Maine Lawmakers Slated to Consider BEP Decision

Department of Environmental Protection Rule Ch. 375, Sec. 10 Amendment

Subsection I: Sound Level Standards for Wind Energy Developments

Since the dawn of grid-scale industrial wind energy production, there have been problems; not just here at home, but nationwide and abroad.  To date, every improperly sited wind project in Maine is a party to litigation or ongoing and serious complaints.

In the autumn of 2010, the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power (CTFWP), in accordance with Maine Law, submitted almost twice the sufficient number of verified petitions to the Board of Environmental Protection to require Agency Rulemaking on the subject of noise from Wind Energy Developments.  DEP Noise Rules, last amended more than 20 years ago, were inadequate to protect Maine citizens from industrial wind turbines’ unique noises and vibrations.   In an attempt to protect Maine citizens’ health, property values and quality of life, CTFWP–in conjunction with Friends of Maine’s Mountains (FMM) –launched a determined effort calling for revised noise rules for grid scale wind facilities.

FMM submitted comprehensive draft amendments to the BEP, citing an urgent need to change existing Noise Rules to improve predictive modeling and protect against health risks associated with noise from industrial wind turbines.  In response to the citizens’ initiative, BEP held technical and public hearings in Augusta on July 7, 2011.

The claims made by CTFWP and FMM were supported by the testimony of several respected and experienced acoustics experts, including Rick James, Rob Rand and Stephen Ambrose.  These gentlemen have not relied on computer modeling to arrive at their findings.  They have done--and continue to do--extensive testing at wind turbine sites in Maine and across the country.  They have spent nights in affected homes, as well.  Added to their findings was the testimony of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum—another respected professional who has had first-hand experience with the impacts of wind turbine noises as he has treated sufferers right here in the state of Maine.  Following the testimony of these experts, scores of Maine citizens gave oral and/or written testimony about wind turbine noises and their impacts to health, property values and quality of life.  BEP found it incumbent upon them to support an amendment to the State’s current noise rules and had staff prepare a draft rule change.

 

On September 15^th, in spite of late-in-the-game and undue pressure from attorneys representing the corporate wind lobby, the Board of Environmental Protection voted to approve more restrictive sound standards for wind energy developments. The Board recognized the fact that Maine citizens are already suffering from the impacts of wind turbine noises and they voted to implement new parameters for Ch. 375, Section 10 rules which are more stringent than those previously in effect.

From the start, the Wind Lobby took no notice of the BEP’s directive to refrain from arguing the pros and cons of ‘wind’ during testimony.  They touted the jobs they have brought to Maine—ignoring the fact that those temporary jobs exist because of mandated federal, state and local tax-payer subsidies.  In addition, by wind developers’ own accounts we know that wind energy facilities will not create more than a handful of full-time, permanent technicians’ jobs, statewide.  Studies done in Europe show that each ‘renewable’ job created cost more than $1,000,000.00 in government subsidies, and resulted in the loss of 2.2 conventional jobs.  Denmark, with its high percentage of wind facilities, pays some of Europe’s highest energy tariffs—more than twice those in Britain–partially due to wind subsidies.  It is expected that the wind industry will cite those who are employed in the construction of wind facilities when they lobby the Legislature to vote against the BEP’s recommendations, but it ludicrous for the wind industry to use ‘jobs’ to justify the negative impacts brought about by their product.

The wind lobby also warned the BEP that if it ‘changed the rules’ mid-stream the ‘investors’ would go elsewhere.  Rather than discuss how to reduce the negative impacts of their product, the wind industry proceeded to lecture BEP about Maine’s economy.

BEP recognized that it was not the Board’s responsibility to worry about Maine’s financial circumstances or the wind lobby’s impact thereon—whether positive or negative.  Rather than being drawn into that debate, BEP considered the expert and public testimony and then voted to amend the noise rule standards.

