- ·Wind Projects - Who Really Pays? , • -in response to North Country for a Brighter Future/Avangrid:

• Is the North Ridge Project ONLY a Hopkinton issue? • Parishville is also part of this proposal. . • All surrounding towns would be negatively impacted by traffic disruption and damage to roads, bndges, and culverts during construction. . • Neighbors for miles around would be subjected to noise, vibration, blasting, and drilling, also known to negatively impact well water. . • Health problems such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, ringing in the ears, and irre~lar heartbeats. expenenced by 30% of the population could last the lifetime of the project - up to 50 years. Who will pay for these mcreased health costs?

• Should a $44.1 billion dollar corporation receive a 70% tax break from our towns, schoo~ or county, in addition to the sizeable subsidies they receive through our utility bills as well as state and federal income taxes? • Under Avangrid's request for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), they would only pay approximately 30% of full taxation for 30 years. • NYS ONLY-allows PILOTs for 15 years. Then what? How much will they be "willing to pay" once the PILOT sunsets? • The recommended fonnula for assessing industrial wind projects is 1.6 million dollars per megawatt, or $160 million dollars for a 100 MW facility. Much more revenue would be realized through full taxation then through a PILOT.

• Increase the quality of education for our children? • The proposed project will not increase the quality of education for our children. PILOT money is not "extra" money; it simply replaces other revenue streams such as state aid. • The wind developer likes to showcase the benefits derived by Lowville Academy in the Tug Hill Project; however, they received additional funds through Empire Zone Tax Credits, which is no longer available.

• Whq actually profits? • According to county records, only 34 families could collect up to 15 million dollars while turbine placement devalues properties in the surrounding area . • "Good N eighbor" Agreements generate much less income, but surrender many of the same property rights and protections as lease and transmission agr

• Scare Tactics? A "few people?" Mainly from Parishville? • Residents from BOm towns have been providing information to help neighbors make their own informed decisions. To date, over 800 adults, more than 300 from Hopkinton, have signed petitions against a PILOT agieement and/or in favor of a Moratorium. These citizens have "opened their checkbooks" and_spend personal time to protect you, your family, your property values, and our rural communities.

• Provide how many megawatts? • Don't confuse MEGAWATI CAPACITY with PRODUCTION. Calculations from our area show that production is only 20-25% of "nameplate" capacity. • When the wind developer fails to meet minimum megawatt requirements for state subsidies and contracts, their solution is to add more turbines.

• Reduce Taxes? For Whom? • Taxpayers would not see a noticeable reduction in taxes, especially if one town negotiates a "Host Community Agreement." This amount would be subtracted from the total PILOT offer and the REMAINDER would be divided between the towns, school, and county to offset our property taxes. • If some properties are abandoned, or lose value due to turbine proximity, who will make up the loss in tax revenue?

• Create jobs? • Similar-sized projects provide 1-3 pennanent non-union positions for company-trained technicians who can live up to 50 minutes away from the project area.

• Better roads? • At present, 40% of our county bridges are deficient and 70% of our county roads have sub base deficiencies, 30% of which have major deficiencies. Will the wind developer repair/improve all the roads and bridges they travel, or just the ones located within the project area?

For more information, visit www.nnywind.com. Become informed!

PLEASE HELP PRESERVE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE ADIRONDACK FOOTHILLS AND THE WILDLIFE IT SUPPORTS, BY OPPOSING ANY EXPANSION OF IBE WIND OVERLAY ZONE SOUTH OF ROUTE 721 . Af>~/~ (:, :30 r.M , PUBLC BEARING ON A:IJG(J ~T 1--P.M. AT THE HOPKINTON TOWN HALL ON POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE WIND OVERLAY ZONE AND THE PROPOSED WIND LAW. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO AITEND BUT WISH TO COMMENT, GO TO WWW.TOWNOFHOPKINTON.COM AND CLICK ON THE "CONTACT" TAB. ' •

An Excerpt :from "Backlash Against Big Wind" • Authored by Robert Bryce Published July 14, 2016, FoxNews.com Herkimer County residents sue Iberdrola over wind farm "[Furthermore] the backlash is growing at the same ti'!'e tbat n~Iy every wind-energy company is racing to get as ~any proJects pernntted By TlfflK-•l-!!!~ EMoll tt,., autllor I Follc,w.., Twitter and launched before ,the end of this year as poSSible. They're m a hurry t on November 27. 20!2 at 6:17 PM. updated November 27, 2012 at 6:23 PM because the wind industrys lucrat:Jve subsidy, the $23 per megawatt

hour production tax credit, will be reduced by 20 percent next year and SYRACUSE, N.Y. •• More than 60 residents of rural Herkimer County have sued the owners and developers of a 37-turbine wind (by an additional 20%) iD ensuing years until it expires in 2019. Several farm there, claim ing the turbines are bigger and noisier than developers promised and that they are causing health problems and depressing property values. wind-industry executives have recently admitted that any reduction in Hardscrabble .Wind Power Project, owned by Spanish utility company Iberdrola, was built two years ago about 20 miles northeast the subsidy gravy train could resuh in little or no new wind capacity of Utica. The lawsuit names Iberdrola and several consultants that worked on t he development being built after this year. A few weeks ago, Patrick Woodson, The wind farm consists of 37 American-made Gamesa windmills, which stand 476 high at the tips of their blades. According to the Chairman of E.On North America, a subsidiary of Ger111an energy lawsuit, noise from the machines has been m easured at times above 72 decibels, higher than allowed by local law.

company E.On, told Recharge News that, "It's going to be enormously Syracuse lawyers Jeff DeFrancisco and Melody Scalfone represent the plaintiffs In the lawsuit, which was filed in state Supreme challenging to . build projects beyond this (six month) window." Court in Albany County. (According to Good Jobs First, E.On has collected some $785 million in Iberdrola-- - - Ren-bles---, the parent company of which owns two utility companies in Upstate New York, is one of the world's state and federal subsidies.)" largest providers of wind power.

Contact Tim Knauss at ~~~a,mor 315-470-3023. "Spain-based Iberdrola, which has a seat on the Board of the America ' Wind Energy Association, has received some~ billion in state and ti!rdsc~--YYln,tlaws_lil ------·------·------

federal subsidies." ~ ~ h: /{ /o() 'I/~/ 7 Rei;strallononoruse d.thls slteccnstltlltese<:<:ep1a"""GlourUNr~end Ptt aoy~ -. C 2017 Advance Media New Ycrl. Al ..,,ts reserved C-1111). ~wn ~ T?IIU'.J The materiel on this site may not be reproenwse used.e,o:ept with tne prim •llkn pemisslon of Adwnce Media New Yorlc.

Cuom: ufl//lty ....appy toal a,n~tyou uplaadorolhel'Wise subml to tllisslte. FOR ANOTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION, PLEASE READ ARTICLE .. Adet:o1,. ENTITLED, WIND POWER IN THE UNITED STATES.• (https://en.wikipedia.orgfw/index.php?title= Wind_power_in_the_ United._States&oldid=740107116. Categories: Wind power in the United St.ates

' - . .. -·- - -- -·------_ ,

AND, THAT'S NOT ALL AND, THAT'S NOT ALL see see TOPIC TWO TOPIC THREE nvl1,Wind.com for an explanation of for an explanation of how you fund federal "partner" contracts and how big wind works production tax credit. the c urrent projects in our area using this model for their Income.

2 billion

NEW YORK STATE OF OPPORTUNITY

NYSERDA NYSERDA

, You are then mandated (forced) to pay "premiums" for the green energy Your wages, fund NY State agencies NY State agency pays for green paid as taxes ... electricity and calls those contracts with a line item (SBC) · (that award long term "partner'' charge on your electric bill ... contracts to industrial wind and megawatts RPS "attributes". green energy companies for They are then converted to REC (money goes ba~k to the NY Stat~ producing electricity.) Without "certificates" that your utility agency to fund wind company proiects. a partner, industrial wind is not company is mandated (forced) to Essentially you are paying the land profitable and project will not buy and pass the cost on to you ... owners' leases, PILOT, etc., as well as be built.* all the administration costs associated with this funding and, Industrial Wind is encouraged to take credit tor stimulating the NY State economy.) sources: 'Avangrld September 2016 - March 2017: ..NYSEADA annuat reports 2005 - 2016. we encourage you to further research.these topics _to better educate yourself, you,- friends and family. Visit our weosite and use the source ,inks to view video, documents and explore other websites for more ,nformatl04"\.

·--

Distribution of Potential LBW Sites

Figure A.4 depicts the 370 ~·...... 11,,..,..,,_. ~~ ~-·""'·---~~ New York LBW sites included • ·--:,,_,:lfd'M, ~-,-.;~. . in the supply curve. As noted • »200trffr • ri...... above, this is the result of ~ ...... probabilistic geospatial -~~--,--­ analysis and should not be interpreted as defining actual project sites. - . ')

r ' • •

AND, THAT'S NOT ALL

seeTOPIC ONE for an explanation of niYVlind.com how you fund NY State's how big wind works purchase of Industrial • wind el~ from you­ ' electric bill.

Your wages, are given to lndustr1,1 Wind in the fonn You pay again when you purchase electricity paid as taxes ... of a Federal Production Tu Credit. for your home at the retail price. (amount starts at 2.2¢ per kllowatt (average Ho~nton rate is about 3.1 ¢ per kilowatt)** produceg, typically t~is is 20% of the As well as the green energy "premium• (SBC) revenue for a project)" line Item chirge on your electric bill. -

sources: •Avangrid September 2016 • March 2017; ..National Grid SC 1 annual average 2016; ...NYSEROA annual reports 2005 •· 2016. We encou-age you to further research these topics to better educate your..eff, your friends and family. Visit our website and use the source links to w,,, video, documents and explore other websites for more information.

--·· ·-·------·----~---·· -··-··-'--- , _____;;;; ____ _

> :· Since' Industrial Wind needs someone to buy their ' They consider planning projects based electitclty, they do consider several marketing on wiMing a contract to ~~ with options, some are: taq,iayer bided NY State for clean Industrial Wind aa•ncy ~ at _spot price nto ~olesale market {NYISO), but this companies energy funding. . is not teliably profitable SlllCe the price fk.lctuates and wind •prupict" for (If the "prospected" towns' current laws do may not be spinning at most profitable times to sell. wind projects not support a large enough project, the wind • in our1mall company will request change$ to the local partner with a local manufacturer to take and use the communities. laws to accommodate their prqject). Without electriGity, but wind does not always blow and provide a partner the project will not be built.* electricity when the business may need It. \ I / • ,~ partner with NY State agency by beng awarded an RPS .~ 3 contract. NY State agency buys up to 95% of green ' electrieity and calls those megawatts RPS ·attributes·. · They are then converted 2 l:!llllon to REC "certificates· that your -+¥1"' = ; NEW YORK utmty company is ma,dated - __.., (forced) to buy and pass the 1 NEWYORK ~ cost on to you. You are then ffA11!0F ' mandated (forced) to pay --"I. OPPORT\INfTY lo NYSERDA "premiums• for the green NYSERDA energ;1 cootracts with a Irie Item (SBC) . charge on your electric bill. At the tame time, cltlzena ak local Money goes back to the NY State agency tb fund wind llw1n.ken for health, safety .-cl property co~ projects. Essentially you are paying the land value prottctlons for their famlllel In thole owners' leases, PILOT. etc,. as well as al the acinnstratk)n costs associated with this f\J'l<:Jing ... W'ld, Industrial Wind 111111 lawl. (continually presenting factual is encQUraged to take credt for contributng to the NY evidence from existing projects as State economy.** justification for their concerns) partial 11st of • Chateaugay Windpark, Franklih proJectl with NY 8tatt • Jericho Rise, Franklin Main ner contnota: • Blenburg Wh:lpark, Cllnton • Clnton W1ndpar1<, Clnton • Altona Wlndpark, Clnton how big wind works • Marble River Wildfwm, Clinton • Hardscrabble, Herkimer (Iberdrola projecij soorc•: 'Avanartd September 2016. M110112017: "NYSEROA annual reports 2006 • 2016, We sr,courage you to turti. r8M8roh these t~c• to better • Maple Ridge, Lewis Oberdrota project) educate youraell, your lrltndl end family, V1tlt our webllte 1111d use the IIOUfC8 t1nks to view video, dooumenfs e(ld explore other websttes 10< more lnl0

Just days after the Times published a story on commercial wind finances, Apex Clean Energy appeared before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency board to present its case for a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement.

Neil Habig, who provided information for Sunday's story, told the IDA board that the 600-foot­ tall towers would produce I 08.9 megawatts with 30, 3.6 megawatt turbine turbines instead of 32, and will utilize an underwater transmission cable from Galloo Island to a National Grid substation in Oswego.

Apex's project is expected to create three to five permanent positions and 100 to 150 construction jobs, Mr. Habig told the IDA.

He also said that he has been told by Fort Drum that the project will create no problems for the post.

But an interview with post spokeswoman Julie Halpin indicated otherwise, as she noted the project "would have an impact on radar as it increases the clutter on the scope."

She also expressed concerns that wind turbines in the area could negatively affect instrument approaches for aircraft and negatively impact its air traffic control services.

The issue of wind tower interference with radar will be dealt with extensively in the Development Authority of the North Country's Fort Drum land use report. Early indications are the report will sound a loud alarm bell about proposed and future commercial wind developments in a large swath of the north country.

But that is an issue that will be the purview of the Article 10 siting board and is already the subject of federal legislation that would ban commercial wind facilities within a certain distance of any military airfield, such as Wheeler-Sack at Fort Drum.

What is before the IDA is a request by Apex to receive significant tax abatement from Sackets Harbor Central School District, the town of Hounsfield and Jefferson County. District and town spokesmen have already glowingly endorsed the project that they see as Daddy Warbucks, pouring money into °:lunicipal coffers while demanding no services.

The Jefferson County Legislature, however, takes a longer and saner view. Legislators have decided that any PILOT, to get their approval, is predic?ted on the developer paying full land taxes - based on a professional appraisal, not the scratch-pad doodlings of the IDA. The school district and town would do well to have a longer consideration of the issue and realize that the way to really boost their tax revenues is to demand the same as the county. At full taxation, the town and school district would likely increase their revenues from the wind farm by a fac~t-.of.three, based on theJ~t.propq~.PILOT for.,GaUoo·that the county Office of Real Pl'()perty.':d;('~rmined would cut the developer's taxes by-70 percent at minimum.

Every existing wind farm in the state is operating under a PILOT agreement As we pointed out last week, these local tax deals are added on top of state and federal subsidies that can total, in production.credits alone, 4.7 cents per:kilowatt hour- 38 percent higher than the state's 2016 average· wholesale price of 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour.

The question must be asked: With federal and state subsidies providing such a large benefit to wind power,. why should local municipalities provide another significantbr~?

This-regj.on:teally gains nothing from a wind facility unless it receives full.taxation. Mr. Habig said.the project would provide as many as five full-time jobs after the construction is done. If the developer ends up ·paying PILOTs at the 30 percent level and those payments total $750,000 per year, actual tax loss is $1.75 million annually.

