whatever means will justify the desired end result, rather than accuracy and truthfulness. The failure of the DEP to enforce its own noise regulations due to political pressure and the notion that “poor” communities north of RT 2 do not deserve the same protections as more populated areas is a sad testament to the state of governmental affairs in Maine. The end result of the failure to require correct modeling procedures will be the repetition of the Mars Hill experience in community after community where turbines are permitted on ridges with quiet, rural communities in the valleys below, in clear line of sight to the turbines.

Additional discussion.
Many of the actions taken by Maine’s government in response to global warming, including the adoption of S. 661, LD 2283, are based on the notion that climate change, although not completely understood, poses a threat that requires the use of the “precautionary principal”, which essentially states that when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.   In the enactment of S. 661, LD 2283, the sacrifice of important elements of Maine’s “Quality of Place”, its scenic mountain vistas, historically protected fragile mountain ecosystems, and the presence of vulnerable wildlife has been judged by the legislature to be necessary in order to take “precautionary measures” to combat climate change.

The LURC decision on Stetson II and the DEP decision on Rollins turn the precautionary principal upside down. Despite generally accepted scientific data about noise propagation modeling, and despite the presence of irrefutable proof that the prediction model for Mars Hill was flawed in its ability to predict harmful turbine noise, the State is taking the position that it can ignore that evidence and allow projects to be built, knowing full well that humans will almost certainly be subjected to noise in excess of the predictions and in excess of Maine’s Noise Limits as is happening daily at Mars Hill.

Instead of requiring correct prediction modeling, which the Rollins decision states may cause the project to fail to meet Maine’s nighttime noise law, the State instead is relying on the ability of the developer to address excess noise after the project has been built. This presumes that there are effective measures that can be taken to address excessive noise.   At Mars Hill, the windplant owner convinced the DEP that accurate prediction of noise levels was impossible due to the masking effect of surface winds and was given a variance based on this absurd claim, and then, even after turbine noise was found to exceed the limits established by the variance, a letter of compliance was issued which totally ignored the plight of the numerous families suffering from turbine noise well in excess of Maine Noise Limits. Without the use of mitigation methods that are available, but have been ignored in previous permitting processes, there is nothing, short of shutting down the turbines maunually, that can be done to mitigate illegal noise at Mars Hill. Unfortunately the turbines at Mars Hill are not equipped with automatic sensors which limit their operation when turbine noise levels exceed legal limits at protected properties and locations so there is no dependable mechanism in place to mitigate noise impacts.   Had proper mitigation measures been required at Mars Hill no variance would have been necessary and no one would have complained about turbine noise, because the turbines would be controlled by appropriate sensors at appropriate locations which would reduce their operation when noise approached legal limits.

Here is what Wendy Todd said, without being asked, about the noise at Mars Hill today (4/28/09):

“It has been torturous here the last couple of days. The turbines have been brutal. It seems like a huge storm looming for days on end. I have days that I just don’t know how to continue to live here. They get in your head, ears and chest and if you don’t get a break you think you will go absolutely crazy.”

The turbines proposed by RHW for Roxbury are going to inflict the same “torture” on Roxbury residents. Several homes on RT 120 in Roxbury are approximately the same distance from the proposed turbines as Wendy Todd’s house is from the turbines on Mars Hill. “Brutality” and “torture” should not be the words used by Maine’s residents to describe their experience of wind turbines.   These words are not synonymous with “annoyance” as Dr. Dora Mills describes wind turbine noise impacts in the Rollins decision. But “annoyance” is also unacceptable. The word used to describe the sound of turbines should be “unnoticeable”, especially at night.

From the results of the post construction noise study at Mars Hill it is quite obvious that much higher than predicted turbine noise levels will occur at Roxbury Pond. The study may be found here:

http://www.marshillwind.com/UserFiles/File/regulatory_marshill/All_Q_Compilation_Report_▴Final_10▴15▴08.pdf

Figure 4▴3 (Exhibit E) in the noise study shows turbine noise reaching 50 dBA averaged over one hour when wind speed at the receiver was zero during measurements in Dec. 2006 (blue diamond). Since there was no wind noise, and the narrative indicates “turbine noise prominent” , it must be assumed that turbine noise was being measured. Figure 4▴3 also shows turbine noise levels reaching 53+ dBA with wind speed below 12 mph, the speed above which useful measurements can no longer be made due to wind noise interference with microphone operation per Maine Noise Regulations. Clearly these levels exceed Maine’s limits.

In Figure 3▴11 (Exhibit F) the table shows that at a turbine power output of just above 700 kW the noise from the turbines averages 42 dBA during the 1QWT (blue diamond). According to Figure 3▴1, the sound level of the GE turbine at this power output is approximately 98.5 dBA.   The maximum sound level produced by the GE turbine is 104 dBA, or 5.5 dBA above the measured level of 42 dBA at 700 kW. This places the extrapolated turbine noise at 47.5 dBA, well in excess of Maine’s already much too lenient 45 dBA nighttime limit, especially when keeping in mind the dBA measurements discount the low frequency thumping sound which is the source of the majority of wind turbine noise complaints.