During the last 3 years, many Maine communities have passed comprehensive and protective moratoria and wind energy ordinances.  Towns such as Jackson, Dixmont, Thorndike, Montville, Phillips, New Vineyard, Buckfield, Wilton, Stockton Springs, Sedgwick, Penobscot, Avon, Eddington, Unity, Eastbrook, Rumford, Prospect, Brooksville, Deer Isle, Temple, Frankfort and Caratunk have all recognized that grid-scale wind energy facilities are not benign and must be carefully considered during the zoning and siting process in order to protect the health, property values, and quality of life of Maine residents.

Citizens request that the 125^th Legislature show their confidence in the People of Maine and in the members of the Board of Environmental Protection and vote to uphold the BEP’s noise rule amendments.

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 7^th, 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 125^th 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

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

 

Fifty-Two Voices in Augusta

Tomorrow, June 15, 2011, is supposed to be the last day of the current Session of the 125th Legislature. Our Senators and Representatives have been dealing with hundreds (and hundreds) of bills since January. Reading them. Considering them. Listening to testimony, holding work sessions, caucusing… and then debating on the Floor and voting for (or against) them.

One day left.

I wasn’t surprised that the one remaining bill having to do with ‘industrial wind’ was left until the 11th hour. With dozens remaining to be acted on, it only seemed par for the course that our one hope would be dumped into the mix at the end of a very hectic session.

There were twenty common-sense and protective bills submitted, written, testified to and debated on. Nineteen were killed. And only one remained.

LD 1366, “An Act to Update the Maine Wind Energy Act”.

What originally was written as a comprehensive and ‘active’ bill had been reworked into a ‘do nothing’ bill calling for a study. While I’m not opposed to having a comprehensive examination done of the current wind energy plan; the fact is—the FACTS are already in.

Already, approximately eighty Mainers are suffering due to the inappropriate placement of industrial wind turbines. That’s a FACT. Mainers are suffering health effects AND a reduction in their property values, due to the incessant high, low and ultra-low frequency noises—and shadow flicker--produced by these megaliths.

Something had to be done. Mainers deserve protection, and the current noise standards, written before industrial wind came onto the scene, weren’t sufficient. Rep. Larry Dunphy, who has listened to his constituents and made their concerns a priority, proposed an amendment to LD 1366. His amendment called for a 1.5 mile setback from the base of a turbine to residences. It also contained a very important clause. His amendment would allow Mainers the freedom of choice. If those who lived within that 1.5 mile set-back area wished to opt out—they could petition the siting authority for a variance which would allow wind developments to be built at a lesser distance from their dwelling.

Protecting Mainers, while giving them the freedom of choice. You can’t get much fairer than that.

Why, then, did Rep. Dunphy’s amendment get defeated? The vote was 92 in favor of ‘tabling indefinitely’ and 52 opposed to that action—which, in reality, meant the amendment was killed.

But why?

Could it be that the wind industry hammered the Legislature incessantly with their tales of woe and their dire predictions? “If Maine shows an unstable climate for ‘renewable development’, we’ll take our ‘investment’ elsewhere” they warned. “’Wind’ is the only game in town”, they claimed. “A ‘small, vocal minority’ can’t be allowed to derail a plan which had unanimous support in the Legislature” they argued. And always, in the background, were rumblings intended to make citizens feel like they were selfish, planet-killing elitists who only cared about their ‘view’. For, of course, ‘wind’ was a panacea which would save the planet from the looming threat of ‘death by global warming’.

In the end, only two things are worth pondering.

First: What do the FACTS say?

And, second: Who will be strong enough, brave enough, committed enough and ethical enough to help spread those facts, educate the public, stand up to the wind lobby and not back down, even when defeat seems the norm and common-sense the exception?

As to the first: The facts are out there, and easy to find, if citizens are only willing to devote a few hours to researching this critical issue.

As to the second?

We will.

Many thanks to the Fearless, Feisty Fifty-Two. You’ve given us hope. And that is a rare and valuable commodity, these days.