Developers don't want localities examining those numbers. They often imply that $750,000 is better than nothing, which is what would happen if the project walked away. If wind power ~ot survive on two generous levels of taxpayer support, ifit requires.that local taxpayers also put money in the developers' pockets, then it is badly failing the free market test and should not be subsidized at all. ·

Donald Alexander, chief executive officer of the Industrial Development Agency, has long tou~-the economic benefits to the area of a wind facility. This emperor has no clothes.

With only five full-time jobs, over 20 years of the example noted above, the cost of each job would be $7 million. We can'.t ex1rapolate that to Galloo, of course, because i;io numbers have yet been provided for full asses~ent and the proposed PILOTrate.

But before this is over, we will have them. The county Legislature is hiring an appraiser who is an expert in-power generation facility valuations, and he will come up with a true-value rate. The county will use that as a.basis for its r~uired tax payment.

And as for Mr. Alexander, he should consider this: The,only economic benefit to the region from a wind farm is the value of heavily devalued tax payments, which no taxing entity is compelled to .accept .. So .in reality, there :is no:· economic·,advantage at all. ·

Perry W.,,ite is managing editor ofthe Watertown DaUy Times. Reach· him at [email protected] County: No PILOTs for big wind projects

• By MATTHEW REITZ [email protected]

Aug 12, 2017

PULASKI - The Oswego County Legislature adopted a policy Thursday denying property tax breaks for large wind energy projects.

Under the policy, the county Legislature requires any payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement for.wind energy production projects with a rated capa~ity of.25 Megawatts or more to be equal to the property ta)( payments~the county would have received in the absence of exemptions. .

Legislators enacted the policy in response to the proposed Mad River Wind Farm, which if realized would construct up to 125 wind turbines in .the Osweg9 County town of Redfield and the town of Worth in.Jefferson.County. According, to project developer Avangrid Renewables, the project area encompasses nearly 30 square miles in the towns of Redfield and Worth along the border of Lewis County. . . ;-_ Legislator Shawn Doyle, .R-Pulaski, said the policy mirrors one adopted by Jefferson County and would put Oswego County on the ,.same footing" during negotiations with · Avangrid.

One major difference, Doyle explained, was that Jefferson Cou·nty isn't home.to any nuclear power plants and the Oswego County policy includes language to reflect that difference.

The policy is focused specifically on large wind projects, which. Doyle said "already--a~~ given large subsidies through the federal and state government."

"It's just taking a line, setting a policy.in line with Jefferson County saying 'we're not going to give any tax breaks for this,' because you're coming to us with many tax breaks," Doyle said.

The reason the county typically negotiates PILOT agreements. with ·large companies is because they bring jobs to the area, Doyle said. He: said large wind projects "offer quick construction jobs, n but don't create a._ significant number ofpermanent jobs. ~- ·

Avangrid - a part of Spain-based utility company Iberdrola Group -. ~ys the project would employ 350· temporary construction workers and create about 20 permanent full- time jobs. · Doyle said he's not against wind power, but in the case of the Mad River Wind Farm "industrial wind is going.to supplant a beautiful:environmental asser in the north Redfield woods. ·

"These (wind towers) that they're proposing to build in the town of Redfield are going to be the largest, the tallest this side of the Mississippi River," Doyle said, adding that the project would disturb one of the county's "most rural, beaut~I" ~reas-in northern Redfield.

Legislator Tom Drumm, D-Oswego, said there was "bipartisan support" specifically against the Mad River Wind Farm,. but expressed concern that the county "was setting a tone" on·wind &nergy: · · · ·

"This seems to put us as an anti-wind county," he said. I • ~ Drumm said the· policy seemed "rushed"· and lamented the fact that some legislators didn't see the policy until·minutes beforeTharsdats meeting. Drumm urged legislators to send the policy back to committee, a motion that ultimately failed after receiving no support from R~publican le~islators. Minority Leader Frank Castiglia, D-Fulton, said Democratic legislators weren't necessarily against-the policy, but were opposed to making a quick decision on the matter~ ·

"What we are against is the fact these ite~s were brought to us 20 minutes before the meeting arid-we're supp·osed:to make a:decision on it,"·Castiglia s·aid. "Let's look at it'a little 'bit deep8r: ·That's :a11~we're asking:"

Castiglia said Doyle "brought a wonderful case," but argued it should have been brought in committee. ' · ·· · · ··

Doyle apologized for the procedure, conceding the policy was somewhat rushed afte·r a canceled committee meeting last week. But he said the policy should be pushed through quickly because· legislators ·need "to! be· on the· same· page witli·our' peers Jefferson County." ·

"This puts·us in thEfdriver's seat together," Doyle said~ "We have to have a policy in place in case··they file their paperwork and we· have to respond." Avangrid states the wind farm would provide about $60 million in tax payments to local municipalities and sct10·01 district$ over 30 years; bµt·company representatives could not be reached Friday and.it's unclear if-that figure-anticipated PILOT agreements and property tax reductions from 1ocal taxing jurisdictions~

The County of Oswego Industrial· Development Agency (IDA) typically negotiates PILOT agreements with companies With some involvement from affected municipalities and taxing jurisdictions, Legislature Chairman Kevin Gardner, R-New Haven, said. Gardner said the IDA has the authority to grant PILOT agreements without approval from the county Legislature, and the policy adopted Thursday is a step toward giving legislators more control over PILOT agreements.

"It's a very large project and we want to make sure we have a voice in the PILOT," Gardner said.

County Administrator Phil Church said the county "would be looking for the IDA to follow suit on the county policy," and noted the IDA board is appointed by the county Legislature.

Church said the policy could potentially be overridden in the future if legislators decide to change course, and added that even if the policy were adopted into law it could still be overridden with additional hurdles.

Avangrid plans to host a series of public information sessions on the Mad River Wind Farm next month, including at the Redfield Fire Hall, located at 4879 county Route 17, Sept. 21 from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m.

Site: http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/news/county-no-pilots-for-big-wind­ projects/artic1e_ 9e687854-7ee7-11 e7-915a-Obd79248794d.html Under tax cap, PILOTs pose new financial perils

On Bo ard Online • September 22, 2014

By Paul Hei~er Senior Research Analyst

Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs)'. hav~ often been.a : -:. . . . ~ · ... :. :-. :. source of confusion and . . . .\ .. ·: · \ ..: . .. -·~ :; .. ..: . ' .... -· .

O 0 consternation-for school tibaras. ,,.,• ' • lo '• • 0 , . ': .. ~.;:_,.: . : . ·,. .'• ,; .::.~.~: . :- -.,.,. -·· ...'" ::\ ~.' ,: : New York's~prbperfy tax cap is adding fo that arigs.f in some. :::· .. :-.·,·:·4 communities. ' . . ·- ·~ ~-- PILOTs are one of.the main tools local 1hdustrial Development Agen·cies (IDA~) use to en~urage businesses to . ,.'._,_. . . locate in their jurisdictions: '. .- Under such .a,:i agreement, a I .... ·.. .. . :·· ~ ...... '; .·· company makes some fixed l . I . . : yearly contribution to a I municipality or school system rather th.an, pay properfy taxes. The.amou~t paid is typicaliy lowe~than wha't the company would'have paia if it was taxed ..... normally. ·

School officials and other local gov~m.m_eriial_offici~ls ryave, n·o ! · ~ Ol~~-~ ,.~ 2~~· role ih n'egptiating ftie terrns of . ~ . . . : PILOTs, which .can lead to : .. . · . . · disputes and'even la~ suits ar;nong' govemme~ta~t:>0~!~~~,~~V:~ioJ?ers and".l(?.~s. ;

. t- . :, .• :•, .... ··r". ·' 'We are hearing a new level of concern about the effects of PILOTs on scfio0I districts because of. the fi(1E:,..PTil')t 01the .s1ate:s_tax ~cap .l«=!Y1Jt:~aid.Oay,ip:A:-~e. ~~~~~8A's director .of_govemmental relatigns. "lt's·so111~thiiig·we.are. calling to·th~ attention 9~ legislators:" ·

Under'the state:s·ta~-~ap forrt;!~l~, ~!ll>T_p~ymEr.r:1'~.r"~ ~t _b£ s~bt~pted.fro,n}a qi~/t!.cfs tax cap calculation. If PILOT payments increase, the amount of property taxe~ a school district is allo\'.Ved to raise wittiout ex~ingJts t~~.cap ~ill d~cline, all-~therthiogs . being equal. This could' lead to a district needing fo obtain a 60 percent ma)orify voter override to maintain - or even decreasel ..dts,tax-levy;.

"Because these agreements often provide 'front-loaded' tax abatement benefits - that is, th~y have lower.p$ymenu.; initially .but increas~_over. tiQ:IJtl ~ ~y _can. ~r~te ~-~~ -·­ difficulties for school districts," said Dan Petigrow; an attorney vJifi the Thomas, o·rohan. Waxman,. Petigrow & Mayle law firm in Westchester County. Th~ experiet,1~ ~-the .. Ballston Spa· and New Paltz school districts provide examples o( ~e P,erila ~fPI.LOTs. . ',. . . In 2012-13 the Ballston Spa district in Saratoga County received si.1 miOion·_under existing PILOT agreements it had with several local business~. Jl~;~ ..l" .. :tne~ltP.a9rrients had ~ be , . · ~~ed .from the district's~ cap calculation, crsatf~:;a ~4!-1~~-~~- ~~~~by Ballston· . ·,, . · a tax levy ~p of negative 2.9 percent. ~'1~-~t~@r W,Qt~s, ·~·&.! -~~ttv.iCt . actual, · ·. uired to cut .its·-tax-levy by that"percentage~~t6~-Y'viJtitfo.~ ca.;rnae . distri: .'I) proposing a budget that called for a tax cot_-~~~9~~~pe~~~tJllerefQr~ •. ~U(t* ,. · n ~P~ was actually reducing its _tax levy, the districrwas sun· requited to . o~JlfJJ. .permaJomy vottr approval to pass its budget. --~~~~.t;-. . ., rffe:~New~Pa.l2. ·school district adopted a resolution last December di!~lar.irig its; .· · opflOSition~).ny PILOT agreements that result in a reductio~;-of.real.RiqP.ertv;tax~s . .. , . - .....

"Our board of-edtacatip>·'-~ r. ... ;.·\a very strong position on·tfii~JiYflt a~--V'~ ate, potentially-dealing w·. --~ . . , tate impact by a local ps:,ol:fQ$..lt(oJe~ b•i~g . granted a PILOT by our~: . . ~~d"Brian Cournoyer, ~,P.res&tlit'. ~"th,e· New Paltz ·school board. . '.·~-~.~;;,...... • • ~ .,, • 4 • • ' ..... • .,. • 2 .. "' A different but related issue·arose1in:~ril when Wilmorite, 't~~~r:~a~. . .. development ~mp~ny, re~ived appr~y.al. f~m ~e. ~lster_Cbllt}o/,:l_~f· Ol:·~ ~p~licatio.,:t for a·Pti:-OT. Wilmorite proposed to bulld a ~Q~m1ll1_~-~res1d,~.1~,rc~ffi s~ents and staff afSUNY New. Paltz. The PILOT would. ~ave meant th~:~mP.~!)Y.. wou~ .P,Y. abo,ut $500,0'&0- annually for 25 years, compared with a current full· property tax assessment of $1.5 million.

The New Paltz school board voiced its opposition to the Ul~ter' ~QM".W.. .-1DA,. ~hi~h Ji&,$ full autherity:to· a~pt:or.reje,et .applications for Pl LOTs. Th~' sch90.llt1.ar~f,:9i~j~ons · included concerns about the potential for the project to increase its ~~12'lituct,nt population ~Qut.. Jn,¥- C9.~B~ndiqg_ t,c~nition of the Jr.ac;rea~ech~1~ tbat\v.p.ul~ entail. The·•cap7levld~;nt>t:.al.ilffimr iltcreased rev~nues ·if'ii"Plt:OT:ieads to inc~ea~ sch~I district ~rarollm~nt . . . •• ,.,. : ..... "'.. • ...... , ... ,. • ·: .,1~·~ -.-·~ .;•!'",."': '., 1.··: Althou:·,.b~-tiw~P~itz f6Wl(~J21rinni~g~tftun~nrmcsusiv.iei~ Watmoffle's . · ·. . propos\1-~11'pa'lfd:~p~rty·taices',iil'f'd11.'ffie-'~•left·eoUmoyer disni~ytd'. "T"~J11put~iVen to·th,~ .IQA1 ~Y. tb'- schp9! Qoa;~d di~"l-~ ,o~~~w•unade. much impact in··t~~:~~isi~g( he:~,:~:ft:~,~~ 'liktflf ~~~~~ -~y~~I r~~(lor-cqnsider· ~~n . During n8.9f?tiati<>~ir1asfipnijgt~tt~:Pii~ r(?Wri·'S~pervisor S't1~iJh,Zimersaid a plan on · • O,I _t f • '"' t -~ • ~ • • : f "': • -..':' • • • \ ' • ., 1.. ...~ the table would have addressed ·the town's-financial concerns but would "slit the throat of the school district. n .

In a,,rfore F.eeen(development, the:'Town··eoard filed a lawsuit against the developer.that , -~~,a involves other parties i,:t~~ding the.. sq~ool·district. -~ ;:-.Soll!flons . :,--" ·· · ·.. \ .. . Ca,raoin ·Associates,"a:SaratogarSpring~b~~ econQml~ ..~ev~(gp,r.tent firm, "81ieves tha(~PltOT agreement$ ·tri&t'lciwer the]oblHltnOOAt .Qf .r.evenue.:itlat-imunicipefities and school :disttlcts:.caft .'raise/from:their 10C&Etax, base cons~:a. •serious threat to ecoriomte-deveiopmenfi;n ... New: Y.ork State. . .

