Expert: Consumers Energy Trying To ‘Muddle’ Wind Turbine Noise Solution

[XLFD]

The latest update from CapCon, the media arm of the Mackinac Center on the birthday of one of our members who understands the limitations of these turbines, Aldon Maleckas.

<----  A 476 foot tall windmill stands 1,139 feet from the Shineldecker house in Riverton Township in Mason County.

A plan to address excessive noise issues at a Northern Michigan wind plant won't work, a sound expert said.

Additionally, he said he thinks Consumers Energy, which has offered the plan, knows it won't work.

On Feb. 7, Consumers Energy submitted a mitigation plan to address noise levels at its Lake Winds Energy Plant, located south of Ludington in Mason County. The submission of this plan was ordered by the 51^st Circuit Court, where the utility is contesting the county's ruling (the first of its kind in Michigan) that the $250 million, 56-turbine wind plant is in violation of its noise ordinance.

Rick James of East Lansing-based E-Coustic Solutions is an acoustician specializing in the production, control, transmission, reception and effects of sound.

The following is an interview with James interviewed about the Consumers Energy Mitigation plan.

What did you think of the mitigation plan Consumers Energy submitted to Mason County?

"Consumers Energy is trying to use the same type of bad science it was accused of using in the permit application study by Brian Howe, HGC (the acoustical consultants to the county) to its advantage now that mitigation is the issue.

"First, it's trying to say the problem stems from background noise not being measured and its effects being left out of the HGC compliance measurements, which would imply that the measurements inflated the sound levels from the wind turbines. There was no evidence that this occurred and it would be expected that HGC would have made such corrections if they had found high background sound levels contaminated their compliance test results. Based on this type of specious reasoning Consumers Energy proposes minor adjustments to the turbines that are located close to where there have been complaints.

"But it is well established that a person cannot hear any difference when decibels are lowered by these small amounts."

Could lowering the decibel rate by as much as would be required to impact the noise significantly impact the efficiency of the turbine?

"Yes, lowering it by just 5 decibels could cost about 20 to 25 percent of potential energy production."

So let’s understand what you think Consumers Energy is planning to do. It would be similar to a situation in which repairmen keep coming out and adjusting a faulty furnace in a home, and after each adjustment it may seem to work alright for a short while, but eventually it malfunctions again and they end up coming back repeatedly a do more adjusting; but the real problem is that you need a new furnace. Would this be an appropriate comparison?

"Yeah, it would be somewhat similar to that. In my opinion, Consumers Energy knows that what it is proposing isn't going to solve the problem, but it sets up a whole scenario under which — as complaints continue into the future — they can say to the courts: 'Here they go again. We keep making these adjustments. We're doing all that we can and we need some sort of relief from this.' "

The Mason County case is the first in Michigan where a county has determined that one of these wind plants is operating louder than the ordinance allows. That means the outcome of the situation could be very important, doesn't it?

"Yes it does. That's why I think it is very important that the county understands what the real problem is. The Lake Winds Energy plant in Mason County was located too close to homes. The way it was designed did not include any safety factors. That is why it is bad science. They did not adhere to standard scientific methods that account for uncertainty in designs.

"Here’s one way to explain what’s happening. Under the Mason County ordinance there is a maximum allowable noise level. That means the turbines are never supposed to exceed that level. When the Lake Winds Energy Plant exceeds the noise limit, that's the same as when someone in an automobile breaks the speed limit.

"If a policeman stops you and says you've been clocked going over the speed limit, you get a ticket. It has nothing to do with whether the average speed you were traveling on that road was within the limit. If you get caught going over the limit, you've violated the law. But what Consumers Energy is trying to do with this mitigation plan is acting as if the noise violation is about the average sound level, not whether or not the turbines periodically exceed it. That would make enforcement almost impossible. Imagine if the police officer had to show that a driver's average speed exceeded the speed limit. Following a suspected speeder's vehicle would require a huge investment in time and still lead to inconclusive results.

"There is really no scientific basis for what Consumers Energy is trying to do with this. They’re going to bring in their experts in an effort to muddle things all together."

Is there a predictable percentage of people who will be negatively affected by turbine noise above a certain level while other people aren't?

"Yes, it's from 10 to 15 percent. It can be very frustrating for them. They can say, 'Can't you hear that constant noise?' But the person standing right next to them might not even hear it.

