eric bibler_minimum performance standards for wind energy conversion facilities_cape cod commission

8/8/2019 Eric Bibler_Minimum Performance Standards for Wind Energy Conversion Facilities_Cape Cod Commission

1/7

Ms. Ryan Christenberry

Planner Energy Policy

Cape Cod Commission

November 10, 2010

Ms. Christenberry,

Thanks for clearing this up.

Let me make sure that I understand what the Cape Cod Commission proposes to do with respect

to industrial wind turbines.

My understanding is that the Planners (including you) and the Executive Director of the Cape

Cod Commission, Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki, have proposed, and/or endorsed, new language for

Minimum Performance Standards for Wind Energy Conversion Facilities large industrial,open-air wind factories -- that will be inserted into the Regional Policy Plan under the section on

Energy Policy. This action requires the approval of both the Cape Cod Commission Membersand the Barnstable County Commission Assembly of Delegates.

The Commission Members have approved the language on your recommendation -- and theCCC will now seek the approval of the Assembly of Delegates at their next meeting on

November 17th. Although the language of the Minimum Performance Standards for which

you seek approval repeatedly states that Guidance can be found in Technical Bulletin 10-002,the fact of the matter is that no such guidance can currently be sought by anyone because the

Technical Bulletin 10-002 hasnt been written yet.

That is where things stand now.

You maintain in your note to me below that the CCC will need to hire the services of an acousticexpert in order to write the provisions of the Technical Bulletin. Presumably, you are referring

to those provisions of the Technical Bulletin which refer to noise from wind turbines. The need

for special expertise just such as this is why the Technical Bulletins come after approval of the

Minimum Performance Standards.

But it is unclear to me why the Cape Cod Commission needs Minimum Performance

Standards in the first place. And it is particularly perplexing to me why, if it is necessary for

some reason, to have some Minimum Performance Standards in place, you should have made

the wording so vague, or so ludicrously easy to meet, that they essentially have no meaning (see

copy attached from your website). What purpose does that serve?

For example, under the heading of Noise, your Standard requires nothing more than a noise

study (which may be reviewed by CCC) and a commitment to adequately mitigate adverseimpacts to residential uses outside the applicants development site. But surely you must

realize especially because of your close connection to the situation in Falmouth -- that there is

no way to mitigate the noise from industrial wind turbines other than to shut them down.

Under the heading of Shadow Flicker a reference to the intense strobe-like effect produced

by the huge blades and the 300 foot rotor width of industrial wind turbines -- you say only that

the developer must demonstrate there are no adverse Shadow Flicker impacts to neighboring or


2/7

adjacent residential uses. But surely you must realize, if you have even a modest knowledge of

industrial wind turbines, that, as sure as the sun rises and sets, there WILL be unsettling strobe-like effects over a very broad area. And Im sure that you must also know that effects that

appear inconsequential to developers are often deeply disturbing, and even intolerable, to

residents. So what is the practical effect of stipulating that there be no adverse impacts aterm which whose definition is once again fluid and subjective? And how does this qualify as a

standard?

But by far the most alarming of the proposed Minimum Performance Standards that you haverecommended -- and which the Members have now approved upon your recommendation andwith the full endorsement of Mr. Niedzwiecki is the revised setback provision for wind

turbines under the heading of Safety.

The new language relating to minimum setbacks was offered as a replacement to the former

language that was previously accepted by two committees of the Cape Cod Commission, theRegulatory Committee and the Planning Committee.

Here is the former language which will be replaced if the Assembly of Delegates agrees to your

request:

Minimum Performance Standard 2 Noise

All WECFs equal to or greater than 1 MW shall maintain a setback of 3,000 feet from

the nearest residential structure, unless the applicant can demonstrate through a noise

study there are no adverse impacts to its residents. Guidance on noise study

components can be found in Technical Bulletin #10-002 [note: to be adopted].

Many researchers have argued strenuously that a setback provision of 3000 feet is less than halfof what is required to avoid adverse health impacts to residents.

This new language reads as follows:

E1.7 Safety

All Wind Energy Conversion Facilities (WECFs) shall maintain a clear area of 1.5

times the tip height from the base of the WECF to any structure outside the applicants

development site. Applicants may negotiate a reduced setback with the abutting

property owner(s) provided that the reduction would not pose a threat to life or

property and provided a waiver is obtained in a form that is recordable in the

Barnstable County Registry of Deeds if the DRI is approved. Any waiver shall reserve

rights to tort and nuisance claims. A schedule of operation, maintenance and

decommissioning procedures shall be provided with the application and shall be madepart of any decision. Guidance can be found in Technical Bulletin 10-002.