. "PllOT~·arc:rbne'·oftneffew effeetive tools-~that' communitiesJn ·:N&WfYOrk stafe~::tiave to prort,¢e -~oonorriic;developmen(" said:MichaefNldolo,··vice:p~ident of Camo'in Associates. ·

"In ~.' ~h~ ~yJh~.J~1sla~on is curr.ent~:f~O!l~Jated, ~aol·~~~tricts and munic.ip•lmes .ar.e. fli'late'rially adversely:affected:~by··Pll;E>T ~rraqg~ments. As such, it is natural :.to~ssume·-that:school?districts· and:·muni~ipalities may withhold their (required) support for PILOT_ agreements/' ·· ~ ·· · · ··

In order for P.IL.O'ts .. and~_tbe tax .cap to co-exist ~thou~ int,ttbi~ng ~~nomic growth or having a. negative.fmpaetron school district-rev.etiti~/CJffiQ{r;i"Offet$~the following solutio~: ~~~~~-.t~~~P~J?!!rlY.: ~ cap l~~i~~~#.l~~tt'~i~~it,~(~~~f any property that becoo,~·t~/~~e'1;1pt.tJuo;to'.a1FMLOTvbe.:1~elud~n~the·m~>Miase..g~ 1 factor calc.ul~tion: asilf1it·.. w,r~;taxable~~propeity;~vf.le:.~~~a~~:grdtlttr;~Qta.r?fs a part of the tax ~ cap fo1T_11ula ·-that-~q~·~ew;:consi~~~-:·ti~~~--atile;.sfitus~bf existing property, or m~~~ra~J.~::~~,i11prq~e""'~~qc(taxabtejirol)eijy. witfjin,.1th•··boundames of a local gove~t!itnt..or-::school ctistrict •..., . ' ' '

Petig~ says·1here are otfl~ ~lngs sch~I .bo_alduar.1.do:lhemsehies. When an IDA is con!l~d.~ring_ .,. d~~~ti9n.,-.. ~1.CQ;t~agreemeritton;.a.proposed}.PtrQj~~:cor::one in which the IDA inveloards·;~tao~,tv~J befo~-su~h~agr.eelJ'lents are approved. ~chool· board~should also urge IDAs.ito~r.eq~ire.-.stuElies~that?.ei.

http:/lww.w..nyssba.otg/news/201'4/09/18/on-board-online-september-22~2014/under-tax-cap­ pilots-pose-new-finattciril:~sf Chateaugay NY Wind Report Card

or

13 things wind developers won't tell you

Jack Sullivan, MS (Nuclear Physics), Cornell University Town Councilman, Malone NY

Feb 2, 2017

21% Chateaugay's average wind energy production is 21 %, meaning the project capacity rating (sticker-plate rating) of 106.5 MW will be only 21.3 MW of average annual production.

Often zero production Chateaugayts erratic winds often cause electric production to cease. The annual average for zero output is 1200 hours, which is the equivalent of fifty, 24-hour days. Obviously wind cannot supply dependable electric output.

Low capacity factor Detailed scientific studies show that a wind project must have a capacity factor (efficiency) of 35% before it can make a net reduction of carbon emissions. Since no NYS wind project comes close to this, the Chateaugay turbines will not even erase their own carbon footprint.

Wind turbines come nowhere near paying for themselves Chateaugay's multi-year average production is nearly 200,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), with an average sale price of $30/MWh, with an annual gross of $6 million. Thus, during the expected 20-year life of the turbines, we ar.e looking at a total gross of $120 million. The cost of construction for the project was $213 million. The cost of labor, maintenance, and PILOT programs need to be deducted from this $120 million.

Property devaluation of 20% to 40% Studies from Australia to Cape Vincent NY show that industrial wind projects devalue nearby property 20% to 60%, depending on distance from the turbines and number of turbines in the viewshed. . .-

Sullivan, Chateaugay NY wind power report card Feb 2, 2017 Page 2of 3

20 square miles are removed from home construction Chateaugay has a ¼ mile (1320 ft.) residential setback, meaning that no wind turbine can be built closer than 1320 ft. from a residence. Conversely, a home cannot be built within 1320' of a turbine. Thus, every turbine in Chateaugay excludes 125 acres from home-building. With over 100 turbines in the township, this means that nearly 20 square miles are excluded from residential construction.

PILOT payments are absurdly low While Noble Chateaugay has paid $832,000 in PILOT payments to the town, county, and Chateaugay Central School district, they took in $3.88 million from ratepayers and another $4.07 million in federal tax credits.

Wind leases are remarkably harsh Wind salesmen, often accompanied by a company lawyer, signed multipage, complex leases with landowners who had no legal counsel. This resulted in lessors with gag orders and some giving up their right' to sue the wind developers under any circumstances.

Wind Turbine Syndrome is real Wind turbines near homes can cause a chronic illness called Wind Turbine Syndrome · (WTS), characterized by nausea, vertigo, severe headaches and earaches, a sense of one's "guts vibrating," and sleep deprivation. WTS is sometimes bad enough that sufferers have to leave their homes in order to get relief. Presently there is at least one victim in Chateaugay.

Bird & bat deaths are high Wind projects kill numerous bats and birds. Bats are killed at a distance, without contact with turbine blades, due to differences in air pressure caused by the spinning turbine blades. It's called "baro'."trauma." Birds· are commonly killed, with eagles and other raptors being particularly problematic. While most people face fines up to $25,000 for killing an eagle, wind developers can kill eagles with Impunity as a result of a special federal permit which is set to continue for another 30 years.

Audubon alarmed by habitat fragmentation Audubon officials touring the Chateaugay wind project were dismayed at the amount of habitat fragmentation caused by the installation of the turbines. Su!Jivan, Chateaugay NY wind power report card Feb 2, 2017 Page 3 of 3 t

You are paying for these turbines in your monthly electric bill All NYS light and power bills are subject to a 5% surcharge, the majority of which becomes a subsidy for wind power.

You need to understand how decibels work Noble Chateaugay limits increased noise due to turbines to an additional ten (10) decibels. This is equivalent to doubling the noise. But even that increase does not calibrate or appreciate the increase in low frequency noise and-infrasound - the latter being the culprit causing Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Note: All figures are based on verifiable, official facts from FERC, NYSERDA and NYISO.

Conclusions:

Given the relatively low speed and highly variable wind in Chateaugay, efficient wind projects are not possible. Add to this the large number of hours (1200) -- that is, 14% of the time -- when no power is produced whatsoever. Because of their low efficiency, Chateaugay's turbines make no contribution toward reducing atmospheric carbon.

While wind power claims to be cheaper than other sources of power, if we count ratepayer & taxpayer subsidies it's nearly twice as expensive as more traditional sources of electricity.

It's time for communities hosting wind projects to realize that many of their properties will lose significant value. Chateaugay and other communities need to think twice before committing large tracts of land to being tied up, long term, to exclusive use by wind turbines.

Chateaugay should have PILOT payments 4 or 5 times the present amount (which amounts to half the public money received by the wind company) with a large escrow account to cover the resulting property devaluation, environmental destruction of rural ambience, as well as to compensate those made sick by turbine infrasound.

-- Wind developer transparency and fair dealing with local landowners is an absolute must. All landowners should have their own lawyer, definitely one NOT on the wind company payroll.

Wind Turbine Syndrome and wind project-caused property devaluation are steadfastly denied in spite of solid, widespread evidence to the contrary. .... ~. .. :. Some Locations, S urces, nd/or eports ha have (are r com·•T'11 in , or a e co sidering) 1:1: ·1e (150 ± acks from w· · urbines

1. 10,000 m {G.2 miEes) exclusion zone recommended (p 90 of this Scottish report). 2. 10,000 m called for by a prominent physician (with many references: 2011). 3. 5,000 m (3.1 miles). This French study concluded·"wind turbines must not be sited less t han 5 km from all habitation, because of infrasound risks." (2004) 4. 5,000 m - Dr. Robyn Phipps, New Zealand cond_ucted a survey and wrote a detailed report concluding "wind turbine noise may well extend more than 5 km." (2007) 5. 5,000 m - Professional engineer discusses infrasound problems (2016). 6. 4,000 m (2.S miles) 1 mile per MW: Rutland (VT) Regional Planning (2015) 7. 3,220 m (2n0 miles) to properly address infrasound. This is found in an outstanding study done by the town of Heath, Massachusetts (2013) 8. 3,220 m to a rural home - Umatilla County, Oregon (2011) 9. 3,220 m - Coconino County, Arizona (see this report page 29: 2011) 10. 3,000 m {1.8 miUes) for turbines taller than 150 m - Wiltshire, UK (2012) 11. 3,000 m Poland adopts l0x as national standard (2016) 12. 3,000 m recommencred as setback by German doctors (2016) 13. 2,600 m {:ll..6 miles) going from 2000 m: examining increasing the recommended distance between wind t urbines and the nearest town or village: Scotland (2013) 14. 2,414 m {:11..S m nDes) from property lines - Caratunk, Maine (2011) 15. 2,414 m - Moscow, Maine (2011) 16. 2,414 m - Peru Maine (see this report page 29: 2012) 17. 2,414 m recommendation of Dr. Amanda Harry (British physician) (2007) 18. 2,253 m ( ll..4 miUes.) Planning Minister: Wind turbines. should not be less than 1.4 miles from people's homes - (Lincolnshire, UK: 2012) 19. 2,100 m for 3MW turbines - recommended in Denmark (2011) 20. 2,010 m (1.25 miles) - from property lines in Woodstock, Maine (2013) 21. 2,000 m {ll..24 miles) - Poland's National Institute of Public Health (2016) 22. 2,000 m - Retexo (a wind energy consultant) advisory (2014) 23. 2,000 m - by Director of Finland's Ministry of Health (2014) 24. 2,000 m - by Dr. Hazet-1:.ynn, who has extensively studied this issue (2014) 25. 2,000 m - by Dr. Robert Thorne's study (2014) 26. 2,000 m - Bavarian law ( l 0x height) (2014) 27. 2,000 m - " Bad Science Behind Wind Noise Guidelines" study (2013) 28. 2,000 m from a home in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Monteregie, Quebec (2013)

. -· --·- . ----··-- ·-- -·------· 29. 2,000 m restr-iction: Cambridgeshire, UK (2013) 30. 2,000 m away from housing in Scotland (2013) 31. 2,000 m to habitations.& 5<;)00 m from agglomerat ions - Victor-ia, Au stralia (2011) 32. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia (2011) 33. 2,000 m advised by Noise & Health Journal study: "setback distances need to be greater than 2000 m in hilly terrain". (2011) 34. 2,000 m turbine setback bill debated by British House of Lords (2011) 35. 2,000 m setback affirmed by Scotland Government Official (2009) 36. 2,000 m for~ 2-00 m turbine (10x height) - The little Isle of Anglesey, UK (2012) 37. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Montville, Maine (2009) · 38. 1,950 m (13 times the·turbine height) - Buckfield, Maine (2010) 39. 1,900 m was the distance that this scientific study found that residents still "expressed1 annoyance." (2003) 40. 1,770 m - Fayette County, Pennsylvania (2008) 41. 1,740 m average of numerous communities found in t his excellent study (2013) 42. 1,609 m {1.0 mile) from property lines - Letcher Township, SD (2016) 43. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines - Carteret County, NC (2014) 44. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines - Sumner, Maine (2013) 45. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines - Frankfort, Maine (2011) 46. 1,609 ni from the nearest existing· residence, school, church, hospital, place of employment or public library - Madison County, Idaho (2011) 47. 1,609 m buffer recommended - Acoustical Society of America (2010) 48. 1,609 m from inhabited structures - Trempealeau County, Wisc. (2007) 49. 1;609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) - UK· Noise Association (2006) SO. 1,524 m from non-participating property lines - Town of Newport, NC (2014) 51. 1,500-2,000 m recommended by this European Human Rights study (2012) 52. 1,500 m in an environment characterized by a 35 DB ambient noise level Germany 53. 1,500 m "Weight of expert opinion is that this is the health limit" study (2015) 54. 1,500 m larger buffer zones needed in Wales (2012) 55. 1,500 m sleep expert warns of effects of_wind turbines (2012) 56. 1,500 m Acoustical Ecology Institute Report on Wind Energy Noise Impacts (2009) 57. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medicine (2006)

Thanks for the helpful information on this site. For additions and/or corrections please contact John Droz. Rev : 8/1/16 ... _ ~---··-·. ·-·· ._. - ·-·"' ..... , .u u..a U11 ,u;:, uu uu,, nornes r I N roy Mountain Create Blog Sign In •.j ------L~.~!.!·:=iJ More Next Blog» M ...- ...... -- ..--- .... ---·-...... -- --····----··-...... - ...... --..···--·-·------·...... - ...--·------,.- ---

Wednesday, J uly 30, 2008 Not 30. Nots. a!:e setbacks: f ow far should wind Average US CEO pay is turbines be from homes? I. 350x av. wage worker's Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety reiulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay Animal Agriculture 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -­ is t he leading cause unless absolutely necessary. of: Global Warming Deforestation That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently Species Loss require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it Water Depletion is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual Ocean Dead Zones intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height ofless Search This Blog than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height. -~ ·· .. _··. .._:· ~:· ·j Search I The Fuhrlander turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with Links a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). Accordin~ to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, .:where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances ienerally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors. When part of an array, turbines should be at least 1O rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other

animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are Petition: 2km (11/• ml I crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial wind l11f1>lne selback machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the Asthma and Herbs human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife). Na_ture-Guilt Poetry Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by

http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2008/07/safe-setbacks-how-far-should-wind.htmI 1/3 the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were ··~ granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Sound experts Rick James and George Kampennan recommend a minimum I km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and K.ampennan proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. Gennan consultant Retexo-RISP also has suggested that "buildings, particulary housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the wind.farm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models. i Moon ofAlabama Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U,K. Noise Association ·· - -~ recommend a minimum of one mile ( or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum and colleagues surveyed residents near wind turbines in Maine and found significantly worse sleep and mental health among those ·living 1.4 km or closer than those living farther from the machines.

Dr, Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migrajne concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles). In June 2010, Ontario's environment ministry proposed reQYirements that offshore wind turbines be at least 5 km from the shoreline.

To protect human health, these distances are simply crude ways to D Posts " minimize noise disturbance, especially-at night, when atmospheric 1 conditions often make wind turbine noise worse and carry it farther even- - ­ Archive as there is a greater expectation of (and need for) quiet. The~ Health OJianization says that the noise level inside a bedroom at night I ::;..» 2017 ( 7) should be no greater than 30 dB(A) or 50 dB(C) (the latter measure ! ~ 2016 ( 36) includes more of the low-frequency spectrum of noise, which is felt as ._ 2015 ( 53) much as, or even more than, heard). A court case in Great Britain 2014 ( 63 ) resulted in the "Den Brook" amplitude modulation conditions, which define and limit pulsating noise, which is especially intrusive, as any 2013 ( 82) change, outside the dwelling, of>3 dB in the LAeq,125ms (125- 2012 ( 136) millisecond averaged sound level) in any 2-second period at least 5 2011 ( 159) any WJtii""r.:Aeq,lmin (i-minute average.cl sound level) tmie·s·m in1iiute ~ 2010 ( 129) 228 dB and such excess occurring within at least 6 minutes in any hour. '.iP 2009 ( 140) Updates: 'f 2008 ( 109) Dec 2008 ( 8) Since 2008, Queensland, Australia, has limited night-time noise indoors ~ Nov 2008 ( 10 ) to 30 dB(A) (I-hour average), with limits of 35 dB(A) no more than °5> Oct 2008 ( 10 ) 10% of the time and 40 db(A) 1% . Respective daytime limits are 5 dB(A) above the night-time limits. They also specify that existing Sep 2008 ( 9) continuous 90% sound levels should not be increased and that variable Aug 2008 ( 9) noise averages should not increase existing sound levels more than 5 Vi Jul 2008 ( 6 ) htlp:/lkirbymtn.blogspot.com/2008f07/safe-selbacks-hol.v-far-should-wind.html 2/3 __ __ _ • _ _ .. ·- ...... -..,, ...... ""' lUt ..,.,ro., ~ nun nornes·r I Nroy Mountain c-l • ' dB(A) in the same time period. Safe setbacks: How far should Scottish Plannin~ Policy "recommends" a distance of 2 km between wind turbines be wind energy developments and the edge of cities, towns, and villages to fro ... reduce visual impact. Since August 2011, Victoria, Australia, has Wind Turbines: allowed wind turbines within 2 km of a home only with the Offensive homeowner's written consent. ~.the Quebec, Canada, industrialization government approved a 2-km setback from homes in the municipalities ofhuma... of Haut-Saint-Laurent, Monteregie. Citizens groups in Germany suggest Pickens plans to a minimum distance of IO times the total turbine height to residential pull one over u areas (see this st01:y). Since July 2011, the state of Saxony has required 1 km between wind turbines and residential areas. Turning wilderness over to development In Feb,ruary 2014, Newport, North Carolina, established a 5,000-ft (1.5- in.Maine km) setback from property lines, a 35-dB limit for noise at the property lines, and a total height limit of 275 feet. The latter two conditions were Not So Fast With also established by Carteret County, North Carolina, in February 2014, Wind Power as well as a I -mile setback from property lines. 20% wind by 2030 ~ Jun 2008 ( l O) Also see: "Wind turbine s_:_tp_ask and noise regulations since 20 IO" i,.. May 2008 ( 8 ) Apr 2008 ( 12) wind p 2006 ( 256) ~ 2005 ( 285 ) at 7/30/2008 ~ If' Labels: noise regulation, setbacks ..,.. 2004 ( 172)

Older Post Newer Post

httpJ/ki rbymtn.blogspot.com/2008/07/safe-selbacks-how-far-should-w incl.htm I l

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Pre.dictions Made Easy - Part 1

Acousticians have know n for decades how to predict the community reaction to a new noise source. Wind turbine consultants have chosen not to predict the community r~action as they have previously done for other community noise sources. If they had, there would be far fewer wind turbine sites with neighbors complaining loudly about excessive noise and adverse health impacts.