Many of the ambient measurements in Figure 3▴11 correlate with this assessment. At 1000 kW output, hourly averages of 42.5 and 43 dBA are measured during the 1QWT (blue diamond). According to the GE chart on Figure 3▴1 the sound level of the GE turbine at this power output is approximately 100 dBA, 4 dBA below its maximum sound level. Adding 4 dBA to 42.5 and 43 dBA yields turbine sound levels of 46.5 and 47 dBA respectively, further proof of turbine noise levels exceeding Maine’s Noise Limits at a distance of 1.1 miles from the turbines, a similare distance to the turbines from homes at Roxbury Pond. Note the model estimate at Mars Hill is approximately 8 dBA lower than these turbine noise measured levels. Although a variance was granted at Mars Hill, there is no justification for granting variances for any other wind energy facilities, including Record Hill Wind LLC when proper mitigation can be required by condition of any permit granted.

Whether these levels represent an average noise level, the maximum level, or some other level is irrelevant. If noise propagation during the small window of time during which these measurements were taken can be found to exceed Maine’s Noise Limits for dBA noise, there can be no permit issued, as the field measurements at Mars Hill, when applied to RHW LLC place the 45 dBA nighttime limit well beyond protected properties at Roxbury Pond.

The open topography of Roxbury Pond, the line source effect of multiple turbines in line of sight on a ridge to the east of the receiver and similar annual wind characteristics make it clear that if the GE 1.5 MW turbines were in use at Record Hill similar noise would be measured at a location similar to MP▴2 at Mars Hill.   Since Clipper Liberty turbines are proposed by RHW LLC which have similar if not slightly louder noise profiles, equal or greater noise levels can be expected at 6100’ from the turbines on Flathead Mt. In fact, the entire shoreline of Roxbury Pond can be expected to receive noise in excess of Maine’s Noise Limits due to the well known fact that ordinary conversations can be heard during quiet evenings from the other side of the pond. The hard surface of the water, combined with low wind and the layering of cool air at the surface, cause noise to travel long distances with little attenuation across the water during the evening. The RHW noise study does not address this “refractory” effect but its existence in this location is well known and must be recognized in the findings of fact.

A Variance, if fully justified, should only be granted during the initial permitting process. The letter of compliance granted to First Wind at Mars Hill following the post construction noise studies was an egregious effrontery to the many families at Mars Hill suffering from turbine noise. This unilateral act of the DEP in effect, nullifies Maine’s legislated procedures and noise limits by Agency fiat. If there is a reasonable expectation that RHW will exceed Maine’s nighttime noise limits, the applicant should apply for a variance as part of the permitting process. The criteria for meeting the requirements of a variance demand that the applicant has taken all available steps to address the issue. The ability to control the turbines from remote sensors that turn them off when noise exceeds a threshold at carefully located receivers is of paramount importance and is a reasonable condition that must be imposed in any permit issued. By requiring the use of turbines that have such functionality a variance would not need to be granted either as part of the permitting process, or after the fact, since the turbines would automatically feather their props when conditions warranted and nighttime noise impacts to Roxbury’s residents would be avoided.

In the Stetson II and Rollins decisions, post construction noise monitoring is required as a condition of the permit, but there is no mention of what, if any, steps would be taken when the monitoring indicates excessive noise, except that a compliance plan must be filed with the department. Without a discussion about what possible measures might be taken to reduce noise, one is left to presume that such measures exist. However, according to the American Wind Industry Association “Wind Energy and Noise” fact sheet (attached), the ability to control noise impacts relies mainly on the proper placement of turbines, and turbines on ridges with quiet pockets below require special attention.    After the construction has occurred there is nothing that can be done to reduce noise levels except control the operation of the turbine so that it does not produce noise in excess of 45 dBA at night, or 40 dBA if one applies the SDR 5 dB penalty as required by generally accepted acoustical engineering standards.

From the American Wind Industry Association “Wind Energy and Noise” fact sheet:

What can be done to reduce the likelihood of a noise problem from a wind project?

A noise analysis can be done based on the operating characteristics of the specific wind turbine that will be used, the type of terrain in which the project will be located, and the distance to nearby residences. Particular attention will need to be paid if residences are sheltered from the wind.

Comment:
There is no mention in the RHW noise study of the need to pay particular attention to the relationship between the turbines on the ridge and the homes at Roxbury Pond or along RT 120 even though the industry warns that such projects pose particular problems for noise transmission.

Also, pre▴construction noise surveys can be conducted to find out what the normally▴occurring background noise levels are at the site, and to determine later on what, if anything, the wind project has added to those levels.

Comment:
The most common method for dealing with a potential noise issue, as indicated above, is to simply require a “setback,” or minimum distance between any of the wind turbines in the project and the nearest residence, that is sufficient to reduce the sound level to a regulatory threshold.

Some permitting agencies have set up noise complaint resolution processes. In such a process, typically, a telephone number through which the agency can be notified of any noise concern is made public, and agency staff work with the project owner and concerned citizens to resolve the issue. The process should include a technical assessment of the noise complaint to ensure its legitimacy.

Comment:
This process has not proved useful to Mars Hill residents and there is no reason to believe that, absent the ability to control the turbines with remote wind or noise sensors, there is anything useful that the windplant owner can do.

In general, wind plants are not noisy, and wind is a good neighbor. Complaints about noise from wind projects are rare, and can usually be satisfactorily resolved.

Comment:
Complaints about noise from wind projects are not rare, they are in many cases prohibited.