"The wind industry tries to claim that there is no proof that turbines cause health problems, but actually it is something that's been well established for decades. There is a long legacy of people suffering. It's the same thing as the 'sick building syndrome,' which has been well established and is well understood. ... It's the same as what's happening with these turbines. It really isn’t new; it has been known about for 50 years by acousticians who specialize in this aspect of noise; probably longer."

If wind turbines are causing health problems for 10 percent to 15 percent of those who live near them, why don’t we hear about even more complaints?

"Well, typically they call in the zoning commissioner and he doesn't know what to do about it. Then they go to the council and they don't really do anything. A lot of the time they just end up feeling isolated and don't know what to do.

"However, I think in the long run this could end up being like the cigarette lawsuits. First one person will win a case and get damages for the health impacts, then another will win and so on. I could at some point see it turning into a situation where we may see attorneys putting ads on TV, like the ones we see now that are seeking people who have Mesothelioma, only they'll be looking for people who are suffering ill effects from living near wind turbines. But even before it reaches that point, those who operate wind plants will be facing some pretty serious financial issues."

Consumers Energy spokesman Dennis Marvin said the utility wouldn't comment on the mitigation plan until after a Mason County meeting, which was Tuesday.

Lake Winds is part of the effort made by Consumers Energy to meet Michigan's renewable energy mandate, which requires that 10 percent of the state's energy be produced by in-state renewable sources by 2015.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19764

[XLFD]

From yesterday's COLDNews concerning the mitigation plan at a Planning Commission meeting.  More muddling:

 

"SCOTTVILLE — Consumers Energy will have to wait another week to hear if its proposed sound mitigation plan for Lake Winds Energy Park will be accepted by the Mason County Planning Commission after the allotted time to review the plan expired Tuesday night. The planning commission adjourned the session until 7 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25 at the Scottville Library when it also will address concerns about paint used on the 56 turbines and glare from them that some residents have complained about.

       

To open the meeting, the planners heard from Consumers about its plans to reprogram turbines cited as in non-compliance so that when wind speed at the their hubs reaches about 7 meters per second, the turbines would change the pitch — the angle of the blades — thus lowering power output and sound.

                    

Several residents asked the planners to require more of Consumers Energy.

Resident Cary Shineldecker argued that all of the 56 turbines should be reprogrammed. He argued that since all four sites that were tested were determined to be in violation and, it could be argued that all the turbines could be in violation. He said had all been found to be in compliance, the argument would have been made the entire park in compliance, so he wanted the same logic applied.

RESIDENTS STATE CONCErNS

Resident Evelyn Bergaila repeated a request made earlier to the Mason County Board of Commissioners that Consumers be required to shut down the entire Lake WInds Energy Park until a sound mitigation plan is accepted by the planning commission. She read planning commission minutes from prior to granting of the special land use permit that allowed the 100 megawatt park to be constructed in which planners said if Lake Winds didn’t meet the sound requirements, the park would be shut down. Bergaila said a Consumers’ attorney previously said that threat of shutdown of the $200 million facility in Summit and Riverton townships was “the hammer” the county had to make sure Lake Winds complied.

She urged the planners to use that hammer and shut down Lake Winds while the mitigation plan is studied.

Some support offerered

Riverton resident Jim Dittmer said he spoke on behalf of landowners participating in the wind farm. Dittmer said “only a small number of people” are complaining. “We’re happy to have them paying taxes in our community,” he said. He called the HGC sound study commissioned by the county flawed and asked why Consumers is being required to follow the letter fo the law when he said the county isn’t.

“It’s unfair to me and all the landowners to ask for mitigation when the proper procedures weren’t followed,” he said.

(Landowners participating in the project receive a payment based in part on the amount of power generated by turbines on their land. Less power generated, potentially means less of a payment.)

Dittmer asked the county to consider doing a new sound study that eliminates background noise.

Bill Schoenlein, Consumers manager of hydro and green energy generation, served as spokesman for Consumers Tuesday night. He explained the three-step process for mitigating what Consumers still calls “alleged” violations. The company maintains the county’s sound consultant, HGC Engineering, did not properly remove background noise which Consumers contends, if removed, would show the turbines don’t violate the 45 decibel sound limit for the property line of unpooled, non-participating parcels.

In essence, the company is proposing to have Vestas’ turbine technicians reprogram turbines cited as violating the sound ordinance so that when wind reaches that 7 meter per second speed at the tower hub, the blade’s angle of hitting the wind is altered. The “less aggressive” angle should provide the sound reductions the HGC testing indicates is needed, Schoenlein said.

