STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARDpsb.vermont.gov/sites/psbnew/files/doc_library/Energize Vermont.pdf · STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD Energize Vermont Comments on PSB

Energize Vermont ● Box 172 ● East Burke, VT 05832

STATE OF VERMONT

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Energize Vermont Comments on PSB )

Wind Turbine Noise Rule 5.700 ) May 11, 2017

Proposal of March 17, 20017 )

Energize Vermont offers these comments on the Public Service Board’s proposed noise rule

5.700 of March 17, 2017.

Summary

1. The March 17th noise rules are a step in the right direction.

2. Small turbines should be required to demonstrate noise compliance AND be subject to

setbacks.

3. Noise limits should be expressed as “not to exceed,” not as averages.

4. Outdoor noise limits should not be applied at all “non-participating” property

boundaries (and not just near existing, full-time residences)

5. Setbacks should be from non-participating property boundaries.

6. The indoor noise limit of 30 dBA should be restored; the nighttime outdoor limit should

be 33 dBA.

7. Low-frequency noise and infrasound must be regulated.

8. Preconstruction noise modeling should be managed by the PSB.

9. Noise monitoring should be continuous for the life of the project.

10. Monitoring data (including noise readings, weather conditions, and SCADA data) should

be available to the public; each project should have an online dashboard that provides

these data in real time.

11. The PSB must enforce its rules swiftly and impose significant punishments.

12. There is substantial distrust of the wind industry in Vermont. It is justified.

1 A step in the right direction

The PSB’s proposed rules bring Vermont regulations closer to other jurisdictions that have far

more experience with wind energy than Vermont.

The noise standards are not as strict as those used in Denmark and Germany. The noise

standards do not provide the level of protection that the World Health Organization

recommends for nighttime, indoor noise: 30 dBA and lower levels for the low frequency noise

of the type produced by wind turbines.

Energize Vermont Comments on Rule 5.700-- Wind Turbine Noise May 11, 2017


2 of 12

2 Small turbines should be subject to noise standards AND setbacks.

The proposed rules allow developers to avoid demonstrating compliance for a turbine having a

capacity of 150 kW and opt for a “10 X setback” instead. We presume that even if a developer

opted for the “setback option,” that the PSB would investigate noise complaints relating to the

turbine and that punishments for noise exceedances would be imposed.

Turbines in this class can be quite large. There is such a turbine in Vergennes that is causing

distress to its neighbors. Guests at Burke Mountain and Bolton Mountain know that turbines in

this class can produce audible noise, low-frequency noise, and infrasound. Guests know that

these turbines can produce undesirable effects.

It is unlikely that a 10X setback will result in attenuation that can protect neighbors from noise

impacts. We therefore request that turbines in this class be required to demonstrate

compliance with noise standards as well as meet the setback requirements.

3 Noise limits should be expressed as “not to exceed,” not as averages.

Averaging noise over a time interval is problematic for two reasons:

1. It allows for momentary spikes that can disturb sleep.

2. Noise samples can be contaminated. There is evidence to suggest that wind operators

have created monitoring conditions that guarantee the contamination of samples. They

can then use the contamination as justification for rejecting the samples.

For these reasons and others, all noise limits should be expressed as “not to exceed” values.

4 Outdoor noise limits should be applied at property boundaries

The proposed rules apply noise limits at 100 feet from existing full-time residences. This is

problematic:

1. What if a vacation home becomes a full-time residence? Does that establish a new

boundary for the wind operator? Or is the home owner out of luck?

2. What if a property owner wants to build a new residence on a neighboring property?

Does that establish a new boundary for the wind operator? Or is the property owner out

of luck?

Noise limits should be applied at non-participating property boundaries. We note that this will

enable developers to continue to build projects, but they must compensate willing neighbors

(i.e., make them participators) for any loss of use of their property.

5 Setbacks should be from non-participating property boundaries.

In order to protect the safety and property of neighbors, setbacks should be measured from

property boundaries, not full-time residences. According to the New Hampshire press, the 400-

foot-tall turbines in Coos County have thrown ice chunks as far as 930 feet. The chunks were

large enough to break saplings and leave craters.