Tardy Voices

Since the beginning of this legislative session in January, citizens from across Maine have been working to promote common-sense bills which will protect Mainers' heath, their finances, their quality of life, and this state's unparalleled "Quality of Place". We've encountered stiff opposition from some Legislators, and amazing and courageous support from others. But many members of the 125th Legislature are confronted with a large learning curve, and haven't yet had the opportunity to research the facts about mountaintop industrial wind facilities, or the wind energy plan for Maine. Others have already been lobbied-- and lobbied hard-- by the wind industry. They don't want to listen to us.

As you can see by the letter below, not everyone has turned a deaf ear. But the representative who wrote this letter, Rep. Tardy, is no longer a member of Maine's House of Representatives. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, he was in a good position to assist our efforts. Now, many of our efforts must be repeated--ARE being repeated--and we must speak up, again. We only hope that members of the 125th Legislature and the EUT Committee will listen.

Listen, and act accordingly.
*************************************
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0002
(207)287-1440
TTY: (207)287-4469

Joshua A. Tardy
P.O. Box 381
Newport, ME 04953
Residence: (207) 368-5858
E-Mail: tardylaw@adelphia.net Ma rch 5, 2010

Ms. Heidi Emery
46 Sandy Stream Road
Highland Plantation, Maine 04961

Dear Ms. Emery:

I appreciate your taking the time to write and express your concerns with wind energy developments, specifically LD 2283, "An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development." This bill was passed during the 123rd Legislature and was signed as an emergency measure by the Governor on April 18,2008.

Your letter clearly points out your apprehensions with regard to the expeditious nature of these developments and I am sympathetic to your situation, i.e. your son's medical condition and the fact that you live in a valley where sounds are very much amplified. Although it does not seem likely additional legislation will be permitted this session to address a moratorium on development, let me assure you that I will speak with my colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy, the committee with jurisdiction over these matters, about the need for more comprehensive and restrictive noise testing and standards.

Nearly a dozen bills were introduced this session dealing with wind power, demonstrating this topic is one that is gaining momentum in the public's eye and validating the need for careful regulation and oversight. For more information, I would direct you to the Land Use Regulation Commission website, Highland Wind LLC Development Pending Actions, to follow any developments with this project:

http://www.maine.gOv/doc/l urc/projects/Windpower/HighlandWind/Highland_DP4862.s html.

Also, I am sending along a site I have come across from other inquiries regarding the Highlands Mountains: http://highlandmts.org/.

Thank you for writing. Please do so again should other matters of interest arise.

Joshua A. Tardy, State Representative

Sincerely,


District 25 Corinna, part of Corinth, Exeter, Newport and Plymouth
Printed on recycled paper

*****************
Bottom Photo: Rep. Larry Dunphy, District 88-- a true representative of the People

"Put Yourself in my Shoes"-- A Voice from Highland Plantation

PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES
Heidi Emery, Highland Plantation

Imagine finding out a potential development in your area is being planned and when you so some research on it, the information you find is that it will make you and your children sick.

Imagine people not listening to your pleas to stop it.

Imagine that the information you found was from highly educated people who had received several degrees from Yale, Harvard, and other pretigious colleges and yet no one cares and the developers try to discredit these highly educated people for the sole purpose of protecting their own greed.

That is my reality.

I live in Highland Plantation where they (Highland Wind, LLC) plan to place 48 industrial size wind turbines on the mountains that surround the valley my family and I live in. We are in danger of becoming extremely sick.

Wind turbine developers don't want people to know about the health issues the high-intensity, low frequency noise creates. They don't want you to know because they want to continue receiving money from the federal government to build these so-called green projects. If you search the internet, you can find many stories in the U.S. and many other countries about people living with health issues caused by wind turbines. You'll also find many lawsuits taking years and years to resolve. You'll find people who have abandoned their homes with no financial gain just to escape the wind turbines they have been forced to live with.