“We would be compliant with what we believe to be incorrect data that includes background data,” Schoenlein said. He said testing before and after modifications would be needed to verify the plan works as predicted.

PLANNERS’ questions

Planners questioned Schoenlein about Consumers’ proposed testing to determine if the mitigation plan brings the turbines into compliance.

Planner Tom Hooper urged Consumers to work with its distributor to allow on-off testing of the turbines without 48-hour notice, as was required when HGC did its testing. Hooper said he had concerns with that delay. “A one or two day wait is too long,” he said.

Planner Doug Robidoux said he agreed and suggested Consumers work with the distributor to identify a window when testing is occuring that on-off tests can be done at a time most appropriate without the 48-hour notice.

Schoenlein said he agreed that would be best, but didn’t commit to it.

Planner Dennis Dunlap further asked Consumers to make sure all turbines are operating during the test time “so we have good numbers” and he asked if March or April testing is possible.

At that point, the commission decided to carry on the conversation at a special meeting next Tuesday.

During a short public comment session that followed, Shineldecker reiterated his argument that had the testing of the four sites shown those turbines to be in compliance, that would have been used to say the entire park is in compliance.

He called for operations of all the turbines to be modified using data from the HGC tests in the modeling that had been originally based on data that indicated the turbines would be in compliance as far as sound is concerned.

Later in the night, after the two other public hearings and after a discussion on setting priorities for the commission to deal with during the year, Bergaila urged the commissioners to make a high priority looking at current zoning requirements concerning setbacks from turbines. Doing so now is low on the list of proposed priorities the planning commission is considering addressing .

Bergaila pointed out the board of commissioners has renewed a halt on future wind park development in the county until the planners have concluded their reviews of wind park issues. She suggested if the planners delay too long and a developer wishes to put in a wind farm and is denied because of the county’s halt on development, a judge could rule the county has taken too long in its review.

Zoning and Building Administrator Mary Reilly told the planners that while the county prevailed in Consumers’ attempt to seek a stay of the order to produce a sound mitigation plan for Lake Winds Energy Park, the appeal of the order is still proceeding in court. She said Consumers is supposed to file its briefs on the appeal in March with the county following with its brief in April. She cautioned the planners a decision might not come until July or August."

http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/artic...

[AQUAMAN]

Consumers Energy has the best liars and crooks in the entire state working for them. Mucking up the waters is their forte!

[Willy]

How is anyone to know if the blade angle has actually been  altered and how would anyone know if the blades had been reangled back to their original  position after the complaint has been satisfied. No matter what happens it's logical to assume that Consumers is not going to continue to comply because they will be losing money, so look for the courts to settle this and we all know how that's going to turn out.

Imagine living among these monsters and looking out your window to see this view. Now imagine all of that moving.

[Willy]

I forgot to add that the photo of the turbines above is of our own industrial wind grabbing monsters located south of town.

[XLFD]

Look out for more of these envisioned in the new Mason County comprehensive master plan beginning to be drawn up by sustainable development proponents from LIAA. 

[Willy]

Consumers already has leases with land owners to install these monsters throughout Mason County

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, are you saying that more of these monsters of Consumers will be installed into the future? If so, is there a link or article to read to confirm? How many, where, and when? Thanks.

[Willy]

The fact that land throughout Mason County is under lease for wind turbines was brought out during the meetings that were held regarding their installation.  A Consumers official inadvertently offered this information and since land owners are not allowed to speak of the leases and their details it has remained a subject that is not discussed anywhere. I was at the meeting and heard his comments.The official who blurted this was probably reprimanded because no one at the meeting had any idea the entire County was being looked at for wind turbine installation. 

[AQUAMAN]

If Consumers Energy is so wonderful in this green energy act, why keep a "gag order" on the leases and the citizens? Sounds more like a cover-up to keep other citizens from getting the real scoop to me. When we find out the where's, when's, and how many more, I for one, would surely like to be in the know. Land values where these are installed, plummet, and that should be on the table up front for everyone to know, in advance, before it's too late. Sadly, it's already too late for all too many.

[Willy]

Here is a link which explains some of what has transpired. What happened was that some of those attending the meeting told the audience about leases with land owners in other parts of Mason county especially the Freesoil area. It actually was a board member not a CE official who confirmed it but he knew that he had  made a mistake when he did.

http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/watch-out-mason-count...

[XLFD]

A rare micro downburst featuring heavy winds hit Riverton Township last night devastating an area that roughly conformed to the Lake Winds Energy Park, leaving many without power.  How ironic. 

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2014/04/13/storm-coverage/