Friday, July 29, 2011

Vinalhaven Voices--No Longer Willing to Be Ignored

Below is a press release from Fox Island Wind Neighbors.  These folks--some of whom are friends of mine--have struggled for 20 months to get some relief... some justice.  For additional background on this story, including a copy of the lawsuit FIWN has just filed, please visit their website, http://fiwn.wordpress.com/.

*************************************

Vinalhaven citizen lawsuit alleges political interference in wind turbine regulatory process at top level of Maine government
Contact: Alan Farago, Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, 207-867-4770


(July 28, 2011 For Immediate Release) Vinalhaven, once only famous for its lobsters, is now also nefarious for demonstrating what happens when wind turbines are improperly permitted too close to homes.

Today neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbine farm filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine—after a year and a half controversy-- for failing to enforce noise regulations against Fox Islands Wind, the turbine operator. The neighbors’ lawsuit charges that the decision by Maine DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) on June 30th meant to resolve the year and a half controversy of noise violations by the turbines was arbitrary and capricious and driven by political meddling at the highest levels of Maine government against the recommendation of its own regulatory staff.

The citizen lawsuit documents how DEP abandoned its regulatory mission one step at a time and finally caved to political pressure instead of protecting nearby residents from noise violations that have impacted neighbors’ health, peace and quiet, and property values. The neighbors are asking the Maine court to vacate the politically driven decision and order DEP to go back and follow the recommendations of its own regulators; the effect of those recommendations would have placed the burden of proof of compliance on the wind turbine operator and held the turbine operator accountable for ongoing violations of noise standards.

Since the moment the 3 GE 1.5 megawatt turbines on Vinalhaven began to spin in November 2009, nearby residents complained their quiet properties on the island had turned into dumping grounds for noise pollution in excess of state regulations. Everywhere industrial wind turbines are placed too close to residences, there are complaints. What distinguishes Vinalhaven from other aggrieved victims of wind turbine noise is the extent to which neighbors initiated their own acoustical measurements and engagement with state regulators who admit that state standards fail to capture the acoustical impacts of wind turbines. For a year and a half, Vinalhaven neighbors carefully documented violations of the state noise standard while the wind turbine farm operator, Fox Islands Wind, continuously denied it was breaking state law. The complaint filed today details these facts.

Initially, DEP regulators were willing to use the Vinalhaven problem—where wind shear was a known, significant factor in upsetting noise and acoustic models—to pin down gaps in the state’s protocol for evaluating the noise generated by wind turbines and especially violations at night-time according to the 45dbA standard.

While costs mounted for neighbors, including acoustics engineering and legal resources, state regulators began to assemble a new regulatory schematic to capture the gaps in existing law. At the same time, the Vinalhaven turbine operator launched a strong, politically driven counter-offensive against the regulators. Over time, this push-back from local advocates and finally political intervention by the Office of the Governor overwhelmed the regulators.

“We invited board members of Fox Island Electric Coop to come up and spend a few nights listening to the terrible noise,” says Art Lindgren, who mastered both the methodology and presentation of acoustical measurements taken from equipment often in the dead of night. “None took us up on the offer. Instead we have moved from our home because of the noise.”

Neighbors’ hopes were dashed on June 30th, the date when the Maine DEP approved an operational plan for Fox Island Wind turbines that ignored, in its key details, recommendations of its own staff.  Maine has four major wind farms, including Kibby Mountain in Franklin County, Mars Hill in Aroostook County and Stetson Mountain in Washington County. Rollins is about to commence operation and construction is underway at Spruce Mountain in Woodstock and Record Hill near Rumford. Wherever turbines are sited too close to residences, there are complaints from property owners whose lives have been turned upside down.

Noise from wind turbines has emerged as a serious concern in Maine where the legislature has mandated 2000 Megawatts of power to be generated from renewable energy sources by the year 2015. Financial incentives for wind power include lucrative depreciation benefits for investors. According to a recent report in Forbes, subsidies for wind power per kilowatt energy produced are 200 times the subsidy for oil and gas.

These subsidies provide huge motivation for investors to steamroller environmental protections, including noise pollution. At a recent public hearing in Augusta, one industry spokesperson referred to Vinalhaven has a facility that had given the industry "a black eye". The reason is evidence-- withheld from neighbors in the permitting phase of the project-- that neighbors would likely be subject to very high levels of noise.

The lawsuit alleges a pattern of political interference in the normal regulatory process that had already stretched out more than a year and a half at considerable expense to neighbors. The complaint alleges that the Office of the Governor interceded through the newly installed DEP Director, Patricia Aho, whose immediate prior employment had been with Pierce Atwood, the law firm that represents the wind turbine operator, Fox Islands Wind. Rather than recuse herself, one of her first decisions as newly appointed head of the state environmental agency was to reach around career regulators and change the final compliance protocol according to what Fox Island Wind wanted.