3 of 12

Vermonters should be free to enjoy skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and sugaring on their

property without fear of injury from thrown ice. We note that this will enable developers to

continue to build projects, but they must compensate willing neighbors for any loss of use of

their property.

6 The indoor noise limit of 30 dBA should be restored. An outdoor limit of 33 dBA would be

consistent with this indoor limit.

The World Health Organization says that in order to protect human health, nighttime noise

should not exceed 30 dBA. The WHO also recommends that continuous low-frequency noise be

subjected to an even lower limit.

A 30 dBA nighttime, indoor limit must be the starting point for noise standards. All outdoor

noise limits should be consistent with this indoor limit.

The 30 dBA limit should be applied to existing structures as well as structures that might be

built in the future. This requires an outdoor noise limit that supports the 30 dBA indoor limit

and it requires that the outdoor limit be applied at property boundaries.

A nighttime outdoor limit of 33 dBA applied at the property line would support the WHO’s

guidance and preserve the ability of non-participating neighbors to use their property as they

see fit.

7 Low-frequency noise and infrasound must be regulated.

Vermont’s turbine noise standard should include limits on low-frequency noise and infrasound

(noise vibrations with frequencies lower than 20Hz) and low frequency noise (20 to 200 Hz).

Municipal councilors in three Ontario counties formed a Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working

Group to study complaints of Ontario residents about wind turbines. The working group

undertook a review of research initially conducted in the late 1970s by the Solar Energy

Research Institute (now, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory). The original research

results were replicated and expanded upon in subsequent years.

The working group published its findings in a report, “Infrasound, Low Frequency Noise, and

Wind Turbines.” Among its key findings:

Wind turbines (both old and new designs) emit infrasound and low frequency noise

(LFN)

Infrasound and LFN are felt more than heard by turbine neighbors.

Infrasound and LFN can disturb sleep and produce adverse health effects.

Infrasound and LFN can, in some sense, be amplified by interactions with residential

structures—the impacts are greater indoors than outdoors.

The working group’s report notes that the wind industry denies that turbines produce

infrasound and the health impacts of infrasound and LFN. These denials should surprise no



4 of 12

one—they are similar to tobacco company denials of the impacts of smoking upon health and

oil industry denials of greenhouse gas impacts on climate.

Researchers are still trying to determine what limits on infrasound and LFN would be protective

of human health. Energize Vermont requests that the PSB:

1. Acknowledge that infrasound and LFN can affect health

2. Establish an initial not-to-exceed limit of 50 dBC on indoor turbine noise (in addition to

the indoor limit of 30 dBA and the supporting outdoor limit).

3. Include a provision in all CPGs for wind turbines that would enable the PSB to take

whatever actions were necessary to protect the health of turbine neighbors from newly

discovered threats. This would enable the PSB to establish new limits for infrasound and

LFN if research were to determine that different limits were required to protect the

health of neighbors.

8 Preconstruction noise modeling should be managed by the PSB.

There is substantial distrust of the wind industry in Vermont. This distrust is growing and it is

justified.

For this reason, the PSB should manage all aspects of noise modeling.

Acoustic models are complex and imprecise. They are easy to game. There is little to deter a

wind developer, eager to build a project, from gaming the models. Developers know that once

their project is built, the Public Service Board will be reluctant to find that it is out of

compliance. Furthermore, PSB enforcement actions have been insufficient to deter violations.

In other words, it pays to game the modeling.

Wind developers cannot be trusted to develop, apply, and interpret models in an unbiased

manner. Therefore, the PSB should assume this responsibility at the expense of the prospective

developer.

All modeling assumptions, data, and outputs must be made available for public scrutiny.

9 Noise monitoring must be continuous for the life of the project.


justified.

For this reason, we approve of the PSB’s proposal to manage post construction noise

monitoring.

However, the proposed compliance monitoring regimen is insufficient. Operational monitoring

must be continuous for the life of the project. Periodic monitoring cannot ensure compliance

because there are too many variables at play. These variables include weather (wind speed and

direction, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, precipitation, etc.), seasonal effects



5 of 12

(foliage, frozen ground, etc.), turbine output, turbine age and condition, as well as changes in

land use and land cover that result from logging, construction, fires, floods, and the like.