To translate this into real terms, this Standard would allow a 400 foot wind turbine to be

installed within 600 feet of the nearest structure potentially right on the boundary line of an

abutters property and would allow a 500 foot wind turbine (of the type proposed for Bourne,where New Generation Wind wants to install SIX of them) to be within a mere 750 feet of the

nearest structure. In other words, for a large wind turbine a 500 foot behemoth the new

setback provision is less than one-fourth of the old one, and less than one-eighth of the setback

provision that is consistent with mitigating serious harm from wind turbine noise.


3/7

Once again, the emphasis seems to be on making this provision minimal virtually to the

vanishing point rather than on prescribing a credible standard.

Such a standard is so grossly negligent, and so irresponsible, that it is extremely disconcerting

to contemplate the reasons why the professional Planners and the Executive Director of the Cape

Cod Commission can have possibly proposed it. Their endorsement raises some very serious

questions for Commission Members, for Delegates and for Cape Cod residents who rely on theimpartial and professional judgment of the CCC and its leadership.

Are they really so uninformedthat they think that installing these huge mechanical devices in

such dangerously close proximity to residences can ever be justified?

Or, perhaps worse, do they actually understandthe magnitude of the harm -- but feel that theindustrialization of Cape Cod through wind energy is such a high social priority that they have

no compunction about sacrificing any unfortunate innocents who happen to be in the wrong

place at the wrong time (which is to say, living near a wind turbine)?

Neither answer is very comforting.

When we heard the news that the Cape Cod Commission had recommended a minimum setbackfor industrial wind turbines of only 1.5x tip height perhaps the most lenient setback provision

in the country or the world we were astonished. What reasons could the CCC possibly have

for adopting such a radical provision especially in light of the volumes of technical, scientificand painful anecdotal information on this topic that had been systematically provided to the

Executive Director over the course of the past year?

Perhaps the official Minutes of the August 19th Meeting of the CCC, where the management

proposed the new Standards can shed some light on this.

In introducing the topic, according to the minutes, Ms. Christenberry notes that the standards

are intended to balance the desire for wind development in our communities while protecting thesensitive resources in our region.

As we have seen above, however, it is not clear precisely what portion of the proposedstandards actually provides any protection, whatsoever, for residents .

Similarly, one might search in vain foranyprovisions intended to preserve the unique character

of Cape Cod, its historical character, its unique charm and its special sense of place. And

many of us remain at a loss to understand how the installation of dozens of 500-foot industrialwind turbines, with blades spinning at over 180 mph, emitting noise of over 105 dB at their hubs,

towering over the landscape, can be consistent with the official Development Guidelines of the

Commission which stipulate that new development should be sensitive to the localenvironment, neither out-of-character nor out-of-scale with the rural surroundings of the

Cape.

If the overriding concern of the Cape Cod Commission is truly to balance these elements,

something already seems seriously out-of-whack.

Are they not 500 feet tall? Are they not industrial? Are they not mechanical? Are they notnoisy and unnatural? Yes.

Are they historical? Or rural? Or compatible in any way with their surroundings? No.


4/7

So where does the balance enter into the equation? Or, somewhere along the line, did the

desire for virtually unrestrained industrialization supersede the charter of the Cape CodCommission, whose express purpose was to create a vehicle to restrain such irresponsible and

incompatible development?

The comments of the various participants in the meeting of August 19th particularly the

comments of the wind turbine proponents, including the management of the Cape Cod

Commission are revealing. Here are some highlights:

In response to a question as to why CCC planners were recommending that the proposedsetback provision be sharply reduced from 3000 to 1.5 times the tip height from the

nearest structure, Ms. Christenberry replied that it was felt that projects couldnt make

that threshold.

Executive Director Paul Niedzweicki said that people were skittish about the 3000-foot

setback so the number was removed. He then offered the startling opinion that reducing

this setback provision (to a mere 600 feet for a 400 foot wind turbine), and insertingbroad language on noise and flicker, actually puts more of a burden on the developer.

He said that the Commission is satisfied to get these suggested standards on the books

-- and work out the details later.