Landowners who lease their land are required to sign leases which prohibit complaints about noise, as is the case with the lease between RHW and Bayroot/Wagner. Since the people who are most likely to be impacted by turbines, those living with turbines on their property, are legally enjoined from complaining, large numbers of victims are silenced by the industry.

Complaints at Mars Hill have been loud and ongoing since the day the first few turbines were activated. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted interviews with the families who have been impacted by the noise of Mars Hill turbines. The Power Point Presentation of his findings is attached. To summarize:
Since the wind turbines began turning in December 2006, 93% of those interviewed experience sleep disturbance, 60% 5▴7 times per week, 87% to a degree that they have consulted a doctor. 53% have increased headaches, 40% newly onset. 20% experience dizziness, and 20% unusual body sensations (2 subjects reported chest pulsations, 1 pulsatile ear pressure). 33% are troubled by shadow flicker: 2 subjects experience nausea and dizziness, 2 dizziness only, and 1 migraines. 33% have gained weight, and 1 subject has lost weight.

73% have feelings of stress, 87% anger, 40% anxiety, 27% irritability, 73% hopelessness, and 53% depression (7 out of 8 new, and 1 subject increased). The anger can be extreme, as evidenced in comments such as: “Absolute rage   you feel you want to kill someone” (67▴year▴old woman) and “So angry I could kill” (65▴year▴old man). Hopelessness is also deep: “Nobody will help us”; “No options   can’t leave, and can’t live here”; “People don’t believe us”; “No one cares. No one listens”; “It’s very hard watching my child suffer”. Two women and 2 men (27%) were tearful at points during their interviews.

20% received new prescriptions for depression, and 1 subject’s existing depression medication was increased. 20% were newly diagnosed with hypertension, and 1 subject’s blood pressure worsened; all were offered new or increased medication, and 3 of the 4 subjects accepted.

100% agreed that their quality of life has been affected, with comments such as: “Loss of joy in living   put a lot of life’s plans on hold”; “No desire to go outside”; “Feel trapped”; “Dreams have been dashed”; “We have no peace and quiet”; “My husband’s [who has advanced MS] only pleasure in life was to see the wild animals. They are gone”; “No sleep”: “Sinking feeling every night when I [come home] and see them”.

100% have considered moving away, and 73% can’t afford to. For 90% of the homes (8 oout of 9), loss of home value by recent appraisal makes it impossible to move away.

Dr. Nissenbaum has submitted his study to the New England Journal of Medicine and a peer reviewed article about turbine noise and health effects at Mars Hill and elsewhere is likely to be published in the near future.

Yale University has investigated the noise complaints at Mars Hill and is in the process of designing a scientific study of the health impacts that Mars Hill neighbors are experiencing.

In the Rollins decision, Dr. Dora Mill’s at CDC is reported to have testified, “In reviewing noise concerns generally associated with wind turbines, the Maine Center Disease Control (MCDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services commented that, according to a 2003 Swedish EPA review of noise and wind interference and noise▴induced hearing loss is not an issue when studying the of noise from wind turbines as the exposure levels are too low. The MCDC states that it finds no evidence in peer▴reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health effects from the kinds of noise and vibrations associated with turbines other than occasional reports of annoyances. Most studies on the health of noise have been done using thresholds of 70 dBA or higher outdoors, much than what is seen in wind turbines. With regard to sleep disturbance, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for community noise recommend that outdoor levels in living areas for nighttime not exceed 45 dBA, which is consistent with law.”

No one to my knowledge is claiming that wind turbine noise causes hearing loss. Dr. Mills’ statement suggesting that hearing loss is a concern, in itself is proof that MCDC is not informed about wind turbine noise issues. None of the respondents to Dr. Nissenbaum’s interview listed hearing loss as a concern. Wind turbines cause sleep deprivation, hopelessness, despair, anxiety, rage, depression. These impacts and the complaints that result rise to a level of medical urgency far above “occasional reports of annoyance”.   The failure of MCDC to find evidence in peer▴reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health impacts only proves that MCDC did not look very hard. There are far more studies documenting the negative impacts of wind turbine noise than studies proving no adverse impacts as MCDC claims. The absence of rigor on the part of MDEC, especially when presented with evidence by the medical community that turbine noise is known to be a serious medical problem for people at Mars Hill, is astonishing and shows an appalling lack of regard for the health of Maine’s citizens.

The World Health Organization recommends 30 dBA in bedrooms for sleeping. Maine’s nighttime limit of 45 dBA will allow 40 dBA to enter bedrooms through open windows in the summer. Furthermore, as is well known and documented by George Kamperman, low frequency turbine noise can actually penetrate the walls of homes, creating louder apparent turbine noise inside than outside due to the quieter ambient levels in a bedroom compared to outside the home.   Mars Hill residents report this phenomena as mentioned earlier.

How the sound levels at Roxbury are predicted is of utmost importance. The use of a complex computer model such as RSE used for RHW obscures some very obvious facts. The turbines on Record Hill ridge are in line of sight to many of the protected locations near Roxbury Pond.   Sound will travel in a straight line to these locations, uninterrupted by terrain or vegetation. A very simple chart using the principals discussed above regarding SDR 5 dB penalty and line source noise propogation, and including an atmospheric attenuation factor based on temperature and humidity being within the normal range for Roxbury can demonstrates quite readily what the computer model obscures. (Exhibit H) Note that Clipper Liberty 2.5 MW turbines are louder than the GE 1.5 MW turbines at Mars Hill. Also note that Clipper Liberty turbines are not equipped with the controls needed to allow for remote control operation from data from noise or wind sensors, so another brand will be required. Specifications for any substitution must be made available for review prior to approval by the DEP.