Imagine waking up every night several times a night with the overwhelming feeling of danger, like something is wrong and your heart is pounding, you're sweating, anxious, and nervous. You are sleep deprived and have a hard time coping with things you do day to day.

Imagine feeling a pulsating, vibrating feeling in your chest, sternum, and all over your body.

Imagine feeling irritable and angry for no reason.

Imagine suffering with headaches day after day.

Imagine feeling nauseated and sick.

Imagine watching your children and spouse go through the same things. You can't concentrate anymore, your memory is bad and your children's grades are dropping and they have behavioral problems never once experienced. These are symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome. These symptoms can lead to more dangerous health problems over time.

There are certain people more at risk of getting these symptoms than others.

Imagine three in your family that have those risk factors, and you know that they could put those wind turbines in anyway, regardless of your family's health concerns.

This is my reality.


**************************
Heidi at home in Highland Plantation
Heidi and father at FHM press conference in Portland, Maine

Strong Voices Fall on Deaf Ears

There are many, many personal dramas in the battle to restore Mainers' 'quality of life' after a wind facility has been improperly sited. In the previous posting, I shared a letter written by Cheryl Lindgren of Vinalhaven Island. Since that pervasive noise first infiltrated their lives, the Lindgrens and their neighbors have spent countless dollars and hours trying to get the Department of Environmental Protection to enforce already inadequate sound standards so that they can live without the damaging effects of wind turbine sounds. Below is a press release regarding their attempts to regain the peace and enjoyment of their homes. And this link, regarding Art Lindgren, Cheryl's husband, tells a poignant story. A story which may be repeated over and over again--but with different casts of characters and different outcomes--if we do not succeed in forcing wind developers to properly site their developments and comply with noise standards. Please take a moment to visit this link. It's important.

Thank you.
*********************

FOX ISLANDS WIND NEIGHBORS PRESS RELEASE
State of Maine to Wind Turbine Farm on Vinalhaven: Turn Down the Noise
Neighbors of Wind Turbine Farm Stand Their Ground

November 29, 2010
Contact: Cheryl Lindgren, 207-867-4773

(For Immediate Release)

Last week, the State of Maine affirmed that the Vinalhaven
wind turbine farm violates state standards for noise. Neighbors afflicted by the turbine noise are hoping it is a turning point in the year-long dispute between the operation of three 1.5 megawatt GE turbines.

Since the commissioning of the wind turbine project a year ago, the local utility—Fox
Islands Electric Coop and Fox Islands Wind—had denied noise violations. During this
time, neighbors endured excessive noise on a regular and frequent basis. In its finding, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection calls this a “very serious matter”.

The agency undertook a rigorous analysis to determine its position, based on a July 18th complaint filed by the neighbors. Fox Islands Wind has until December 3rd to outline exactly what its intentions for addressing the problems. Within 60 days, the utility is required to implement a noise mitigation plan. On Nov. 6th, the neighbors filed a second official complaint and have more than a dozen additional complaints cued up for submittal.

From its commissioning in November 2009, neighbors were shocked by high noise levels
produced by the turbines. Their efforts to validate noise complaints and the ensuing
disagreement with the wind turbine operator has attracted national attention including front page stories in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and AP.

The Vinalhaven neighbors set out to make sure that the utility conformed to state law. This required a significant effort and investment in understanding acoustics and
measurement metrics and technologies. The efforts of the neighbors prompted the DEP to reexamine the adequacy of wind turbine compliance procedures. There had been no
regulatory mechanism to detect and validate noise complaints from wind turbines. If the Vinalhaven neighbors had not undertaken their own costly efforts, the local operator—Fox Islands Wind, LLC-- could have continued to operate in violation of their license conditions.

After filing numerous complaints between April and June 2010, the state, the neighbors and the local utility finally established a formal protocol requiring acoustical proof of violation. On July 18, 2010, the neighbors met the newly established requirements with a single complaint that was representative of excessive noise that could be measured on a regular basis.