In 1974, the USEPA published a methodology that can predict the community reaction to a new noise. A simple chart can be used that shows the community reactions (y-axis) versus noise level (x-axis). This chart was developed from 55 community noise case studies (black squares). The baseline noise levels include adjustments for the existing ambient, prior noise experience, and sound character. The predicted wind turbine noise level is plotted on the 'x-axis' and the predicted community reaction is determined by the highest reaction, indicated by the black squares. Here are some examples: 32 dBA no reaction and sporadic complaints, 37 dBA widespread complaints, 45 dBA strong appeals to stop noise and 54 dBA vigorous community action, the highest.

Predicted Community Reaction For Wind Turbines in a Quiet Area

WHO ,00, • NOIL WHOzoat•lOIAL , N• 0-rllH l-Ok•n,n ' Effect Lwv•I AdvffN Elf-ct Lev•/ ; Vigorous Community •••••• Action • • »> Audible Noise Only<« Strong appeals • • 33 dBA Recommendtd by: to stop noise •••••••• % of Po pt1/11tlon l 45% •• •• HoyeJ McKenzie Group 2006 Dan DrlJColl 2009 Hlghfy Annoyed 2 5%= Widespread • Rand/Ambrott 201.0 : " Complaints : ~ ..... ••• .. 33.5 dBA Recommended bv: : 6% Shomer/Healer 201.3 Sporadic ~NON&I~ S dB above backaround Complaints !: , NU ·_!.: ., --- Kemperman/JameJ 2008 ------~? I No . , ..,, . ..-a-Pederson Waye, JASA 116:3460-3470, 2004 . Reaction •: • •••• .·" . • EPA, Normalized case studies, 550/9-74-004, 1974.

20 30 40 50 60 70 ~l'ill:AM 33 12.9 Pa,rt 4 Predicted IWT Noise Level in dBA i,o UQ6-1s11 Run,! Nighttime Chart C2013 R.W.Ran

The International Standards Organization (ISO) determined that 25 dBA represents a rural nighttime environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that noise below 30 dBA had no observed effect level (NOEL) and 4trd8A represented the lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for noise sources that excluded wind turbines. Wind turbines produce strong low frequency energy that may reduce the WHO cautionary levels by 5 dB, thereby showing closer agreement with the 33 dBA recommendations.

Pederson & Waye (2004) research found that w hen wind turbine noise levels reached 35 dBA, 6% of the population was highly annoyed, and this rapidly increased to 25% at 40 dBA. Independent researchers recommend that noise levels should not exceed 33 dBA, which is near the upper limit for sporadic complaints, or a maximum increase of 5 dB, whichever is more stringent.

SteP.hen E. Ambrose, INCE, Bd Cert. - SP,ecializing in Acoustics, Environmental Sound and Industrial Noise Control l § Sf@if Filll!i ~8ii8 = WiR~~ilffi: MsiR@04 1!82 = T8I: 2@1:6§2::fi§§l = Effliiil: §8i(imyfiiff181Rl:R8t = 4~:00~!M§S; =10:446&§08 ·-----

Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy - Part 2

People react in a predictable manner to changes in sound level and frequency content caused by a new noise source. Wind turbines are the cause for numerous complaints about excessive noise and adverse health effects. These complaints will continue to be a public health hazard as-long as modern acoustic instruments are used without a person listening to identify the sound sources or by manipulating computer prediction models to provide acceptable results. Wind turbine predictions are based on meeting a specific noise level. Regulatory boards and agencies are not assessing noise levels consistent with how people hear.

The wind turbines at Falmouth Massachusetts clearly show why there are so many neighbors complaining. An effective way to evaluate a sound source is by comparing the ON operation to OFF. The graph below shows wind turbine ON fluctuates from 35 to 46 dBA and when OFF decreases to 27 dBA.

COMMUNITY REACTION TO WIND iURBIN£ NOIS£ IN QUIET RURAL AREAS EPA CNR NORMAUZED TO FALMOU1H, MA QUIET COUNTRYSIDE 60 ·- ·-r · - · -r --·- - -- - ·· - ... ------· ------1 0 1 ON " ""°"" OFF : 55 1 °""'C/111 ------··----!._. I I ... ..o 50 ·--• - - ·-.• --- - -·...... --- • Wind 45 i --i=i======+====~t:t==:!:,-:::..=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=....::::.....::::.....::::..=_t:=:=====:::.:-:;.•;::- _.::_ ::--:!":-. Turbine • Noise 40 Level, dBA 35 • _ _ _ ....;.s_;_~;.._--,:__4-l~------,------+-- .- - + -•=i• • • 30 ---'---.,-;!----- ·. I 2S ... , ·- . •· I '·-·· I ------·· 20------_,,..--~--~------'- C ,: ~ :: g ON-OfflEST, FAlMOuntWINDlMARCH 1, 2012 0 C. 0 Wlnd6-8 m/s at hub. 2-mioutetestperiod shownfllHet"Ondtlc:k marks). .. i 'ii i i 221 BlacksmlthShoplload&bout1200 feetfromW1ndL t I .:0 I It .. i • EP"-C,\Se ~~. !i50/9•74-0Q4, 1974. i LllO DRfrofltrsctto; I - U!q(·6} it fl - Year-round operation (0) t... ! .g i" • QuietNralcommunltyl·lO) \ i - No pC'iorexposU1eto intrudln&noise(·S) • Puretoneotlmpulsl\lenolsec:har~er(-S)

Using the USEPA (1974) community noise assessment methodology adjust ed for a quiet area, the predicted public reaction for wind turbine noise indicates widespread complaints and threats of legal action, as shown by the shaded box. Massachusetts DEP noise regulation limits the wind turbine ON maximum levels to no more than 10 dB above the ambient background (L90, exceeded 90% of the time) when OFF. The sound level increase is 19 dB for wind turbine operation.

SteP,hen E. Ambrose, INCE, Bd Cert. - S.P._ecializing in Acoustics, Environmental Sound and Industrial Noise Control 1§ el@!lt J:ill! ~IS = WiRElhiffl1 MiliRft 04ue~ = f81: !!~~@1 = Effliiil: §@8ifflYMiFtJ8iRl:R@t = 4~:IJij~~§fl: =10:44§1J§08 Wind Turbine No ise Complaint Predictions Made Easy - Part 3

Sleep interruption and disturbance indicates the real potential for causing significant public hann from nearby w ind turbines. A peer-reviewed research paper has investigated residents living near GE 1.5 MW wind turbines. Dr. M ichael Nissenbaum, Jeffrey Aramini and Christopher Hanning published "Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health" in the peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal Noise & Health, September-October 2012.

The study focused on sleep quality as defined by the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), daytime sleepiness by Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS), and general health according to SF36 ver2; Mental Component Score (MSC) and Physical Component Score (PSC). Residents received questionnaires based on participant-inclusion criteria for individuals living within 1.5-km (4921-ft) of the nearest 1.5 MW wind turbine(s). Baseline random samples were collected from residents living 3 to 7 km·(9840 to 22,965- ft) away. The study conclusion has a strong recommendation for a separation distance of 1.4-km (4593- ft) away from a 1.5 MW wind turbine. This would be especially true for wind turbines located in quiet environments.

An aerial photo shows the locations of Falmouth's Wind 1, 2 and NOTUS turbines as red pins. The above sleep study-recommended separation distance of nearly 4600 ft is shown as red circles. The Falmouth Board of Health's health study (June 11, 2012) confinns the sleep study's conclusion for complaints inside the red circles with yellow pins inside.

SteP.hen E.·Ambrose, INCE-, Bd Cert. - S_P.ecializing -in·Acoustlcs, Environmental Sound and Industrial Noise Control ~§ er@lll ~!Ill§ R8ll8 = WlR8hilffi: MiiiR8 04M§~ = f@I: 261:@§~:ij§§l = Efflilil: §8il(lm¥{81~81Rl:R81 = 4~:ft@~~f:· :tlU4M§@8 Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy - Part 4

Wind turbine developers promote wind energy for financial benefit for communities when ·they are built on municipally-owned properties as in Falmouth, Kingston, Scituate and Fairha~. In retum, towns relax their bylaw restrictions to permit loud industrlaJ-type noise souroes on municipal land often near quiet residential areas. Town planners approve wind turbine development without perfonnlng proper reviews as required In the·bylaws. Towns understand they can build a municipal project in any land use zone. However, these projects still need to comply with the zoning bylaws.

Zoning bylaws are enacted to control community development to minimize conflicts between abutting land uses. Industrial ~d commercial. development often prod-..ces more traffic, noise, .smoke, odors, etc. than residential.use. Industrial and commercial facilities are limited.to districts with large lots and setback distances. Residential dlatrict restrictions protect neighbors' expectations for.peace, tranquility and protection of public health and wellbelng.

Bylaws are implemented to provide guidance to town officials and regulatory boards. Public officials are required to perfonn their duties in a consistent manner. Boards review new developments for appropriate economics, engineering and environmental Impacts. Decisions can become emotional when there are disputed consi(leratlonJ for pubftc good versus public harm. Boards are requiied· to enforce their bylaws and should not;alter rules, grant waivers or create amendments to benefit a project under consideration.

Too many to,wns have adopted changes to encourage wind turbine development, changes which were later proven:d~mental to public health, safety: and weUbeing. Large wind turbines produce loud noise levels that travel thousands of feet and could not·comply with existlng·town bylaw noise limits.

stes>llen ,E.. l\11.lbl'Otl!-. lijC.f:, Bel Cert. -:. S~UJAqc>~ .EnviJ:ol!~J_Sound an!, 19.dWd{ll)I_N~ ~Q.llm>I 11.(iflll l;IIJI R8l8 ::..WIR8BIJRJ lllJll ·Nltl: ffl llf=lll:llll1 :. MliJi IIIIIIHtflfSIJHl:ftll-flS~_,,I ~

·--·-- - .. _- ·- -··-·-·------~---~- ,.~. Cowboy Fire in Southwest Wyoming Grows to Roughly 1,600 Acres; Now 70 Percent Contained By Nick Learned September 11 , 2017 12:26 PM

l ...... -·: ., •., ..

... . ."· ( ~

.,I

.. ) . • .. j ...... ' . ' .

.... .- -....-...---...,,..__ _,,!_ _ __ _ .... ,. - -- • • ·- ,___,.._;._.,_ - \ Uinta County Fire and Ambulance via Facebook

Read More: Cowboy Fire in Southwest Wyoming Grows to Roughly l.600 Acres; Now 70 Percent Contained I http://laramielive.com/cowboy-fire-i n-southwest-wyoming-grows-to-roughly-1600-acres-now-70-percent­ contained/?trackback=tsmclip

Firefighters worked hard over the past few days to fight the Cowboy Fire burning northeast of Evanston. As of Sunday evening, the blaze had grown to 1,592 acres and was 70 percent contained. A wind turbine caught fire early Saturday afternoon, and flames quickly spread into nearby sagebrush and trees. On Sunday morning, 45 firefighters worked to secure the perimeter. A dozer also helped to establish containment. Aircraft dropped retardant on the fire Saturday. Uinta County Fire Warden Eric Quinney says full containment is expected Monday or Tuesday as favorable temperatures overnight help calm the flames.

Link: http://laramielive.com/cowboy-fire-in-southwest-wyoming-grows-to-roughly-l 600-acres­ now-70-percent-contained/ Wind Turbine Fire Turns Into 700-Acre Blaze in Southwest Wyoming [VIDEO] NICK LEARNED

4 Days Ago (September 10, 2017)

Fire crews are fighting a 700-acre wildfire northeast of Evanston after a wind turbine ignited early Saturday afternoon and the flames spread into sagebrush and trees.

The Cowboy Fire was 10 percent contained as· of Saturday evening, according to Uinta Co~ty Fire and Ambulance. Lower temperatures, higher humidity and rain helped calm the fire overnight.

Sunday morning, some 45 firefighters from Sweetwater, Uinta and Lincoln Counties - as well as the BLM and U.S. Forest Service .. .; moved to secure the perimeter before afternoon winds pick up and temperatures. rise.

Additional firefighting resources, including a dozer, arrived overnight, according to Uinta County Fire Warden E~c Quinney.

Air attack on Saturday made multiple retardant drops on the Cowboy Fire.