In summary, RHW must be required to use the correct assumptions and modeling methods in its noise prediction calculations. The 5 dB penalty for SDR noise and the appropriate use of line source effects must be incorporated into a revised statement of the predicted noise levels from this project. Recognition of the persistence of low frequency noise even when higher frequencies

Photos

Sat, 09 May 2009 15:49:04 -0400

French Island

The Howard Camp on Sunset Cove

Hedgehog Hill

Flathead Mountain, Roxbury Notch, and Black Mountain. Will dozens of four hundred foot tall arm waving behemoth machines improve this view? King and Gardiner say they would look “simply awesome”. How about “simply HORRIBLE!!”.

The picnic table waits patiently for summer as ice fishing off French Island fills the winter hours. The perch and bass fishing fishing on Roxbury Pond is very poor though, don’t bother trying. The pond is pretty much fished out. Hardly worth the effort.

The beautiful symmetry of Record Hill from across Roxbury Pond

A view of Record Hill with accurately scaled 400’ tall wind turbines. 22 turbines are proposed.

3800’ Baldpate Mountain about 12 miles away to the west as seen from Roxbury Pond. The view shed from this pond is spectacular, totally surrounded by pristine, undeveloped mountains.

French Island on Roxbury Pond - home to a 30 year old bald eagle rookery

The future of Record Hill Ridge?

In 2007, beavers built a dam across an opening in the sand...

Sat, 09 May 2009 15:26:01 -0400

In 2007, beavers built a dam across an opening in the sand berms on the west shore. The resulting pond was 5 feet higher than the water level of Roxbury Pond, and the flooding caused several acres of trees to lose their leaves. Only a trickle of water flowed under their dam. But the beavers failed to maintain the dam and by 2009 it was no longer holding back any water.

Five generations of Thurston’s have called Roxbury Pond...

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:52:12 -0400

Five generations of Thurston’s have called Roxbury Pond the “center of the universe”.

The loon family of 2008.

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:44:00 -0400

The loon family of 2008.

Scenes like this are what make Roxbury Pond one of the finest...

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:38:52 -0400

Scenes like this are what make Roxbury Pond one of the finest kayaking venues in Maine.

Breaches in the sand berms allow drainage into the pond from the...

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:31:00 -0400

Breaches in the sand berms allow drainage into the pond from the swamp land that forms much of the west shore.

Relic sand berms, formed by centuries of ice formation, rim the...

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:24:00 -0400

Relic sand berms, formed by centuries of ice formation, rim the west shore. When the pond freezes the ice expands, creating pressure along the shore and pushing material into a long mound, similar to the pile that forms ahead of a bulldozer blade. Roots and vegetative matter help the berm retain its shape.

The man-made loon nest between the Logan and the Inlet keeps the...

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:15:13 -0400

The man-made loon nest between the Logan and the Inlet keeps the loons safe from foxes and other predators. It has ensured breeding success for many generations of loons over the years.

The Logan. Pickerel territory.

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:06:22 -0400

The Logan. Pickerel territory.

Roxbury Town Beach. Black Mountain, named as the location of...

Sat, 09 May 2009 11:59:12 -0400

Roxbury Town Beach. Black Mountain, named as the location of another wind plant, is in the background.

More outrageous legislation.."An Act To Establish Climate and Energy Planning in Maine"

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:13:29 -0400

I listened to the testimony on this bill today on the Legislative webcast. Speaker Hannah Pingree introduced the bill. “Decisions we make today will shape the future”. The bill essentially requires anyone thinking of putting a shovel in the ground to first analyze what impact the project will have on global warming and plan accordingly. It is very broad in its reach but hazy in its implementation. Maine is the first legislature in the country to propose such regulations, that basically make taking a breath an act of pollution.

Rep. Tom Saviello spoke against the bill, saying it was too much to expect Maine to penalize itself over other states if these measures made Maine uncompetitive for new development and said the bill was a “solution looking for a problem”.

DEP Commissioner David Littell suggested LURC and DEP were not fiscally capable of handling the additional work associated with such burdensome regulations.

Proponents of the bill then spoke first. Representatives from Efficiency Maine, Environment Northeast, Maine Audubon,Trout Unlimited, Maine Conservation Coalition and Maine Natural Resources Council echoed the theme that global warming is the biggest problem facing the world and Maine must accept the costs, whatever they may be, of combating climate change. Hurricane Katrina and the 1300 souls that were lost was mentioned several times as an example of the types of storms that will be common place in the warmer future. No mention of the tsunami in Indonesia that killed over a quarter of a million people on several continents after an undersea earthquake. A tax on carbon, wind turbines on the ridges, greenhouse gas computations for every construction project are nevertheless necessary to save the earth.