Alan Farago, a neighbor, says; "First DEP agreed with the neighbors that Fox Islands Wind was violating state noise regulations. Then with the turn of the political screw, DEP began ratcheting back the recommendations of its consultant and finally backed out of the decision by its own regulatory staff. This all happened because politics is covering up an energy project of dubious value that is profitable for a prominent Maine investor, Horace Hildreth, while imposing a heavy financial burden on nearby residents who purchased their property for rural peace and quiet and now have health issues, property value destruction, and industrial noise."

A year ago, as a result of ongoing frustration with the state regulatory agency, Farago initiated a petition, signed by 174 Maine citizens, to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging a study of wind turbine noise.  He wrote, "Noise from wind turbines has emerged as a national issue ... State regulations on turbine noise are an obsolete patchwork. As a result, affected individuals, homeowners and entire communities are left without defense. The time for federal regulation of wind turbine noise is long overdue."

In December 2010, EPA turned the petitioners down. The federal agency referred citizens back to Maine regulators; the same staff who were left in the dark on June 30th. Farago says, "The position taken by DEP forced ordinary taxpayers into litigation. We use after-tax dollars while Fox Islands Wind uses its marketing budget to fight us. For the misfortune of being guinea pigs of a new energy economy, we are paying through the nose.”

In a separate matter, the neighbors recently filed a complaint against the Vinalhaven Electric Cooperative with the Maine Public Utilities Commission, charging that the utility had improperly billed ratepayers for the turbine operator's expenses related to ongoing regulatory issues. (https://files.me.com/alanfarago/34e13t) But at this week’s annual meeting of the Fox Islands Electric Coop, news that the utility was required to respond to the Maine PUC by August 1st was not even raised. One defender of the wind turbines said, “We are bending over backwards for the neighbors.” At the same time, the Town of Vinalhaven is considering whether to take back administration of the noise rule for the wind turbines from the state. The town proposes to give the responsibility to the local Code Enforcement Officer; a position that often changes hands and is chronically subject to local influence peddling.

The neighbors hope the Maine court will vacate the decision by DEP, based on evidence that it was an arbitrary and capricious action that violated recommendations of staff. They hope the Maine Public Utilities Commission will look at the serious inequities levied on ratepayers. The neighbors also hope that the US EPA will understand that noise from wind turbines is a major public concern and needs to be regulated so there are no more Vinalhavens. In the meantime the neighbors are weighing other legal recourse to protect their health, peace and quiet, and property.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Voices on Noise

This, and subsequent postings, are testimonies from Mainers, provided to the Bureau of Environmental Protection, in response to a Public Hearing activated by a citizens' petition, and held on July 7th in Augusta, for Noise Rule Changes pertaining to wind turbines.
********************

My name is Karen Bessey Pease and I am a resident of Lexington Township.

On Thursday, July 7th, the Bureau of Environmental Protection will hear technical and lay testimony regarding industrial wind turbine noise.  I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed noise rule amendment.

In the pre-filed testimony submitted by Juliet Browne of Verrill Dana LLP, Ms. Browne states “These limits are fully protective of human health and there is no credible scientific evidence to the contrary.”

I am acquainted with many Maine citizens who are suffering from the effects of wind turbine noise, and they are very ‘credible’ people.  Many of them are citizens who, at the outset, fully supported the wind developments proposed for their communities.  It was not until they were subjected to the sounds produced by the turbines that they began to attempt to seek relief.  They did not have an agenda and they did not expect that their lives would be turned inside-out; but once the facilities went online, they began to suffer in many ways.  Their health and their finances have been negatively impacted and their quality of life is diminished.

“Credible scientific evidence…” 

We cannot ‘prove’ pain, but we know it exists.  Doctors routinely treat their patients when they complain of acute or chronic pain.  They don’t dismiss them because they cannot see or hear or feel their pain.  The patient’s complaint is sufficient ‘credible evidence’ for the doctor to provide relief.  When a man complains of numbness or tingling, or ringing in his ears, or phantom shadows in his vision, he is not ignored.  These complaints, while not able to be proven, are treated.  Why, then, are complaints of health problems due to turbine noises given little or no credence?

The fact that dozens of Mainers are negatively affected by wind turbine noise should be enough—and in fact, by standards of humanity, it IS enough—to make this issue one which must be addressed and alleviated.

Ms. Browne states “…the question before the Board is what level of sound impact is reasonable and strikes an appropriate balance between allowing development, including wind power, and protecting existing uses.”

The ‘existing uses’ she speaks of are Mainers’ homes.  For many of the victims, their homes are their major (or only) investments—investments of money, time, and emotion.  These ‘existing uses’ are absolutely worthy of protecting.  When a citizen is not able live in good health and with enjoyment of ‘home’, there is no impact that is ‘reasonable’ and no ‘balance’ that is ‘appropriate’.  Wind developers do not have the right to initiate a ‘taking’ of citizens’ properties.  They do not have the right to cause a citizen to suffer serious health problems.