For Video, go to: http://k2radio.com/windmill-fire-turns-into-700-acre-blaze-in­ southwest-wyoming-video/ "Water·well goes bad after wiad·:torbine·pile· driving-starts" Chatham Daily Ne~s,. Ontario, Canada Augu_st 2~ 1017'" . . . Sediment so thick it prevents-w.ater··from -coming0 through taps of C·hatham Towns:hip:rfamily~s :home By Ellwood Shreve; Chatham Dailey News~ Oilfario;·Caiiada·Wednesday, August2,·2011

Less than two days after pile driving began to construct industrial turbines near Jessica and Paul Brooks' home in Chatham Township, their once crystal-clear water well has become clogged with sediments. · The couple, wh().live on Brook Line n~~-of C1tat1=,~ within·~e-North,Kent_Wind-project area,.:say the sediment p~ugs up. their, system-so .badly that the water ·actually.stops.coming.out of·the taps.at times. Jessica Brooks .said the first sign of the _problem occurred.·last Friday night after 10 .p~ :when-~er husband couldn't finish taking a shower after work, because 0 th.e four sed.imenUraps they.have installed on their well system were plugged up, preventing the water from tl~wing through. They decided to deal with it Saturday morning and found they n~ to c•~ the sediment traps every six hours. A few days lat~, the sedimetittraps:fiegaD.-clbgghig at a muell faster1nite. · · Brooks said ·tJiey called the ·Ministry of ·Environment! and :climate C6ntrol an\Hui official came out on Tuesday. "They took a· sample of water but 'they did not ·take the sediments 'that we :had ·collected over. the weekend," she said. The Chatham Daily News ·contacted the MOE~C and received~a response by ·e-mait "The ministry believes the measurement of turl?idity is a _key test of ~ter quality in .these circumstaiices·becauscHt captures the potential impact on· a .water well,.mther than. test for the presence of shale particles alone. · The mini~ _added samples collected on Tu~y wiU include an~~is for turbidity. Water Wells First spokesman Kevin Jakubec said the Brooks family has spent upwards of $4,000 on baseline testing recommended by Water Wells First. Brooks said prior to this issue occurring their water was ''bea-y crystal cl~.'' She said they have documented -tests d~e in February, March,-~ May and June and. "it's all coming back - we have a beautiful well." She noted there's some sodium in the water and it is a little hard, which· is :common for gro1JJ1d ~er, but "otherwise it's a perfect well." ·- ·· · - Brooks said not having drinking water is the least of her concerns,-· noting. they have three· teen&gers in a home where they can't take showers, flush the toilet or do laundry. Jakubec said this is the second well in the North Kent Wind project area that has experienced problems after pile driving activity has taken place nearby. · "Only a fool would think that there's not a link between pile driving vibrations and impacts on our water wells," he said. The Daily Ne~ asked what: the ;µiinistry will do .if pther w.~ w~lls in ~e area. start-shQwing similar • • • .. • • ... • ... • • o • .,• J ' t . • .. 1 • 0 ~ negative unpacts? ~ · . . . · . '•· '·.. . " . . . "". . .. "As a first step, the company must comply with the conditions of its Renewable Energy Approval," said the MOECC. "Upon becoming aware of a complaint, the company is to retain a qualified expert to collect a water sample at the location, assess the results and submit a report to the ministry on whether theco~cti9p. oftl;te:~-~~_causedran a4vJrse :effect.-·1'ttbe,we11"~ watet:supply.. · · "In addition to actions req~w-1,e 11lkcm·:by;thq .~mpany, niinis.1;ry.i §tA'f.f;eonsider a number of factors when deciding: on the. level o:f'.'re9onse.-.require,f J;)y .the .ministry. Where· necessaey;- the. ministry may use enforcement measuies, such as orders to ensure that the North Kent 1 wind farm project is constructed/operated in .a manner that protects and sustains the environment and prevents off-site impact"· · · More than a year ago;. Water Wells First began sounding the alarm about building industri~ \,$d farms in the area, because-the aquifer is in an area with Kettle Point black shale bedrock, ~wn to • co*tabi ~ea-yY: :meuil.s: sucli ~ 'uraiiiUIXlj. atSenic and· lead, which:iare :dangerous to huuuiri'health. There concern fg .the V;ibnd;iorls'fromi the',.constnletion and·operatibn ·of wind· turbines, anchored· into this bedrock, will cause sediments from this black shale to get into water wells. North Kent W~ndtis·the-firstproject-in 0ntario~to have ground water and ground vibration monitoring conditions ·bulJt into th~]~~t;'Jakubec ·said. However, he added the.MOECC ~ ~fused .provide any vibration monitoring data. . to . . "We WBlluo see that vib~~Q~ ~~turned ov.~r to an.~~en~ reviewt Jakubec said. The MOE~~ i:~,ponded·.~.mQµjtoriqg.was.cqnd119.~ by.the·.company.and/or their consultant, w~ may be willing to s1iare the data. · "Alternatively the .~o~on they:p~y}.ded. to the, minisu.y is subject to the Freedom o( Information Protection and Privacy Act." · · · The ministry also noted the ~~y has a.public liatj~on committee in place, as required by. ~eir approval, which makes certain docuinents, reports and information available. J~ .sail Water: ·wells First told ·the.-MOECC s~veral ;JDQ~ths ago :~t if water we& .start tQ ,go. down near··tbis 'wind--·project, the·;prriject ·should be' halted arid. a full investigation that .. includes· collecting the sediments and placing vibration sensors on the bedrock surface. . . . . He said the ~up also· served notice to· the MOECC that there wouid be repercussions if wells started go~g down. · · · · · He indicated those repercussions could som~ soon. "I don't think o~ comm.unity, in ~ts history, will see the level and the ·intensity of civil ~bedience that's going to·unfold·.in·tli.e next fewweeks;"·'Jakubec .. said "Well goes· bad after wind'tlirbine pile driving starts" I Chatham Daily News, Ontario, Canada Aug/2/2017

.. Link: http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2017/08/02/sediment-so-thick-it-pre... ts-water-from-coming- tbroug]Ftaps--of-chatbain-township:-familys.:home · 11fLLl,Pl6 Suffering . ·• l

Home About Turbines Health Suffering Photos Coalition

How To Help

What it's like to live near industrial wind turbines

Sharing your personal health information takes courage.

It's not easy to talk about the health problems you're experiencing when your government, wind companies, the media, and perhaps your neighbours claim there is no proof that turbines cause harm. Even some doctors remain unconvinced despite significant and consistent evidence from around the world.

Read the stories of families who live close to over 100 wind turbines in Kincardine and Tiverton (Bruce Township). (Names have been changed for legal and privacy reasons.)

Russell and Debbie cope with the health effects by leaving their farm ... Donna and Paul have touched door knobs and been thrown backwards onto the floor... Shawn and Kim lost their farm and now live in a rental property in town ... Jim and Ida. His doctor prescribed . sleeping pills but they soon wore off.. . Jessie and Dave. They and their children have frequent headaches and are always tired ... Jack and Denise. Their cattle's milk production decreased ... Rilla and Jake. Jake spends time in his cellar to avoid nausea and vomiting ... Kirk and Anne. Kirk has ringing in his ears and chest tension. Anne is sleep-deprived ... Mary suffers from insomnia, headaches, ringing and pain in her ears. ..

lilp"J!Nww.tunlriaceciwindlurtllnes.ca'index.J:ql(sutrering 1/12 11/ZlfNl6 Sufferi111 Louise could barely carry on and had to quit her job .•. John and Lisa experience coughing and choking when trying to sleep ... · Marjorie and Len have tinnitus, migraines, and blood pressure problems ••• Mike has headaches, tinnitus, stomach upset, and ~ecreased ability to tolerate pain ••• Christine and Joe. Christine has pulsing in her helld and tingling in her head and face •.. Mark and Kim can't sleep because their home vibrates ... Sharon and Ken have stopped using some rooms in their home ... Curtis and Jane experience nuisance stress from the shadow flicker and red night lights ... Susan and Gordon. Gordon has vertigo, sleep deprivation, and blurred vision ..• Gerry and Liz. Liz was told not to walk her dog close to the fence line on her property... Joyce. and Dan suffer from electrical sensitivity which makes them feel sick. •.

Russell and· Debbie

"The -closest turbine to our home is-about 100Qm (1 km) away. When turbines were first proposed in our community in 2008, the Ministry of the Environment stated that a 350m setback would be adequate to protect us from adverse health effects. Therefore, we didn't expect any probl~ms from noise or shadow flicker.

"When the turbines began operating, we-discovered that they were not 'whisper quiet'. The sound varied from a jet-over'!'the--house sound, to a gentle whoosh, to a· deep beating sound and, on some days, no sound at ·alh ·We could not hear them- in the house with the doors and windows closed. • I began to .notice pressure in my ears after being outside for any extended period of time, and found myself going inside quite a b~, or, wearing earplugs, for relief. "After the first winter, we ~egan to notice headaches, ·which have increa~ in frequency. In the last 6 months, I have noticed a high-pitched ringing tone In my ears. We find the symptoms are more severe in winter than in the summer.• ., "This ~nter, we._have :been. copinQ:with the health Impacts by leaving our farm to spend time in town·or·oeighbouring_ co~mur:iities. We hav.e p~rchased a trai~-r-and rented a site at a nearby campground i~'.ord~r.-to·gat a~y frqm-tf:1~ ~ttd.turbines Olla regular basis during the warmer we~~er~ Howeier~ t}lis.can.on(y ...~comsidere.,f J '·temporary, SQIUti~n." "I ~~~.. n-.P1Jler'l'.e81d~ wl,.~~ Qperi$~n9:sl111ila~problems, but they· ~ra.n~twiliin9~to;·d1scus&\1'i~n,.puJi~tl tMlav.e:a~. ~~,~ with people who have wind turbines on th~tJj~-~~~~·.-aret~e.fi.na- ill ~ffects; but tbey:~noi CC>,ffl8 forward due to provisions in theldea~gr~ements.~-_i •. •. ... ,, ·.., ·'...... ,, '.' . '. ' .. ''·.~~ .~ ', ·~·--.=~,•' J-,~· , ... ""~ I•,_,": • ' 0 •• ,,, ~.:- • • ~-,~:~'.' ., • )' ' "The·.~?fejp~~~e!m,~iy ~~n9-t~~p~-~~min9 ,ltJ·~~-·-~"1~sirial ,installations into rural areas until they~aq~ ~a.,,~119.·PliO~ms. lh~~Qm :~tba~ trictthe: new 550m setback are based on compute.t.:n~~~mQJ!ttl~Qg. tf<>W8¥,ef(CO.fflP.4.tQf~¢,1s~ d~ -nC>Ur,;imp· real world observations and ev~~.ih,t,-l!f)i Jnd,il_8'fal!:wJn~ ~urb~n.eifh·v~-~n· b~~~'SJ~ilar health problems have been . r~}f/( ·. . ·_'·: · ;.: :. ,:: .. ·: . ·: .. :, :,' · ;· .. · ·· · . (Russell aiiil~'Debble's home Is 1l70--m fro'!'·=the closest tu. r~ln. e, there are 4 more within 1;6 +\ km.> I l 7 o rn z '3 ~ 3 '( ~ /,. b I<. m. ::: --trJ. q q ft: Cl md-e fl

2/12 .. 1112Zm16 Suffering . , Donna and Paul

Since the turbines came on line, it takes Donna 2-3 hours to get to sleep, and the sound of the turbines •comes through my pillow". Whether the winds are calm or high, her sleep is disrupted 50 % of the time. Donna describes the noise as a "roaring freight train" going through her home. She also has a tightness in her chest and heart racing, which comes on when she is at home, and-not when she is at work. She has developed high blood pressure. She is tired at work due to not sleeping well and reports that her home is no longer a place where she can relax. Paul has sleep disruption as well, and notes that it is noisier in different parts of their home, , including where they sleep. Both Donna and Paul have noted that, since the turbines started, there are electrical problems in their home. (Electrical pollution is due· to transmission lines and substations). Three times they have touched metal door knobs, been thrown backward, and landed on the floor due to an electrical charge. They have witnessed bolts of electricity when turning on light switches. This never happened before the turbines. When asked why they have not complained as yet to Enbridge and to the Min~stry of the Environment, Donna replies that she knows nothing will be done, and that complaining would be emotionally difficult. She is very angered by these changes in her health, and confirms that she had none of these adverse health effects prior to the turbines.

Donna points out that, when something is mechanically wrong with the nearby turbines_, repair trucks arrive immediately to stop the clanking and clunking. She wishes the wind company would show as much concern for the people IMng near the turbines as it is does for the quick resolution of the turbines' mechanical malfunctioning.

(Donna and Paul's home Is 522 m from the closest turbine, there are 3 more within 1.0 km.; 10 more are 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 19 more are 2.0 km to 3.0 km. They llve 1.2 km from a

I substation.) s~~"'= 1,,,5fi l,Ol

Shawn and Kim

Shawn, Kim and their two children noticed health impacts as soon as the turbines first started. Their symptoms worsened in the winter and in high winds. From the beginning, they noted a vibration In their ears when they were outside their home and in their gardens. When the turbines weren't running, the vibration ceased. Kim, who has a medical history of migraine headaches, reports that for the three years prior to the turbines, her migraines were in remission. However, when the turbines started, they began to return and increase. The family experienced sleep disturbance through increasing nightmares and waking for the children, vibration of their walls and beds, and also visual disruption·trom the flashing· lights· at night. Shawn had difficulty getting to sleep, but once asleep, he would awaken within a short time with a sensation that the house was shaking. Kim and Shawn describe this shaking, vibrating sensation · · as like a hum or a low-voltage electrical wave going through their bodies at all times. When they used bathroom taps and toilets, they experienced the sense of electrical shock. Sometimes, they saw sparks when they used electrical fixtures and TV remotes.

! To improve their ability to sleep, Kim and Shawn tried moving their bed and tried sleeping In other areas of the house. However, they still experienced insomnia and vibration.

Yl2 &dferlng Shawn and Kim tried to sell their property to escape the impact of the wind turbines on their lives. They lowered the asking price several times but the property wouldn't sell. The bank took ownership of their-farm. They gave up. their chickens, ducks and pet dogs and now live in a rental property in town. They are no longer able to harvest and eat their own meat, eggs and vegetables. Their children cannot run and play as they once did. Shawn and Kim's farm remains·-unsold. ; Shawn and Kim didn't contact Enbridge or the Ministry of the Environment 'Why would we even . try? Enbridge ignored everyone else who live even closer to turbines than we do, so why would they care about us·?

(Shawn and Kim's home is 1580m from the closest turbine; there are 3 more 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 5 more 2.0 km to 3.0 km) I S'.tO"' ~ §;},fl./ I 1.c ~ = 3 ,\f I ff ~.o fo.-a ~S.'-~ Sr

- Jim and Ida

Jim is much more affected than his wife,· 1da, and developed sleeping problems right away. When · Jim questioned his.doctor about the possible link between his sleeplessness and turbines, his doctor replied, "That's nonsense. Take these pills for sleep and anxiety". Jim's sleeping problems were temporarily solved, but after a month or two, the pills no longer worked. Jim oft~n sits up all night and can't sleep. He has had several dizzy spells at home and is prone to falling~ He feels dizzy when driving hi~ car and has experienced a seizure. He has headaches, heart palpitations, and blood pressure problems. Ida notes that Jim has become forgetful and disorganized. , When he goes a~ay on vacation, he sleeps·llke he did before the turbines. When he returns home, his health problems resume. Jim com~lained to Enbridge, and sound testing wasdone at his home over several weeks by the same company which did the initial sound assessment for Enbridge in ' 2007 (Valcous~cs). Both sound measurements taken in 2009 and 2010 proved that Enbridge was not in compliance with the Ministry of the Environment regulations, but nothing as yet has been done.

(Jim and Ida's home Is 616m from the closest turbine; there are 8 more between 1.0 km &

2.0 km.; there are 10 more between 2~0 km & 3.0 km) t,. //- m : c}.1 t)~/ .fi /.o I,.,,. :: ,, ~ ~I ff

Jessie and Dave

Jessie says that certain parts of their home are very noisy. She is tired all the time, and never feels rested and relaxed. Her husband, Dave, has frequent' headaches which he never had before. Their teenage son and daughter are constantly tired and have headaches which go away when they leave home for periods of time. Jessie no longer enjoys her property, including gardening. Her family's rights to health, well-being, and pleasure on. their property have been taken away.