Also mentioned several times was the report “Maine’s Climate Future” from the Climate Change Institute at UM. My reading of this wide ranging report indicated that many assumptions were made even though many admitted “knowledge gaps” made credible conclusions impossible. Summarizing the report, global warming will provide a longer growing season, plenty of rainfall, healthy agriculture and forest production, and perhaps even striped bass off the Portland Light.   What’s not to like folks?   What are we supposed to be afraid of? The difference in climate that 1000 feet of elevation change makes is more extreme than the changes that global warming is expected to create.

It struck me that these people are paid to raise red flags and cry that the sky is falling. Without an urgent crisis in need of immediate action, these groups would have difficulty raising the funds they need to stay in business and these folks who testified today would be out of work, like the rest of us.

Ironically Maine Audubon and Natural Resources Council spokespersons decried the habitat fragmentation caused by building roads for second home developments in undeveloped areas. Both of these groups are in favor of sacrificing Maine’s mountains to the wind industry. All I could think of was the hundreds of miles of roads blasted up to the ridges that are needed to construct turbines on every suitable mountain in the state and the habitat destruction caused by the noise of these monstrous turbines.

Speaking against the bill were representatives from the Manufacturing, Real Estate, Mill Owners, Construction, Land Owner, Forest Management and Engineering trade groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and Maine Municipal Association.   “Unworkable, expensive, burdensome, unnecessary, redundant,” were the keywords.

My favorite testimony was given by Michael White, sitework contractor. “No good will come of this, its the wrong way to skin a cat…..its social engineering with an underlying agenda of regulatory gridlock.” Citing the examples of the plans to grow “giant trees” and blast particles into the outer atmosphere to “mimic volcanoes” as the radical thinking of climate extremists, he said if there is a problem the world needs to solve it, not Maine. “Maine does not have walls around it that reach to the heavens”.

The work session on this bill will be held in the next week or two. It couldn’t hurt to read the bill and send testimony to the committee through the clerk Veronica Snow, at Veronica.Snow@legislature.maine.gov.

Steve

Demand for power falls with economy

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:50:45 -0400

CMP’s industrial customers used 14 percent less in the first quarter, reflecting slow times in manufacturing. By TUX TURKEL, Staff Writer Portland Press Herald April 10, 2009

Electricity sales to Central Maine Power Co.’s industrial customers fell 14 percent during the first quarter of the year, a stunning decline that helps illustrate how hard the economic downturn is hitting Maine’s manufacturing sector.

Overall, CMP’s electricity sales were down 2 percent in 2008. The utility declined to release an overall sales figure for the first three months of this year, but acknowledged it is below last year’s total.

Since 2000, CMP’s annual sales growth typically has been in the 1 percent to 3 percent range.

These figures exclude the beleagured paper industry, which generates some of its own power. Factoring in a drop in electricity consumption at paper mills, which have suffered machine shutdowns and factory closings, would magnify the usage drop-off.

Declining sales revenue won’t affect the rates CMP charges to deliver power to customers, however. Rate changes are covered by a plan approved by state regulators that runs until 2013.

Although infrequently cited as an economic indicator, power sales can be a direct, real-time barometer for tracking the state of the economy. When consumers stop buying products, factories slow or shut production. That idles machines. When consumer demand increases, production follows, and power consumption goes way up.

Conservation and energy efficiency can alter the trend, but typically, Maine’s largest utility sees modest year-over-year sales growth. The biggest share of sales is in the industrial and commercial sectors, which grow as businesses expand and factories take on new orders.

CMP had expected sales to be flat or down slightly this year, but the utility didn’t anticipate the double-digit downturn in industrial sales until recently, as news reports of business closings and job cuts began mounting.

“You keep hearing about all these layoffs,” said John Carroll, a CMP spokesman. “And this is where it shows up, in the industrial numbers.”

Maine lost 15,700 jobs from February 2008 to February 2009, according to the latest statistics from the state Department of Labor. One quarter of them – 3,900 – were in manufacturing. They included cutbacks at large electricity users, such as Fairchild Semiconductor, the South Portland chip maker.

But the February figures fail to capture a wave of closures and job losses that is unfolding this spring at other big power users. They include Formed Fiber Technologies in Auburn, which makes trunk liners for cars and is laying off half of its work force; R.R. Donnelley, the Wells catalog printer that’s closing in June; WestPoint Home, which is shuttering its Biddeford blanket plant in June; and National Semiconductor in South Portland, which has been shedding jobs and is shutting down manufacturing for two weeks beginning today.

These actions are bound to lead to a deeper erosion in electricity sales later in 2009. Carroll wouldn’t project declines, but the pattern showing up in Maine is being noticed both nationally and regionally.

Electricity use is expected to fall 1.7 percent across the country this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be the largest drop in consumption since 1982.

Industrial power sales are expected to drop 6.4 percent.

These power figures reflect other, more familiar measurements, said Michael LeVert, Maine’s state economist. The number of hours worked by manufacturing employees fell 5 percent in March compared with a year ago. And wholesale inventories are declining as businesses respond to lower consumer demand.

“If orders aren’t coming in, machines aren’t running and they’re not using electricity,” LeVert said.

In New England, consumption declined 2 percent in 2008, according to ISO-New England, the regional grid operator. Overall power use was down 1.4 percent last year throughout Maine, factoring in utility sales beyond CMP’s service area.