Mr. John Harris called attention to the fact that a recent UMass study shows that adversenoise impacts go farther than it appears. Mr. Harris than asked who adjudicates such

complaints because we may never get out of the loop if people keep posing noise

complaints.

Mr. Niedzwiecki replied that the fastest way to get renewable energy going is in a

regulated environment and he hopes that that is where this will take us. He says that

the Commission will fill in the blanks as we move along.

Roger Putnam, the Member from Wellfleet and a man of some experience with

industrial wind turbines since his own Board of Selectmen initially voted unanimously in

favor of installing them, and then, after doing their homework, voted unanimously to

abandon them gamely stated that he doesnt believe [the Commission Members] have

enough information to make an intelligent decision.

Mr. Niedzwiecki replied that these standards will help towns [move forward with these

projects] and he sees that as the most useful thing with these standards.

Richard Elrick -- an energy coordinator from Bourne who is working with New

Generation Wind to install SEVEN 500-foot wind turbines there -- said that regardingnoise, its getting more and more challenging to site wind turbines. He said to have a

3000 foot setback would mean that we wouldnt be able to site wind turbines on the

Cape. He said every turbine is different and every location is different.He said that

being more specific about noise would make it easier for developers He said thelanguage for Shadow Flicker is limited and he would recommend adding significant to

no adverse shadow flicker. He said it would give it more clarity. He said we are not

going to get renewable energy projects if we make it harder for developers to get there.

Liz Argo, a renewable energy consultant allied with CVEC, the co-founder of the

unabashedly pro-wind energy Cape and Islands Wind Energy Network, said she would

be happy to help with the development of the Technical Bulletin. The Chair asked Ms.

Argo if she had attended Planning Committee meetings and she said, yes, she had.

Mr. Niedzwiecki referred to Mr. Elricks comment regarding adverse impacts and said

he would suggest that the language say no adverse impacts or no significant impacts.He said the Commission does not support a 3000 foot setback and that the Commission

decided to remove it. He said this does put more of a burden on the developer.


5/7

Ms. Christenberry referred to the new setback provision of 1.5x tip height and said thatis an industry standard.

Chair Roy Richardson asked if there was any reason to believe that they shouldnt feel

comfortable with the decision made by the Planning Committee. No such doubts were

voiced by CCC management.

Ms. Christenberry said that having these standards would help bring transparency to the

process.

There being no any issues of significant concern worthy of further discussion, in theopinion of senior management, a motion to adopt the changes proposed by them was

moved, seconded and passed.

Can there be any doubt from reading the transcript of this meeting that the overriding motivation

for reducing the setback provision as was repeatedly and explicitly stated by numerous parties-- that this provision was getting in the way of development that it waspreventingthe

installation of the massive towers, and thwarting the ambitions of the developers, for the simple

reason that it is impossible to find any sites that do not have residences located within such aperimeter?

The management and the planners of the Commission, the developers, their representatives and

the vested interests, all expressed the need to water down or remove the restrictions to

development that made them skittish or we wouldnt be able to site wind turbines on theCape.

Did ONE person on the Commission mention the possibility that such development might not be

consistent with the preservationist principles of the Cape Cod Commission, or in the best

interests of the Cape as a region a place that has thrived by zealously guarding its uniquecharacter against such onslaughts?

Did ONE person mention any concern for the health and well-being of Cape Cods residents?

(And, to be clear, citing noise complaints another niggling impediment to development

doesnt count as it is not even remotely the same thing).

Did ONE person ask for any of the proponents to EXPLAIN what societal benefit would accrue

to the residents of the Cape since the sacrifices are so painfully obvious? After all, it is hard to

ignore a vast array of 500 foot wind turbines or the chronic noise that they emit. What is that

benefit? Could someone please articulate it?

Have ANY of the developers -- or the management of the Cape Cod Commission -- ever

calculated, quantified or publicly provided the amount of green house gas emissions that will

allegedly be reduced by allowingthe intrusion of these monstrous structures in town, after town,

after town? The developers, and other vested interests, have participated in shaping the model

wind turbine bylaws in 2004 and have haunted the Commission like harpies, goading themrelentlessly into adopting more and more lenient, prescriptive provisions for the construction of

their developments but have they ever had to actually MAKE THEIR CASE as to the benefitsof their program?