(Jessie and Dave's home Is 610m from the closest turbine; there are 4 more within 1km.) <.-1 o· "' ·~ ~. -~ , fl: , • o ,._,... ·= 3 • ~• • .f/t-

4112 - 11rr&D16 Sufraing . ' Jack and Denise

Jack, Denise, and their son, Sam, noticed health impads on their dairy farm one month after the turbines started in Fall 2008. Each of them developed headaches and ear aches. Their doctor said wind-turbines couldn't be the problem. They have been living with noise in their home which disturbs their sleep. When Jack goes away on farming business, he feels better. On his return home, when he gets within the wind project boundaries, he begins ·to feel unwell again. After the turbines began, their dairy cattle's milk production began to decrease. The cows were reluctant to drink from their troughs and became agitated and started kicking more in the milking parlour. The cats disappeared from the parlour too. The farm's dairy production and income decreased 20%. Since invoMng the resources of an .expert in elecbical pollution, and the installation of mitigating devices, the cattle are no longer hesitant to drink from their troughs, the cats are back, and milk • production is up to normal. These devices of course do not mitigate noise and sound problems related to the turbines. These farmers report that with the loud sound of U,e turbines on the land, they can no longer hear the sounds of nature. which used to give time-tested cues as to when to plant crops. The farmland has become industrialized. It has been changed, and i~portant ecological cues erased. Denise reports that she felt her body began to "vibrate" with the onset of the turbines. She has · developed ringing in the ears, loss of concentration, and heart palpitations. Two to three times a night she has to get out of bed due to sleep disruption, and she is restless during the day. Some mornings she wakes up having had a good sleep and·notices ·that the turbines were not runn~ng. Switching to grounded telephones in the house has assisted with electrical pollution, and Denise reports that her heart palpitations have decreased. However, she still has tinnitus, a sense of vibration in her body, lack of sleep, and poor concentration. Sam, who assists with the family farm began to get "sharp, spiking headaches" when the proJed started, and also suffers from tinnitus, nausea, and exhaustion. When he goes to town, the symptoms of nausea and tinnitus go away.

(Jack and Denise's home is 560m from the closest turbine; there are 10 more within 2.0 km.) St.,Om: l,"f37ft- ~.Ole."'::<,,~'-~~-

I Rllla and Jake

Within one month of the turbines spinning, Rilla and Jake noticed a change in their health. The noise inside and ·outside of their home increased. Jake has headaches, especially when the turbine , noise is loud indoors. Jake has nausea and vomiting on a regular basis. He now spends more time in the cellar, rather than the main floor, because his headaches ease up when he goes underground.

Rilla has had headaches since the start of the projed, which go away when she leaves for work. She has also developed nausea and lowered appetite and is "up half the night tossing, turning, and ; ' walking around due to noise".

Jake recalls a mechanical failure of one turbine near his property., There was a very loud explosion, and smoke began to pour out of the engine. Several parts fell off the engine, but the blades tctp://www.tunSlfaceclwlndublnes.ca'i~l'Jd 5'12 I U"1/:IAI IV SUlfaif'G -' remained attached. Jake reports that, out of nowhere, the cranes and trucks arrived instantly to

1 repair-the turbine, replace parts, and get it running again. To his knowledge, the incident was never reported to the public.

(Rllla ancl Jake's home Is 495m from the closest turbine; 3 more are within 1.0 km.; 10 more are 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 17 more are 2.0 km to 3.0 km) 4'fo"' = I I £,:&'f 4 1.0~& !. ., f ~

Kirk and Anne

Kirk and Anne have lived in their home for nearly 20 years. Within a day of the start of the turbines, Kirk noticed the noise in his home. He increases the television volume to mask the turbine's "whoosh, whPOSh, whoosh~ sound .. Kirk has developed ringing. in his ears, chest tension, nausea and VQmiting. When he's outside in certain· areas of his property, he gets an unusual vibration across bis chest . Anne used to be a vibrant, healthy person who had no trouble sleeping. Now, she is continually sleep-,deprived -and- has •hassles" at work due to her fatigue and stress. She has developed tinnitus, nausea and vomiting. · Neither Anne nor Kirk had these medical symptoms prior to the turbine installation. When they are · each away from home •. the symptoms of chest tension and nausea diminish. These symptoms retum when they return to their home. Anne's dis.tressing physical $Yffiploms have created an untenable existence for her. She· must keep her job. Driving to work has become fraught will) danger due to her excessive.-fatigue. She knows something..mµst change. Kirk and Anne have not yet complained to the wind company or the govemment. nour complaint would go nqwhere. with Enbridg~ ... Enb~ge.is out for profit". Kirk distrusts the MOE because it established the win~ project r~ulations. "What good will it do?." (Kirk and Anne's home Is 714m from the closest turbine: there are 4 more within 1.0 km, 4 · more1.0km,to2.0km.; 9more2.0kmto3.0.km) '11'4"'= ~> ,lf3• J.o"6q~ .Sele(~

Mary.

"The continuous rumbling sound of the turbines disturbs my days and particularly my nights". Mary suffers from insomn~. head$ches and ringing and pain in her ears. She likens the noise in her home to the "continuous sound· of a.generator" which was not there prior to the erection of the turbines. ' When the MOE came to her home and discovered the turbines were 1- 1.5 km from her home she was told the turbines "were too far away from her and there was nothing they could do". Mary has requested that the Ministry of the Environment come to do noise testing. To date, no one has come. ;'l~ fb"' = . 1""f'6S.,: (Mary's.home Is 2280 m from the cloaest turbine; there are 4 more within 3.5 km.) 11~8 Suffaing

Louise

Louise began to notice her sleep deprivation some months after the turbines started. She · developed headaches, unusual sensations in her ears, pressure in her head, restlessness at night, unexplained nausea, motion-sensitivity, and an overall feeling that "something was not right" with her health. Louise, previously a highly-organized and effective person~ noticed ·a change in her · cognitive functioning. Over time, she could no longer prioritize her day or multi-task. She could barely carry on and had to quit her job. Near the turbines, Louise became nauseated. Intermittently, she became dizzy and began to develop tinnitus-a high-pitched tone in her ears. She lost weight due to vomiting from migraines and nausea. Her headaches became constant and she began receiving treatment at headache · and pain clinics. When Louise retreated away to her cottage, she could eat, sleep, and the pressure was relieved from her ears. Dr Nina Pierpont (physician, scientist, and author) examined Louise and diagnosed her with Wind Turbine Syndrome. Louise's specialists and GP told her she must leave her home. . Louise has lost her career and cannot work. She has lost ·her home; she can't live there. Her health, well-being and livelihood have been harmed immeasurably. Louise advised Enbridge that _she had filed health complaint reports with the Ministry of the Environment and asked the Enbridge Operations Manager what he was going to do about it. "Absolutely nothing," he replied. "We've been given a license by the government and we're going to continue".

(Louise's home Is 453m from the closest turbine; there are 5 more within 1.0 km.; 7 more 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 9 more 2.0 km to 3.0 km) I <.(~(o"n 4/53m: 1 ,.o""':1 3,~~,~

John and Lisa

John and Lisa have lived on their rural property for decades and raised their children here. They first noticed pain in their ears and began to toss and tum at night, creating significant sleep disturbance. Lisa, who spends more time at home, began to feel a vibration in her body, day and night. Both Lisa and John experienced coughing and choking while trying to sleep. This symptom abated when their electricity breakers were switched off .at night. During months when their windows are open, John and Lisa have noise in their home, which is louder or quieter depending on environmental conditions, but is constant. Outside their home, when the turbines are facing certain directions, the noise is similar to sitting at an airport. Lisa and John no longer enjoy their property.

They have also experienced electrical pollution (uncontrolled electricity). When they touch their vehicle in the driveway, there is static electricity. When they use their flat screen television or wi-fi ' router, Lisa feels physically disturbed and agitated.· Lisa· can sleep at night only if these appliances are·unplugged •. Dark curtains are required for the flicker in their bedroom, and windows are only opened selectively.

7/12 11mf.1>18 Sl.&ri~ When John and Lisa go away, the first symptoms to improve are sleep disruption and vibration. The pain in Lisa's ear takes one week to dissipate upon going on vacation. Lisa's fatigue since the turbines came online affects her ability to feel rested, work, and attend to the household's needs. John and Lisa contacted Enbridge, the Ministry·of the Environment, and Hydro One. Enbridge met with them in their home. To date, no changes or solutions have been offered by Enbridge, the MOE, or Hydro One. · (John and Lisa's home Is G58m from the closest turbine; there are 3 more within 1.0· km.; 2 more 1.0-km to 2.0 km.; 5 more 2.0 km to 3.0 km) t,.S'f le~::~. IS"f ff J.o k,,.•3~81-i :

Marjorie and Len

Marjorie and Len experienced immediate impact from the nearby turbines. First they noticed noise in and outside their home, as well as flicker. Next, they experienced a physical sensation of vibration in their bodies, and in ce~in rooms, including their bed and bedroom. This intermittent · though frequent vibration causes sleep loss. Since the turbines began to spin. Ma~rie and Len have developed tinnitus, migraines, and blood pressure problems. These physical symptc?ms have increased. the stress in their lives which they must now cope with daily. Len's most disturbing impact is tinnitus and irritabHity. When he gets away for a week at-a time, his tinnitus gets better in 3 days. Turbine noise and flicker dramatically impact his ability· to do· projects in his workshop on the property. Marjorie and her daughter, Sarah, get migraines and headaches. Marjorie, who works in the school system, has 4 to 5 migraines per week during her time off in the summer, and one per week during the school year. Wind·dlrectlon, speed, and atmospheric conditions all play a role. Overcast conditions and the summer season seem to be the worst. The noise in their home sounds like aircraft are flying overhead· or like living next to a 400 series highway. When the turbine engines change direction, the mechanical dunking and banging is loud. There is also a tonal whine which can be heard inside . the home. Their electrical and digital equipment are often disrupted. They use heavy drapes to block flicker,Jµm the.radio up loud to drown·outsound, sit.,Qn .only one side-of the house outdoors, and use air conditioning.in the summer rather than open their windows. They work constantry·to limit their eXl)Osure to the impact of noise, .flicker and vibration. Marjorie, Len, and Sarah feel a lack of ·safety, ·unease, and wellbeing. They wish they could escape or "take fllghtfroni" their home. Their aggravation, loss of enjoyment of their property, and continuing health problems have greatly reduced their quallty oflife. Lack of community awareness about the true impact of turbines on people's lives has created a further social impact for this . . family. Marjorie and Len have repeatedly complained to both the Ministry of the Environment and Enbridge. To date, there has been no mitigating action taken. . (Marj,:»rle and Len's home Is 537m from the closest turbine; there are 3 more within 1.0 . km.; 8 g1ore 1.0 km to 2.0 au,..; 9 more 2.0 km to 3.0 km) 5~111\: 117 t-;i-1+ l.61cA= 3.1f/~

8112 ,11fl'&!)16 Suffa'lng Mike

Mike is single and owns a small property. At night, he hears, "thump, thump, thump" when he's · trying to sleep. Due to this noise disturbance, he gets only 5 hours of sleep each night. He has developed headaches and tinnitus, stomach upset, decreased ability to tolerate chronic back pain, and a general state of unrest. Due to noise, he can't open his windows in the summer months. Since Mike is retired, he travels to other parts of the province to get away from the turbines.· His symptoms improve or disappear when he leaves his home for several days. Mike has tried to list his property for sale but removed the listing due to the poor response and low offers on his home.

(Mlke•s home Is 907m from the closest turbine; there are 4 more between 1.0 km & 2.0 km.; 10 more between 2.0 km & 3.0 km) 'lt>1m: ~, '17~ ~ /.e>'1,, :: 3> ~fl it

Christine and Joe

Christine and Joe have 3 children under the age of 7 and live on a hobby farm. They have noticed changes in their health for 4 years. Christine, Joe, and their son, Luke, are noticeably affected. Luke is always tired, irritable, and regularly complains, "my head hurts, my tummy hurts". Joe is sleep-deprived and has resorted to sleep medication.

For Christine, her home is a nightmare, a health hazard, and she always feels sick. Her symptoms, which did not exist before, include headaches, dizziness, pressure in the ears, nausea, chest pain, a pulsing in her head (which is timed to the tuming of the turbine blades), sleep disruption, and tingling in her head and face. Christine reJjOrts a loss of libido, increased confusion, forgetfulness, , and irritability. She has a feeling of mental instability as she is unable to escape these debilitating symptoms, despite her efforts to address the problems. Christine has tried heavy curtains, sleeping pills, anti-depressants, sleeping with fans to create white noise, and has undergone· medical · testing, with no helpful results. Christine has lost touch with· the healthy person she used to be. When she travels abroad or leaves her home to visit family, her condition improves dramatically. After one hour at work, she reports her headaches go away.

Christine and Joe also report that when a relative ·came to visit for a week in their home, the relative had to be taken to hospital due to signs of a stroke. This visiting relative was not diagnosed with a stroke but vertigo, which did not remit for 2-3 months. As well, this individual developed blurred ; vision in one eye for an extended period. Christine has experienced stroke-like symptoms, including the sagging of one eye. On one occasion, she went to work even though she was not feeling well. Christine began to feel dizzy and a co­ worker observed that one of her eyes was sagging. She experienced numbness and tingling. She . immediately went to her local emergency ward. She was told by medical staff that her blood had congealed to such a degree that without urgent treatment s'1e would have had a stroke. An ER , physician suggested it may have been due to a virus, but Christine and Joe very much doubt this to be the case. Christine and Joe would like to be relocated as they cannot afford to leave their home. To date they have not r~ported their health disturbances to Enbridge rior the MOE.