Industrial wind project targets southern Vermont

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:40:00 -0400

It was standing room only tonight at the Tinmouth Community Center, as Per White-Hansen, an entrepreuner from Charlotte, Vermont gave a power point presentation showing 60 turbines covering 13 miles of mountain ridges in the towns of Ira, Clarendon, Poultney and Middletown Springs. The company’s website describes this as the “northern” portion of a larger project that extends as far south as Dorset, which would involve another 15 miles of mountain ridges. The presentation was typical wind industry salesmanship.

Noise impacts, the number one complaint of people worldwide living near turbines, were down played by White-Hansen. Homes within 1/2 mile of the project will experience turbine noise which will be indistinguishable from background noise, according to White-Hansen. I asked him after the meeting if he was aware of Mars Hill in Maine, where an entire neighborhood of people, some of whom live more than 1/2 mile from turbines, have been devastated by turbine noise. He said he understood that Mars Hill was a mistake. I pointed out that other wind projects in Maine have used the same model to predict noise levels and that his comments about noise levels displayed a similar lack of understanding, or perhaps disregard of turbine noise. He smiled and shook my hand, thanking me for my interest.

Noise levels in rural communities like Ira and Tinmouth can be described as “dead quiet” on most nights. Turbines on ridges above communities in valleys below pose a serious risk for intolerable turbine noise at night. Sleep disturbance is the most common symptom reported by people living near turbines. Homes in the vicinity of mountain ridges are a nuisance which must be disregarded if the wind industry is to be successful in the deployment of turbines.

Turbines are huge machines which emit 110 decibels of noise, much of it low frequency noise which carries long distances. A line of turbines on a ridge in line of sight to homes will produce 50 dB of noise at a distance of 2 miles, fully 30 dB louder than rural nighttime ambient levels. The World Health Organization recommends nighttime noise sources should not exceed 3 dB above background noise levels to ensure restful sleep. Sleep deprivation leads to a cascade of deteriorating health effects. Migraine headaches, anxiety, and depression have also been linked with exposure to turbine noise. The state of Vermont has no noise regulations.

Questions about the cost of wind generated electricity were evaded, or answered incorrectly. White-Hansen falsely stated that without subsidies wind power would still be the least costly replacement for nuclear if Vermont Yankee shuts downs, or hydro power if the contract with Hydro-Quebec is not renewed. There is no basis for this statement, since it is not known how much electricity from a new long term contract with Hydro-Quebec would cost. It is also premature to assume that Vermont Yankee will not be approved by the Vermont legislature and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an extension of its operating permit which expires in 2012.

One thing is clear - 80 MW of installed capacity at a 33% capacity factor will only yield 27 MW of capacity to the ISO New England grid, which operates at a daily demand of about 20,000 MW. This is less than 1/10 of 1% of the daily requirement of the grid. The amount of GHG emissions that will be reduced by this project will be negligible.

The 80 MW project is expected to cost “more than 2 million dollars per MW” or more than $160 million. It is expected to generate at a 32-34% capacity factor for 25 years producing a total of 240 million kilowatt hours per year according to the powerpoint presentation. I have developed a spreadsheet template that allows an Expense and Income analysis of wind projects. An analysis of Vermont Community Wind LLC’s proposal can be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/c6v59a

According to White-Hansen the necessary environmental, wildlife, feasibility, and noise studies are already in progress, even though as Annette Smith pointed out, the communities involved would have been better served if they had been brought into the process at the outset. Unfortunately it is too late for that on this project. Only forceful community action will prevent this assault on the Green Mountain State.

Widespread fear of global warming has driven public policy that penalizes base load fossil fuel generators for burning carbon and rewards the wind industry. These “Renewable Portfolio Standard” requirements have been employed in Europe for many years. Europe’s experience, which US policy makers have ignored, is that no amount of wind power will allow base load generation to be reduced. RPS is merely one of the tools of the wind industry to transfer wealth from ordinary citizen taxpayers and rate payers to the multinational corporations which control much of our electrical delivery system. Savvy entrepreuners like White-Hansen understand the game and are only too willing to play. Production tax credits and accelerated depreciaton also play a major role in the subsidy driven scam that allows wind power to exist.

Those pesky turbine contracts: Important questions

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:56:08 -0400

By Nancy Murphy

As I prepared for this month’s column, my initial thought was to present brief quotations from industrial wind turbine contracts that had crossed my desk. I quickly discovered that approach would be woefully inadequate and insufficient. Just reading quotes and clauses from these contracts would not fully convey the underlying risks to landowners who choose to enter into such legal relationships with wind developers. I researched further and discovered a wealth of information from qualified legal experts experienced in wind contracts.

The following has been excerpted, with permission, from a document developed by Roger McEowen PhD, Director of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law & Taxation (CALT).

Legal Issues for Landowners

A wind energy agreement should never be negotiated without first having the agreement reviewed by legal counsel. Wind energy agreements are long-term agreements that will impact the land subject to the agreement for many years, likely beyond the lifetime of the landowner who executes the agreement. The following is a list of questions that landowners should ask when analyzing any wind energy agreement:

1. How much of the land will be subject to the agreement?

2. How long will the land subject to the agreement be affected?

3. Based on the property rights that are given up, are the proposed payments adequate for the present time and for the life of the agreement? (Note: The answer to this question requires an understanding of the mechanics and economics of wind energy production.)