Ms. Browne directs the Board by saying you “must consider the benefits of that type of development.  Wind energy provides not only energy and environmental benefits, but substantial economic benefits to the people and businesses in the State of Maine.”

The citizens who petitioned for this hearing have intended to stay ‘on topic’; realizing that this venue is not the proper one to debate the pros and cons of industrial wind development.  However, since Ms. Browne has opened that door, it is important to mention that last month the Legislature passed LD 1366, “And Act to Update the Maine Wind Energy Act…”  The Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, the same committee of which Ms. Browne’s husband is a member, voted “Ought To Pass” on this bill, which directs the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security to undertake an assessment of progress on meeting the wind energy development goals pursuant to PL 2007, chapter 661, section A-8.  Due to many serious issues raised in public hearings during the spring Session of the 125th Legislature, the OEIS is charged with considering several specific issues regarding wind development, including, but not limited to: an evaluation of the accuracy of the estimates generated by State agencies and wind energy developers for greenhouse gas reductions that are a result of wind energy development in Maine; and the number of turbines necessary to meet the goal, market conditions, development trends, emissions goals, siting policies, cumulative impacts or other factors that may indicate it is necessary to amend the wind energy development goals.  The OEIS is also charged with considering whether places should be removed from the expedited permitting area, including, but not limited to, mountain area protection sub-districts, as defined by the Land Use Regulatory Commission rules, Chapter 10. Also, the OEIS will study the economic impacts of wind energy development on the tourism industry, and evaluate the costs associated with transmission upgrades for the purpose of transmitting wind energy, as well as decommissioning plans and visual impacts.

As you can see, the ‘benefits’ Ms. Browne extols are presumptions, only.  Whether or not they actually exist is not yet proven.

Ms. Browne states “Pursuant to their home rule authority, municipalities may adopt local ordinances regulating sound emissions and other aspects of wind energy development.”

Ms. Browne is correct, and many Maine communities have, in fact, done exactly that.  They have enacted protective wind ordinances.  One point of significance is that wind developers—including First Wind, which Ms. Browne recently represented in the Bowers/Champlain Wind Public Hearings in Lincoln—routinely oppose protective wind ordinances in every town they target for grid-scale wind facilities.  Their actions as they attempt to ‘control the scene’ often create divisiveness within these communities, and it is disingenuous for Ms. Browne to imply that ‘home rule’ (unless it works in their favor) is something which wind developers espouse. 

Even as Maine municipalities are taking proactive measures to protect their residents and define their communities, it is reasonable to assume that most town Select Boards, Assessors and Planning Boards do not understand the science of ‘noise’—whether it is of high, low, or ultra-low frequency. Just as the State sets minimum standards for shore land zoning, allowing towns to enact more stringent standards within their borders; so do communities look to the professionals at the State level for guidance on complicated topics such as ‘sound’.  By invoking the ‘home rule’ argument, Ms. Browne is attempting to divert the Commission’s attention with a reasonable-sounding argument about the basic rights of municipalities to self-govern.  Such statements might be credible if wind developers stepped back and allowed communities to adopt wind ordinances without their ‘input’, and without those developers exerting unwarranted pressure on the voters in those communities.

While reasonable individuals anticipate and expect some level of disturbance from industrial development, I believe it is fair to say that none of the current victims of wind turbine noise could foresee the huge impact this phenomenon would have on their health and quality of life.  They did not expect to suffer through endless nights of sleeplessness.  They did not anticipate living lives wherein they craved moments of stillness in which no breeze blew.  They had no idea that their homes would become prisons instead of sanctuaries.

In her argument, Ms. Browne invokes the Freedom, Mars Hill and Vinalhaven wind projects and directs the Board to dismiss the complaints which have resulted from those wind facility sites.  In the case of Freedom, she accurately states that the Beaver Ridge development was not subject to Site Law permitting.  That does not make Freedom residents’ suffering acceptable.  In Mars Hill, she is correct in stating that a variance was granted.  That ‘granting’ does not make the Mars Hill residents’ suffering acceptable.  And on Vinalhaven Island--because Fox Island Wind has already been determined by the DEP to be out of compliance--she disregards those citizens’ complaints, as if their grievances have been redressed.  They have not.

I am not an expert on sound.  However, I have had the opportunity to talk to many of the residents of Maine who are now victims of noises and vibrations which cannot be predicted, and which cannot be controlled or alleviated when they become unbearable.  If the Wind Energy Plan ordained for Maine comes to full fruition, there will be countless citizens of this State who will become victims of this phenomenon. 

I ask that you listen to the People of Maine and enact stringent sound standards which will protect their health, their property values, and their quality of life.

Thank you.
Karen Bessey Pease
Lexington Township, Maine

*********************