9/12 &&ri~ (Christine and Joe's home Is 571 m from the closest turbine; there are 6 more within 1.0 km.; 1 more 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 12 more 2.0 km to 3.o km) &71 ,n:; 1f7S·./t 1.01uw,.: 3 :J.f'lr 1 1

Marka~d Kim

Mark and Kim loved their quiet country property, complete with the night-time sounds of crickets, distant coyotes, and the chirping of many birds. The turbines have destroyed the life ·they enjoyed in their two-storey home. Loud indoor and outdoor noise "vibrates" their home and. they are unable to sleep. Kim has develQped ~eada~es, diz:ZinfSS an~ ~ig~t~eadedness, Q"1d has had. two.,MRl's to investigate these , symptoms. The noise and fl.icker have resultec;l~in sleep deprivation. and djsturbing health symptoms which did not exist before .. ; . . . . '

(Mark and Kim's home is 500 m from the closest turbine; there are 3 more within 1.0 km.; 8 more are 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 9 more are 2.0 km to 3.0 km) Sce>fu,..:: IC.4't>£ l,Dk,4= 3.ltl*:

Sharon and Ken

. Sharon and Ken live over 3 km from the closest turbine. Both of them experience vit,ration in their home and disturban~ from red light em~(~ns at.oight. $haron states that they've stopped-using som_~ rooms in their home due to the visual .distnlction of U,e red .flickering lights coming in their many windows. For years,. Sharon and Ken have visited the grave of a loved one at a local cemetery in the wind project Since the turbines.came· onllne, their visits are now disrupted by audible noise, as though there is-a;fluttering bird in ·flight right beside their ears. If Sharon stays at the cemetery longer than 10 minutes, she gets a headache that lasts the whole day. Sharon an~ Ken have no~ reported their neg~tive health effects to Enbridge nor the Ministry of the Environment. · (Sharon and Ken·s home is 3504m from the closest turbine; there are 4 more between 3.0 km&4.0km) ~so·t.i M:: 11,&.1'1<.~ 310~: 't,f4S4-

. Curtis and Jane

Curtis and Jane are retirees who experience extreme nuisance stress from the flicker, red light . emissions at night, and··electrical interference with electronics in their home •. Curtis and Jane feel a high degree of annoyance with-the audible. noise ("whumph, whUll'.IPh, whump") outside their home. Curtis hacl a serious car accident in the'flrst.six months due to a high level of distraction and lack of focus whlle driving in the wind project. · Curtis notes that the lack of support. understanding, acknowledgement and solutions-from all ·levels and government and from medical professionals-upsets him on a socio-political level. As a · result of these impacts, Curtis and Jane feel a lack of enjoyment of their property, visual and 1tV12 N!p:l/www.luna1facecnrindlurtinas.call~~ 1112"&!"'6 Suffa'ing auditory disruption (from flicker and noise), as well as frustration, irritation, aggression and powerlessness. · When Curtis and Jane spend their winters away, their feelings of frustration and nuisance disappear and their sense of well-being rises exponentially. Curtis has reported his disturbances to both the Ministry of the Environment and Enbridge. The MOE official who came. to his home told · Curtis that the MOE doesn't have the equipment required to test his home, that It was a waste of time to attempt to do so, and that Curtis should complain to his MPP.

(Curtis and Jane's home Is 1013m from the closest turbine; there are 4 more between 1.0. km &2.0 km.; 2 more between 2.0 km &3.0 km) ,tSl3ff\= 3-3~3~ ~.Ok,n: l.~ff-

Susan and Gordon

Susan and Gordon have a country farmhouse and another residence In town. To date, Susan's experience has been largely nuisance disturbance. For Gordon, their town hQme has become a refuge from the flashing red lights and disturbing symptoms of vertigo, sleep deprivation, poor quality sleep and some instances ofblurred vision.

. Prior to startup of the turbines, Gordon had experienced a small number of serious bouts of ' vertigo, all of which were triggered by'strenuous work activity. After turbine start-up, with no physical activity to point to as a trigger, Gordon has been afflicted with recurring bouts which, while milder than before, kept him bedridden for one or two days. When on vacation, Gordon's sleep patterns return to normal. Similarly, after deciding to sleep only at the house in town, Gordon's sleep patterns quickly returned to normal.

For Susan and Gordon, the inability to experience health, rest, .and enjoyment of their recently and extensively renovated farmhouse in the country, has caused disruption, commuting, expense, and stress on their relationship.

(Susan and Gordon's country home Is 1848m from the closest turbine; there are 8 more

, between1.0km&2.0km.) 11''ffll\:l.,1 6',3-'t l.okM::3~11~ ~=i#S-~~~:

. Gerry and Liz

Gerry and Liz have lived and farmed on their rural property for over 30 years. The industrialization of their rural neighbourhood has been devastating for them. Outside their home, the "whoosh, whoosh, whoosh" from the turbines interferes with their restful enjoyment of their gardens, and inhibits their use·. of their property and ability to socialize outdoors.

· In winter, they notice a roaring sound outside of their home. Inside, shadow flicker and the turbines' reflections in the windows are daily disruptions for them. As well, the red flashing lights have caused them to require blinds, when the privacy of a country home never required this before.

' Liz likes to walk with her dog on the farm. However, ice throw from neighbouring turbines became a concem. When Liz contacted Enbridge, she was advised not to walk on her property closer than , 200 m from her fence line.

11/12 U/~.aJIIO Wtarmg As a long term member of this·rural community, Liz is disturbed by the injustice of the planning, management, and oversight of this installation. She is frustrated by the lack of action and solutions on behalf of E~bridge. and the Ministry of the Environment. · (Gerry and Liz's home Is 1109m from the closest turbine: there are 9 more 1~0 km to 2.0 km.; 13 more 2.0· km ·to·3.0 km) """"': 3 t. 3 8'.Q ~ .o kM: C.6'- ~ (t a..6111\= """~*

Joyce and 'Dan

Joyce and Dan are cash crop farmers on a large agricultural property.· In 2009, when the turbines' transmission lines were tied in to the existing power lines, they each began to notice disturbances , in their health. Both Joyce and Dan began to feel unwell and restless while at home, ·and then devefoped ringing in their ears and sleep deprivation. Near water and electrical lines in the home, symptoms of-bumi~g_ •. vib~ting.• and une~sine~ increase. They laid extra mats-on the floors in these a~s and ;wore '1i~-spled snoes indoors. Joyce and Dan had arranged·for electrical·pollution testing from a local consultant both before and after the transmission lines were tied in. The after test results showed a significant increase. Electrical filters and a "Ronk Blocker" were installed on their propertY: to address the uncontrolled electricity. They, shut the P.Ower off in .their home ~nd regularly slept in. their camper trailer. Even •"' . ' .. wheQ Joyce ~nd Qan: g~ ~way for se~era, months or weeks at a. time, they notice tney have a chronic sensitivity to elecbical charge. CFL light bulbs and fluore~nt in-stQre. lighting make them feel very agitated and uneasy. In their trailer, only one thing at a time can be plugged in, otherwise they · are overloaded with electrical·charge· and feel· sick. The1urbine·transmisslon·lines have made Joyce and Dan very sensitive to electrical pollution, and ' ·the problem appears to worsen over time~ ·Despite.. the costly devices and self-help strategies (including winter vacations). after three and a half years of worsening health challenges, Joyce and Dave SC>ld th~ proper_w they had farm,d. for 48 years. They have moved into town ,to protect ttleir " . • ~ . ' ! . health • .Joyce and Dan asked for help from Enbridge an~ Hydro One but received no mitigation or assistance. (Joyce and Dan's home Is 488m from the closest turbine; there are 5 more within 1.0 km.;

12 more 1.0 km to 2.0 km.; 13 more 2.0 km to 3.0 km) 'f fi M; J1 l,ol(t. I.Ob\: 3f.3t ~ ! ~. O..:k,c\ -a (rot.~ f6 _· ?, .• ,, "•iaCl9.Af ~,(f .• ·

Home How To Help Contact

Copyright@2016. The Human Face of Wind Turblnes--The Suffering Is Real. Designed by~ dlull

12/12 • Posted by BRIAN DUBIE on October 6, 2015 at 9:33pm • View Blog

Wind Turbine Noise: What you can't hear can harm you.

What do you think of when you think of an industrial wind project? Wind developers want you to think of free, green electricity. People who live near industrial wind turbines think of noise. Let's see why.

An Industrial Wind project in Swanton proposes to install seven 499-foot tall wind turbines along 6,000 feet of Rocky Ridge (elevation 323 feet). We recently learned that the developer of this proposed project plans to use Chinese made, Gold Wind 2.5mw turbines. The Chinese manufacturer Gold Wind http://www.goldwindamerica.com does not even list the noise rating of this turbines. Hiding a noise rating from the public is bad omen for proper siting for an industrial wind turbine. Let's assume that tlie developer will use a GE 2.75-120 Wmd Turbine. At 475 feet, it is slightly smaller than the developer's Swanton turbines. GE says a single one of their 475-foot monsters can produce 106 dBA of noise. Scaling up to seven turbines would increase that noise to 109 dBA. (Noise is measured as pressure on a scale that is logarithmic, so sometimes the numbers are difficult to understand, but 109 dBA is loud. For compariso~ my chain saw is rated'at 109 d.BA. I wear ear protection when I use it.)

So, when you think of industrial wind turbines on a ridge line, envision an airport with a line of aifPlanes that are holding for take-off. The airplanes are powered by chainsaw engines that have run upiheir engines to full power. But, unlike planes at an airport, the turbines never take off. Now, imagine this at 2am in the morning.

Some people will say wind turbines are not that noisy. Well that depends on how far from the turbines (chainsaws) and how many turbines (chainsaws) there are. Sound attenuates over distance. 'Fhe further you are from the turbines (chainsaws) the more the noise attenuates and thus the quieter the sound is. Noise attenuation is also dependent on many topographical and meteorological factors. For example if you are downwind from the turbines (chainsaws) the noise is greater. If the turbines (chainsaws) are located on higb•ground, the noise carries farther.

The World Health Organization says that noise levels greater than 30 dBA can interfere with,sleep. The WHO also explains that low-frequency noise has a greater potential to disrupt sleep and that levels of low frequency noise should be kept lower than 30 dBA. Turbines produce Jots of low frequency noise--the kind of noise most likely to interfere with neighbors' sleep.

Vermont's Department of Health says that turbine noise outside your open bedroom window should not exceed 40 dBA. The Department assumes that you have different windows than I have and that your 9pen bedroom­ window will reduce a 40 dBA noise to 30 dBA. Not only that, the Department's 40dBA limit applies to noise averaged over a year. That means that somebody could start up a vacuum cleaner (70 dBA}outside your open bedroom window every 19 minutes and still operate within the Department's guideline. ' Vermont's Public Service Board has a different standard. The PSB says that the turbine noise outside your open bedroom window, averaged over an hour, should not exceed 45 dBA. The PSB would allow the vacuum cleaner (70 dBA) to start up every five minutes.

Of course a standard is no good if you don't monitor for compliance. Vermont has developed an ingenious system where the monitoring is done by turbine neighbors. When noise levels exceed the PSB's limits the neighbors can call a special telephone number provided by the turbine operator. Turbine ·neighbors sa; that this telephon~ is not answered at night. To compensate for this, some wind operators hire experienced professionals !o co?1~ m f~r a week or two every year to monitor their noise and to assure the neighbors that they are tmaguung things.

The _Public Service Board needs to require continuous noise monitoring of industrial turbmes. For example of how this should be done please see this link to see how they monitor noise at the Denver Airport. http://webtrak5,bksv.com/den3 The project owners should be charged a fee to pay for this continuous third party monitoring and enforcement ., just like the FAA does to airlines. If the noise standard is exceeded during sleeping hours the turbine owner should pay the families that are impacted or they should be treated like any other industrial operation in a residential neighborhood and forced to shut down at night. Falmouth Mass has just ordered an industrial turbine to shut down. htt_p://www.capecodtimes.com/

The noise you can hear is not the only sound that an industrial wind turbine produces. Industrial wind turbines also produce low frequency sound that you cannot bear but you can feel. When a turbine blade passes the wind tower on a large turbine it generates a low frequency pulse. These pulses are typically below 20 Hz and are called infrasound.

Turbine infrasound can be detected inside homes as far away as six miles. We know also that very low levels of infrasound and LFN are registered by the nervous system and affect the body even though they cannot be heard. Researchers have implicated these infrasonic pulsations as the cause of some of the most commonly reported "sensations" experienced by many people living close to wind ~bines. These sensations include chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, tinnitus, heart palpitations, vibrations and pressure sensations in the head and chest etc. There is medical research which demonstrates that pulsating infrasound can be a direct cause of sleep disturbance. In clinical medicine, chronic sleep interruption and deprivation is acknowledged as a trigger of serious health problems.

Denmark, which may have the most successful renewable energy program in the world, recognizes the potential health effects of audible and sub-audible turbine noise. Vermont does not. The Vermont Department of Health acknowledges that turbine noise can disturb sleep and that disturbed sleep can impair health. It is curious that the Department is unable to connect the dots and to conclude that turbines can impair health. They need to connect the dots.

There is a growing body of research that shows that industrial wind turbines can have negative effects on the health of their neighbors. Because so many indicators point to infrasound as a potential agent of adverse health effects, I respectfully ask the members of Pubic Service Board, the Pubic Service Department, State Health Department, the Governor, the members of the Legislature, all Elected Officials, the Media, the Industrial Wind industry and all Vermonters who care about the future of our State to please read this report and to watch the vimeo link that describes infrasound in detail:

http://docs, wind-watch.orivinfrasound-wind-turbines-4-A ug:ust-2015 .pdf

htn,s://vimeo,com/l 2 l 836628?from=outro-embed

If not sited properly industrial wind turbines can harm public health. I therefore call for a moratorium on industrial wind turbine projects until the Legislature, Pubic Service Board, Public Service Department and the Governor develop operating standards that protect the health of turbine neighbors, reform turbine siting standards, and regulate the operation of existing industrial turbines.

Brian Dubie, served as Vermont's Lt Governor 2003-2011

Views: 121

Tweet Facebook

• Next Post >

Comment cill Mccann Appraisal, LLC

April 15, 2013

U~S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means

Re: Comments to the Energy Tax Reform Working Group

Dear Committee· Members,

I am writing as a real estate appraiser with extensive professional experience ·regarding unintended consequences of the PTC, as it relates to subsidizing· wind energy development.

It is a fact that many wind energy projects, large and small, are being·sited too close to tesidential property and the homeowners, and is causing not only aesthetic impacts, but noise, sleep disruption -and other nuisances for a large. percentage ¢ ·people living within approximately 2 miles of 400-500 foot tall turbines.

Empirical research demonstrates that residential property values are adversely impacted within this range, by 25% to 40%.

It is also true that local ordinances, codes and noise limits are antiquated when it comes to the type, quality and extent of turbine noise, both audible and low frequency (inaudible) LFN noise. The wind industry has gone to great lengths to deny any of these impacts actually exist, but NASA, the Defense Department, and other scientific research has clearly found that low frequency noise can be quite disturbing to people, not to mention the unprecedented level of adverse neighbotjng responses and complaints. LFN even has military applications, i.e., crowd controt (dispersion), etc.

These noise impacts are the primary reason many people become ill, decide ·to sell their homes, or otherwise relocate away from wind projects, with homeowners incurring significant loss of equity when they CAN sell. However, people sesklng·'to escape the impact of turbines often find that there Is no "market', for their homes, as the character of homes surrounded by huge turbines is impaired by virtue of'the:intrusion of large scale industrial development into residential and/or rural residential locations.

Typical wind projects in the Midwest encompass and surround homes within 5,000 - 20,000 acres, so this is not a small scale problem.

Again, many cannot sell at any price and there are many reports in the US and worldwide of people abandoning their homes, as a result of having no other practical options or means to escape the negative impacts.

500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 6061-1 PHONE: (312) 644-0621 FAX: (312) 644-9244 CJ)] Mccann Appraisal, LLC

I have researched the real estate trends and value impacts in numerous project locations, as an objective professional appraiser, and I recommend that the PTC NOT be renewed due to the numerous unintended consequences of the wind energy developments. Specifically, loss of market value and marketability of neighboring homes.