4. If the agreement offers an up-front lump-sum payment, is the payment representative of a fair amount for the rights involved?

5. What are the tax consequences of the wind energy payments that will be paid under the agreement? (Note: The answer to this question depends on tax changes at the federal and state levels; the area is in an almost constant state of flux.)

6. Does the developer want to develop the land or simply use a portion of the surface for a term of years?

7. Does the agreement guarantee that a set number of wind energy turbines will be constructed on the land by a specific date and, if not, is the developer willing to guarantee a minimum amount of payments?

8. Are payments under the agreement based on revenues generated by the wind turbines? Can the landowner get information as to how the owner’s revenue will be calculated?

9. Is the developer able to sell or transfer without the landowner’s consent any of the land use rights obtained under the agreement? If so, will the original developer remain liable if the new developer or holder of the easement right does not pay the landowner or otherwise defaults?

10. What events trigger the developer’s right to terminate the contract? Can the developer terminate the contract at any time without cause? If so, how are payments due under the agreement to be handled?

11. What termination rights does the landowner have? How does the landowner exercise those rights?

12. If the agreement is terminated, whether by agreement of the parties or otherwise, what happens to the wind energy structures and located facilities erected on the property? What is the developer required to remove? How soon must structures be removed? Who pays for their removal?

When a wind energy agreement is being negotiated, certain issues are critical to the creation of an equitable agreement. Unfortunately, a common problem with many wind energy agreements is that once they are proposed and submitted to a landowner, the company wanting to execute an agreement tends to refuse to negotiate changes to the terms of the agree¬ment. The company’s ability to refuse to negotiate terms of the proposed agreement will depend largely on whether a landowner has meaningful options and competent legal representation.

1. Is the proposed contract a lease or an easement? If a lease is involved, it should be long enough for the developer to recoup its investment (probably at least 20 years). Does the developer have a right of renewal? If so, does the landowner have the right to renegotiate any of the lease terms? Any lease should not be perpetual — a violation of the rule against perpetuities might be involved (at least in those states that have retained the rule).

2. If an easement is involved, does the easement include turbine sites, substations, air space, buffer areas, vegetation restrictions, building restrictions, transmissions, and associated rights of way?

3. Is a sale of the land contemplated? If so, how is the selling price computed? Any sale price should consist of the fair market value of the land plus the wind energy value.

4. What is the amount of compensation to be paid? Take care to ensure that the definition of “gross revenue” is done properly. Is it defined as the sale of electrons or the sale of green credits, or is it calculated in some other manner?

5. Is the revenue to be a flat amount annually, an annual payment per tower, a percentage of gross proceeds, a payment of a certain amount of kilowatt hours generated annually, or an amount based on the selling price of megawatts per year, whichever amount is greater?

6. Is an inflationary factor built into the contract payment provisions? To protect the landowner’s interest, there should be.

7. Does the agreement cover land that will not be needed for the wind farm and related structures? From the landowner’s perspective, there shouldn’t be such coverage.

8. An up-front lump-sum payment has tax consequences — make sure they are understood.

9. What are the intentions of the developer concerning the use of the land? That makes understanding the use provisions of the agreement of primary importance. The construction clause should limit the construction of wind energy structures to not more than 3 or 4 years with adequate compensation paid to the landowner for restricting the use of the land during that time.

10. Can the developer assign the agreement? If so, a clause should be inserted that ensures the original developer’s liability if the assignee defaults under the terms of the agreement. (Note: Developers want the ability to assign the agreement and subordination language.)

11. Is the landowner willing to consent to a mortgagee of the developer? If so, a clause should be included that limits the landowner’s obligations to the mortgagee.

12. Consider including an indemnification clause that indemnifies the landowner for any liability incurred as a result of permissive activities (such as crop tenants, custom harvesters, and subsurface tenants) on the property subject to the wind energy agreement.

13. What are the landowner’s rights concerning usage of the property?

14. Consider the use of a clause that requires the landowner to be treated as favorably as neighbors (consider how to define “neighbor”) executing similar agreements.

15. Include a clause requiring the removal of all improvements the developer makes upon termination (whether voluntary or otherwise) of the agreement. Relatedly, for developments in the Flint Hills, include a provision specifying which party gets the rock that gets excavated to build the wind energy structures.

16. Require the agreement to be recorded (not just a memorandum of the agreement) to eliminate the necessity of having to locate a copy of the lease in the event of sale or mortgage of the property.

17. Never agree to confidentiality clauses concerning the terms and conditions of the agreement.

18. Have the contract reviewed by the landowner’s insurance agent for analysis of any additional risks created by the wind energy project.

19. Will the agreement violate any USDA land-use restrictions if the subject land is enrolled in a USDA program? If such a possibility exists, consider including in the agreement a clause requiring the developer to indemnify the landowner for any lost government payments or the imposition of any penalties.

20. Evaluate the agreement with an eye toward the risk faced by the landowner. That includes environmental concerns, issues that could be raised by neighbors (i.e., nuisance-related concerns), and potential violation of applicable zon¬ing and set-back requirements.

Clearly, wind farming has the potential to provide significant economic benefits for rural landowners. However, substantial peril exists that landowners who don’t carefully evaluate proposed agreements with developers can be taken advantage of significantly. Landowners should have any proposed agreement evaluated by legal counsel and attempt to negotiate any unfavorable terms. Failure to do so could result in many years of dissatisfaction for landowners.