Do ALL of the Members and the management of the Cape Cod Commission really believethat there will be NO significant consequences from erecting one enormous structure after

another or one cluster after another of 500 foot kinetic towers? Do they really believe this

even after citizens in Falmouth have experienced such agony and suffering?


6/7

Has ANY member of the CCC management ever acknowledged ever that the enormous scale

of these structures is even an issue? Or that caution ought to be exercised in performing a closestudy of potential hazards from such a dramatic, wholesale industrialization up and down the

Cape?

Have ANY of the Members experienced even a MOMENT OF DOUBT as to whether this

whole program which has been so uncritically embraced as an end unto itself is truly in the

best interests of the region, the individual towns and the residents of the Cape?

Did ONE person other than Mr. Putnam from Wellfleet dare to suggest that the Membersmight not want to give the Commission and the developers it so ardently supports a BLANK

CHECK to regulate or fail to regulate such development particularly in view of their gross

incompetence on this issue to date?

Has it occurred to any of the Members or to any member of the Commission management that the critics of these plans are the ones who are actually FREE from conflict of interest; who

have studied these issues closely; who, who have documented these concerns to the Cape Cod

Commission only to be summarily rebuffed; and who, in fact, are struggling to ensure that thelong-term best interests of both the region, and their fellow citizens, are preserved.

Where is the evidence of the balance, Ms. Christenberry, to which the Cape Cod Commission

particularly under its current leadership so often pays lip service but so rarely seeks to do

anything to preserve?

Has the Cape Cod Commission become so corrupted by the mania for wind power that theExecutive Director, and the Planners, accompanied on the floor of a Commission meeting by a

bevy of developers and consultants, no longer feels any shame in declaring quite matter-of-factly

that the Commission needs to eliminate and/or weaken the modest handful of restrictions toindustrial wind energy which already amounted to no more than a fig leaf of protection

because if they dont, no projects will get built.

Who are the real constituents of the Cape Cod Commission and the member towns? Arent

your constituents really the people who have joined those communities, who have purchasedhomes there, or who visit habitually, year after year, because they had faith that this community

shared their interest in protecting and preserving the unique character and special charm of

this fragile, but resilient, and hauntingly beautiful, region?

Why are you so willing to abuse them, and all that they love about the Cape, to serve theinterests of a handful of rich developers, or unabashedly opportunistic towns, who seek nothing

more than to profit from the temporary gusher of state and federal subsidies driving the wind

energy mania.

Those towers are huge and they will be permanent. And they will profoundly alter life as you

know it on Cape Cod. They will disproportionately benefit a small handful of investors, and they

will create agony for thousands of innocents who did nothing to deserve such treatment and

who had every right to expect that the Cape Cod Commission the protector of the Cape --would never allow such an outrage. What justification do you have for sacrificing these

sacrificial lambs on the alter of industrial wind energy? What will you say when you attempt to

explain why you allowed it?

Why are these points lost on you? Why do you not understand that your urgent priority ofinstalling industrial wind plants on Cape Cod can never be accomplished without incalculable


7/7

sacrifice? And that the return on our collective investment both in terms of the amount of

energy produced and the reduction (if any) in green house gas emissions is truly pitiful.

The Cape Cod Commission has become so corrupted in its thinking that it now serves an entirely

different master than the one that was prescribed for it when it was invented. It no longer serves

the regions interest, or the peoples interest, by advocating development that is sensitive to the

local environment and which keeps the soul of the place its most precious asset intact.Instead, the Cape Cod Commission today is the unapologetic servant of a political agenda and

the chief enabler for a handful of opportunistic developers who are insensitive to the true needsof the community and who seek to profit from the lavish subsidies that keep this misguidedindustrial plan from collapsing under its own weight at least for the time being.

That will be someone elses problem, too the problem of who actually comes back to pick up

the pieces when this bubble bursts. I imagine that this is another issue to be worked out in some

future Technical Bulletin, not to worry. The important thing for now is to make sure that they allget built. There is plenty of time to worry about the rest later.

Sincerely,

Eric Bibler

President

Save Our Seashore

Wellfleet, MA

Cc: Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki

Cc: CCC Planners

Cc: All Members of the Assembly of Delegates

Cc; Members of All Boards and Committees in Bourne

eric bibler_minimum performance standards for wind energy conversion facilities_cape cod commission

Documents