Alternatively, when turbine project "footprints" surround any homes, there should be an amendment to the PTC authorization that provides for homeowners to have an option to be bought out at market value, and relocated at the project expense; as with any other federally funded projects intended for a public purpose or public benefit. A Property Value Guarantee (PVG) requirement for wind projects ·is also a viable means of addressing the-equity loss of homeowners who .suddenly find they are living in the path of wind projects.

A buyout and PVG requirement is a reasonable modification to the. PTC. No highway, bridge, airport, military base or other large scale project-would be allowed to "surround" homes. I suggest that. doing· so· with wind projects is a correctable oversight. I have also calculated the cost of buying out residential property in rural locations, and it represents a deminimus use of PTC funding, and would generally not require the use of private developer equity. ,

Finally, I am willing to discuss this issue with any committee members, or provide testimony .before Congress, if. requested. ·

Respectfully submitted,

Michael S. Mccann, CRA Mccann Appraisal, LLC · 500 North Michigan Avenue Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60611

Phone:

500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60611 PHONE: (312) 644-0621 FAX: (312) 644-9244 Wind Wise Massachusetts is a statewide alliance of grass roots organizations and individuals who are concerned about the negative health, environmental and economic impacts of poorly-sited wind turbines. McCann Summarizes Property Value Studies

• . :+•..••. :. ·-·· .••. ·.. -·· ·--- ·------··· -·-. : .. .. ·.:: ...•. ·•.• # • ::.:. • .; Michael McCann Literature Review I I Summary: Wind Turbine - P.roperg, Value Impact Studies I Independent Studies Author Type Year Location ·Method -Distance Impact% (39%)Avg. jLansink [Appraiser 2012 Ontario Resale<•> k2 miles j rl3%-59% I lAcademic I Geographic I RWTH Rheine& ISunak 2012 rweighted ~Km (25%) lAachen tNeuenkirchen Regression <2> I University I lAcademic !Heintzelman Regression Resale 1/10 to 3 ~aries to> Clarkson 2011 Upstate·NY ffuttle kt Census Block lmiles (45%) I University r 2009 nlinois, V'MJ, Paired Sales & (25%)20% !McCann lAppraiser k2miles I -2012 MA, WI resale · ~40% I !oardner Appraiser 2009 Texas Paired Sales I.Smiles ~25%) I I '30- 4 Regression & !Visible vs. \' !Kielisch lAppraiser 2009 Wisconsin <> ~0%)(24- Survey not visible l B9%) (15%) ~uxemburger Broker 2007 · Ontario Paired Sales BNM .$48,000

5 l2000- lAV ratio 104% v. lincoln Twp. Committee< > Wisconsin 1 mile (24%) I 2002 76% l I Wind Industry-Fonded Studies lAppraisers fanning& -2010 Ontario Regression Paired. i\Tiewshed(6) (7%-13%) ,Simmons (CANWEA) Sales (9%) lAcademicISU . : Pooled .. · B mt1esl/2 Noss·· ~ .. REP 2010 Illinois Regression ! ntile (11.8%) (7) Student thesis Realtor survey I USDOE- 5 miles 3k !Increases ~foen 2009 9 states Pooled regression rundedLBNL. !ft- I mile :5.6%) <3> (Adapted from "Wmd ProJects & Land Value" by Michael S. Mccann, CRA, Mccann Appraisal, LLC. Chicago, Illinois© 2012. Used with permission.)

Please note: Any number in parentheses indicates a negative number; therefore, percentages in parentheses show a decrease in value. Sources 1. Lansink Resale study uses resales from developer to private buyers, with Easement in Gross condition of sale. Buyer accepts noise impacts, etc., waives liability 2. Lots only. No pooling of data 3. lv1cC~ Illinois _stu4y & research up~ted,.m~tiple.$tes 4. Kielisch regression-lot sales; Realtor survey residential· 5. Committee compared actual sale prices vs. AV and found homes up to 1 mile sold @ 76% of AV,and> 1 mile@104%of AV . . 6. Usually cited as being a study that found no 'impact However, all methods used yielded negative numeric indieationi ":AUtli6r concludes noistatisticitr-significanct(, · ;.. 1 7. Cites Realtor who believes no impact.,<>n1Va1ue·:>·3:tniles. Concludes some results indicate ''wind ·farm, anticipation stigma" (1 h8·%)/Pg.55. Auth0r ·states·:''the results. neither support nor reject ~e exj~nce of a win~ farm nuisance stigma after the wind farm achieved commercial operation .... .likely due to only 11 properties. selling during operations within 1 mile of wind farm." Good· neighbor payments to some nearby neighbors. Values near wind farm appreciated $13,524 after operation, following $21;? l6. decline. measUJ;ed under anticipation stigma theory. (Net loss of.$8,392 pre- vs.: post operation~/Pg. l~O. . . . . 8.Study excludes developer resales with .36% & 80% ·discounts from buyout price. Pooled data from 9 states 24 projects insures lack of statistical significance for value loss examples near turbines. OtlJ«tr ,sales nearby exclµded. due t~ devialiop too far fr~m mean and _t¢sale.

About:~chael:S. McCann: • 30 years appraisal &·consulting • Most types ,of..commercial, industrial: & resid~ntial property • State Certified General Appraiser • Certified Rev{~w A~praiser (CRA)' · • Member - Lambda· Aipht'-irttemational • Qualified&testified as expert witness in 21 states, circuit courts.& federal court • Appraised-variety of property value· damage ~ituations . • Consultant t~ ,governmental bodies,· developers, cQmorations, attorneys, investors .and private. owners • Appointed by· Federal Court as a Condemnation Commissioner' • Evaluated & consulted 20+ ,utility scale wind projects-in -over a 1dozen states·: '· ... . .: :··, https://windwisema.owmccann-summarizes~p~operty-value-stu~~s/ .,

·,. Clearview Wind turbines licence revoked

By JT McVeigh, The Enterprise-Bulletin Wednesda , Au ust 16, 2017 5:03:03 EDT PM

•

CLEARVlEW TWP. - There may not be eight wind turbines spinning in Clearview Township after all.

In a decision released Wednesday, the Environmental Review Tribunal revoked the renewable energy approval for the project, saying the danger to human li fe and safety was too great.

Within the turbine sightlines is the Collingwood Regional Airport and a private air field owned by Kevin and Gail Elwood.

Eight turbines that were proposed for the Fairview project near Stayner would have seen the 450- foot-tall power-generating structures set up and serviced through connecting underground distribution power lines in locations to both the north and south of County Road 91. The review had to consider were whether the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and iITeversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

Other concerns involved endangerment to little brown bats in the area.

Although the tribunal accepted a mitigation proposal from wpd Canada, it deemed the danger to human health and safety, with the towers being so close to an airport, too great a risk and revoked the approval.

Challenges to the initial approval were issued by the Elwoods, John Wiggins, Clearview Township, Collingwood and the County of Simcoe.

In a statement, Collingwood Mayor Sandra Cooper expressed her relief with the decision.

"We are extremely happy with the decision issued today," said Cooper. "The town has long expressed concern with the proposed turbines, particularl y over the safety of aircraft utilizing our regional airport, and we're pleased to see that the Environmental Review Tribunal has agreed that this is a serious harm to human health."

The applicant, wpd Canada, had no comment, as it is reviewing the decision and has 30 days to appeal. j [email protected]

Link: http://www.th eenterprisebul letin.corn/20 l 7 /08/16/clearview-wind-turbines-licence- revoked

NOTE: Simcoe County is located in the central portion of Southern Ontario, Canada Opinion CONTRIBUTORS Forest fires and wind turbines: The danger no one is talking about By Clyde MacDonald, Special to the BON ·:,,: SYeC: Ju:~e 29, 20: 1, at 6: 19 p.'.Yl. Despite all that has been written about wind power, a vitally important issue has barely been mentioned. When turbines fail, blades may fall to the ground or send fragments that land up to a mile away. Turbines often catch fire, and when they do they often send flaming shards into fields and forests. Much has been said abou~ the short-term jobs created in preparing turbine sites, but almost nothing about job losses from turbine­ caused fires in our paper mills, sawmills and other forest-dependent industries. Official information on the number and severity of turbine-induced forest fires remains largely secret and unavailable. Nonetheless, there are scattered media reports and one thorough description of the safety record of the Caithness USA Wind corporation with installations in the northwest. That one corporation experienced 110 serious wind turbine fires over a 20 year period, but there is no mention of whether some of those fires may have spread to adjacent areas. Similarly, media references to 43 turbine fires, mostly in the U.S. and Europe, merely state "no details." Many references do contain brief statements, such as that 22 fires were caused by lightning strikes, but again, no references to those fires spreading far from the sites. Only 25 of the reports mention that turbine fires had spread to fields and forests.

In California, one such fire burned 68 acres, another 220 acres, and in Palm Springs several "spot fires" had been generated in surrounding areas. In Hawaii, 95 acres were burned. Australia lost 80,000 acres of forests located mostly in a national park. Spain lost nearly 200 acres from one fire. A comment on a German fire mentioned that ''burning debris" from a turbine had traveled several hundred meters from the site. In Holland, three burning blades from a mere 270-foot tower cast a so-foot flaming shard 220 feet from the site. The most dramatic report emanated from Wales where "great balls of fire" landed more than 150 yards away, causing a hillside to burn. Fearing more forest fires, an Australian province enacted a law banning placements of wind towers near wooded areas. Yet, in heavily forested Maine, all of our wind power sites have been approved without even considering that turbines have often caused forest fires. It requires little imagination to foresee that 400-foot blazing turbines, located in the most heavily winded areas along steep mountain· slopes, could- easily shoot flaming debris into wooded areas. Mere fire engines cannot douse turbine fires. In every report, firefighters had to allow the turbine fires to bum themselves out. All they could hope. to do was prevent the fires from spreading to other areas. In Australia, California and Germany, massive firefighting equipment evidently came from nearby areas. That 22o~acre California fire had been contained by 45 firefighters, two helicopters and two bulldozers. The 69-acre fire was contained with the. help of 15 fire engines, four hand crews and four planes. A s~acre ~ornia fire was :extiiiguished by six fire engines, three water trucks, two helicopters, two tanker planes, a bulldozer and three hand crews. When Maine experiences turbine fires, one wonders what allowances have been made to buy, store, maintain and make use of such equipment. Where will the personnel and equipment be located? Who will pay for them? Has the Department of Environmental Protection and Land Use Regulation Commission required bonding or insurance policies that would cover the costs of forest losses and jobs in our woods-related industries?

We needed a moratorium that would have allowed us to study all questions related to the turbine-caused forest fire dangers, but the Maine Legislature recently rejected a moratorium proposal. We m•y hope DEP and LURC will ·forgo further site approvals until these and other questions are answered satisfactorily. General Electric reportedly recently wrote to a potential wind developer that its newer turbines rarely catch fire, presumably unlike the older ones. already in place. H true, should Maine's agencies require the installation of GE turbines Qnly? Forest fires. present another unanswered question and -one more reason why our permitting.agencies should forgo ·approving more wind turbine sites in Maine's wooded areas for the remainder of this year. Clyde MaclJonald ol Hampden .wcis an aide to Sens. Edmund Muskie and George Mitchell. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/29/opinion/forest-fires-and-wind-turbines-the-danger-no­ one-is-taJJdng-about/ OURVIBN Legal, but not necessarily right l, How can two rights make a wrong?n Bellmont-goes into effect. BurkeAssessorJames Gonyo asked Because CCS opted to factoroutthevalue . that question duringarecentconversa­ of the tax-exe.mptpropertieswhenitdivided tionaboutthe Chateaugay Central School up itstaxlevy, Burlce officialssayadispropor­ District's use of an option available to itunder tionateshare ofthedistricttaxburdenisfall­ thestate'sRealPropertyTaxLawforhowit ingnoton the taxpayers ofthetownswitha alloca~ its taxlevyamongthevarlous towns high percentage oftaxexemptproperties, but the district serves. . on the taxpayers ofBurke, whichhasfewer Section 1314 of the state law permits tax-exemptproperties. U:nderthetaxrates school districts that include more than one recently approvedbythedistrlctBoard of town to choose between two ways of distrib­ Education, theownerofapropertyinBmke uting the total amount of taxes theyplan to assessedat$100,000willpay$1,905inschool collectforthecomingschoolyear-thetax taxes, while the owner ofapropertywith the levy. Option one bases the allocation onthe samevalueinClintonwillpay$1,379andthe total assessed value ofall properties in a com­ ownerofanidenticailyvaluedpropertyin munity. Option two allows the school district Ellenburgwill pay$1,368 in school taxes. The to subtract the value of tax exemptions before taxbillona$100,000propertyinChateaugay calculatinghowmuchofthetaxburdenwill willberoughly$1, 700 and in Bellmont about be levied on each communitywithin the dis-­ $1,300. trict. Those disparities will continue to increase CCS officials have chosen to go with option with the completion ofthe Jericho Riseproj­ two. ectand-:--itif comes to fruition-another Incommunitieswithalargenumberof proposed windfarmin the Clinton County tax-exemptprop,erties, a disproportionate towns. burdenfallson those property owners who Taxpayersin the communities where have to payta:xes. Communities-especially windfannsarelocated alreadybenefitfrom smallcommunities-thathostgovemment host-communityagreements, underwbich complexes, colleges and universities; reli­ the developers paysignificantsums-in gious centers and other exemptinstitutions Chateaugay, Noble Environmental Power still have to collect taxes, but they are forced pays$525,000ayearto the town-instead to do so fromalimited pool of taxpayers-a ofpropertytaxes. TheNoblepaymentin poolthatshrinkseverytimeapropertyis Chateaugay has enabled the town to keep its taken offthe tax role. taxrate:flat, or even decrease it slightly, for Option two is intended to help those tax­ several years. payers, atleastwith their school tax bills, by So while the properties are tax exempt, the spreading the burden a bitmore equitably. communjties-andth~school distrlct­ ,,Butwhathappenedin theChateaugaydis­ continueto receive revenues from them. trictthis~showshowevenlawsintended ThedecisionbyCC.So~todeduct to promote fairness can produce unfair re­ the value oftax-exemptionsfromtheirtax sults. levy calculations is certainly legal, and school The Chateaugay school district includes all boardPresidentDavidRoach, in a statement or part ofthe towns of Chateaugay, Burl

30 years appraisal & consulting Most types of commercial, industrial & residential property State Certified General Appraiser Certified Review Appraiser (CR.A) Member-Lambda Alpha Jntemational Qualified & testified as expert witness in 21 states, circuit courts & federal court Appraised variety of property value damage situations Consultant to governmental bodies, developers, corporations, attorneys, investors and private owners Appointed by Federal Court as a Condemnation Commissioner Evaluated & consulted 20+ utility scale -wind projects in over a dozen states

One Comment leave one-+

Trackbacks

1. Recent Energy And Environmental News -August 24th 2015 I PA Pundits - International

Create a free website or blog at WordPress,com,

Save

https:f/viindwisema.orgfmccann-summarizes-property-value-stucfies/ 313