MORAL: NEVER SIGN YOUR NAME ONTO THE PASSENGER LIST OF A ONE WAY PRISON SHIP.

PLEASE NOTE: I emphatically reiterate what all of my sources caution their readers, that the information provided is not legal advice and cannot substitute for a knowledgeable attorney who can review the details of particular agreements, and consider the impact of relevant federal, state, and local laws. All of their cautions apply equally to this column.

List of Sources for the current column:

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/rogerbio.htm

http://www.ofa.on.ca/policyissues/issues/Wind%20Power%20Lease%20Suggestions.pdf (Author unknown)

http://www.kansasenergy.org/KEC/LeasingGuidelines(KEC).pdf
Kansas Energy Council

http://www.house-energy.com/Wind/Wind-Legal.htm
House Energy

http://www.flaginc.org/topics/pubs/index.php#FGWE
Farmers Legal Action Group

Thanks to Windaction.org for this article:

http://www.windaction.org/columns/17312

Smart grid or not, wind power is unwise

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:19:00 -0400

There is much discussion these days about how the “smart grid” will even out the supply demand curve by “load balancing”, thereby allowing intermittent sources like wind power to be efficiently integrated into the electrical delivery system. The assumption is that if wind power can be accommodated it therefore is justifiable to subsidize the wind industry since it provides “clean” power and will combat global warming.

Missing from the discussion is the enormous cost of building transmission lines to remote wind sites, and the pathetic ability of wind turbines in most inland areas to provide meaningful capacity to the grid, due to the absence of wind when grid demand is high, which is during the day on a daily basis, and during the hottest days of summer on a seasonal basis. Wind turbines only achieve 25% of the generator’s capacity to produce electricity on an annual basis due to the absence of wind, yet transmission lines capable of handling 100% of the capacity must be built to absorb peak delivery which is estimated to occur only about 3% of the time.

The combined cost of transmission infrastructure and wind turbine project cost puts the delivered cost of wind generated electricity at over $100 per megawatt. Electricity sells for about $40 per MW on the day ahead ISO New England market. The $60 difference is made up in tax payer and rate payer funded subsidies provided by Production Tax Credits, and Renewable Energy Credits, and the ability of wind developers to write off capital costs in less than 5 years with accelerated double declining balance depreciationf, benefits provided to the wind industry that are not available to the base load generators that we absolutely cannot do without.

If wind power was capable of providing all of our electricity today, the cost of electricity would be more than double. Due to the volatile nature of wind power the grid cannot accept more than 10% wind power, so no amount of wind turbines will enable a significant reduction in conventional generation, or a decrease in emissions. Wind power is not the answer, or even part of the answer, to our need for reliable, high capacity, environmentally benign power.

The electricity turbines generate is constantly fluctuating, meaning the grid, even if “smart enough” to parcel out the erratic flow of electrons from turbines, cannot depend on the electricity provided by wind and must provide back up generation, often gas jet engine turbines which are expensive to operate, to fulfill the pent up demand when the smart grid turns off water heaters and other household appliances when the wind does cooperate.

The wildcard that wind power advocates point to is the anticipated widespread ownership of electric vehicles, which they claim will be charged when the wind blows and will create a kind of “storage battery” making wind power more easily integrated. The fact is that grid demand is already low at night. Vermont studies indicate that 50,000 electric vehicles could be served by the existing grid today even if charged during peak hours. If all electric vehicles were charged at night the grid could handle 100,000 vehicles with no additional generation capacity.

The hypothetical widespread use of electric vehicles is not certain to happen, and even if it does, wind power will still be more than twice as expensive as other forms of generation, so it would not be an economical source of power for charging.

Smart grid or no smart grid, wind power does not make economic sense. At a time when the buying power of citizens has been seriously eroded by the economic collapse, their can be no justification for charging rate payers any more than is absolutely necessary for electricity. Likewise, tax payers should not be asked to use their precious dollars to subsidize an industry that is controlled by wealthy investors and multinational conglomerates.

A village of idiots?

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:03 -0400

The following comment was left on today’s Sun Journal online article about the Maine Medical Association meeting regarding wind turbine health issues. Mac makes some good points about the noise levels at Roxbury Pond. I hope he is wrong about his characterization of the citizens of Roxbury. When the time comes in the near future to reconsider the decision to allow industrial wind turbines on Roxbury’s ridges I am confident that Roxbury’s voters will make the right decision and prove Mac wrong.

Posted By:Mac at March 26, 2009 11:14 AM (Suggest Removal)
As a former resident of Roxbury Pond, I can tell you that noise amplifies over a body of water. I have heard loons from across the lake sound like they’re right in front of me. Logging companies and all the noise that goes with it can be heard clearly from the mountain range across the pond.It’s even louder at night as I have heard clear conversations from hornpout fisherman way over by the inlet! The windtower proposal for Roxbury will disrupt and destroy the wildlife that inhabit those ridges. Angus’s statement of comparing noise from Chicago to Augusta was idiotic. I will give him credit for researching and finding a village of idiots that he knew he could dangle the proverbial carrot. As I have stated before the people that were allowed to vote on this proposal will not be affected by it….or will they?? Sweet dreams citizens of Roxbury village.