10 Monitoring data should be available to the public; each project should have an online

dashboard that displays real time data.


justified.

For this reason, it is necessary for all monitoring data to be available for public scrutiny. This

includes noise readings from each monitoring station, weather conditions, and SCADA data for

each turbine. In addition, the rules should require turbine operators to create an online

dashboard that displays this information in real time.

Wind operators will no doubt claim that their data is confidential. But, we note that they are

permitted to operate under a “Certificate of Public Good.”

11 The PSB must enforce its rules swiftly and impose significant punishments.

The most protective rules and regulations are valueless without strict monitoring and

enforcement. The PSB has been reluctant to find wind operators out of compliance with rules

and reluctant to impose punishments severe enough to deter operators from violating rules.

When confronted with a potential violation, wind operators deny, delay, and dissemble. They

would rather fight with their neighbors than work with them to resolve problems quickly. Some

wind developers have such contempt for their neighbors that they cannot hide it. Some wind

developers have such contempt for their neighbors that they exhibit it publicly (see attached

exhibits).

The PSB has a history of coddling the industry, allowing operators to drag out proceedings (we

cite the case of Sutton resident Paul Brouha) and then meting out insignificant penalties (we

cite the fine levied against David Blittersdorf for violations at Georgia Mountain).

In the Georgia Mountain matter, we agree with the Department of Public Service in its January

30, 2017 motion for reconsideration:

1. The PSB penalty indicates a failure of the PSB to appreciate the seriousness of the

violations.

2. It has no deterrent effect.

3. It fails to consider the Georgia Mountain operator’s history as a serial offender.

4. The operator made money by violating the rules and paying the fine.

The PSB always appears to take the side of wind developers and operators against the

Vermonters who live near wind projects. This has contributed to the low regard that many

Vermonters now have for state government.



6 of 12

12 There is substantial distrust of the wind industry in Vermont. It is justified.

The wind industry has demonstrated that it is untrustworthy and must be regulated carefully by

a state government that takes the well-being of its citizens seriously.

The negative reaction that Vermonters have to the wind industry is coloring their view of all

renewable technologies. If the PSB fails to reign in the wind industry, industry misbehavior will

continue to turn Vermonters against both renewables and state government. We will not meet

our energy goals.

Here are just a few of the things that wind developers and operators have done to demonstrate

their untrustworthiness:

A. Chronic unresponsiveness to problem reports from neighbors

B. Constant denial that there are any problems whatsoever

C. Seneca Mountain Wind’s vote-buying scheme in the Northeast Kingdom

D. Iberdrola’s vote-buying scheme in Windham/Grafton

E. GMP noise violations at Lowell

F. Vermont Wind’s failure to follow the post-construction sound monitoring protocol that

it wrote

G. Vermont wind noise violations at Sheffield

H. Travis Belisle’s unlawful installation of a MET tower in Swanton

I. David Blittersdorf’s unlawful installation of a MET towers in Irasburg

J. Blittersdorf’s violation of winter operating rules at Georgia Mountain

K. Complaints that Blittersdorf made false statements in his CPG petition regarding

distances to nearest dwellings in Irasburg

L. Complaints that Blittersdorf installed wind turbines in wrong locations in Irasburg

M. Complaints that Blittersdorf installed a MET tower in the wrong location in Holland

N. Blittersdorf’s CPG violation for unpermitted blasting

O. Blittersdorf’s demonstrations of contempt for his neighbors in anti-social postings on

social media sites (see attached exhibits)

Dated East Burke, Vermont this 11th day of May, 2017

By:

Mark Whitworth, President



7 of 12

Energize Vermont

Box 172

East Burke, VT 05832

(802) 424-0540, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



8 of 12

Exhibit A Trunk Monkey



9 of 12

Exhibit B Victim Mentality



10 of 12

Exhibit C Are your [sic] expecting to hear them

Exhibit D It's all in a persons head [sic]



11 of 12

Exhibit E Just watching the show you produce



12 of 12

Exhibit F and it can be seen for miles

Documents

STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARDpsb.vermont.gov/sites/psbnew/files/doc_library/Energize Vermont.pdf · STATE OF VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD Energize Vermont Comments on PSB