Cape Wind Conversation

A Predictable Response from the Anti-Turbine Crowd

Ms. Barteau contends reviewers are in the pocket of the wind industry

Last week, the Massachusetts DEP released a study that reviewed the science related to the effects of wind turbines on humans. 

Of course we knew in advance that, unless the study found vast evidence of serious human impact, the anti-turbine crowd would denounce this report.  And sure enough, that denouncement came immediately, in part via this this article by Louise Barteau.  

Predictably, Ms. Barteau contends that the people chosen by the State to conduct its scientific review are in the pocket of the wind industry.  Let’s examine her claims. 

To begin with, here are the seven people on the panel that conducted the State’s review:

• Jeffrey Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc. Asstistant Professor of Neurology,HarvardMedicalSchoolDivision Chief, Sleep Medicine,Massachusetts GeneralHospital

• Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering;  Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering,BostonUniversity

• Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD;  Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,Boston University School of Public Health; Chair, Lexington Board of Health

• James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics; Professor & Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Mass, Amherst

• Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP; State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011; Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England

• Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD’ Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,;BostonUniversitySchoolof Public Health

• Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience; Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology; Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health

Ms. Barteau focuses on just two of these seven people.  Apparently, she found no fault with the other five members.

Of Dr. Dora Anne Mills, Ms. Barteau says:

“Mills has already testified in 2009 that according to previous literature searches she performed while employed as a public health official of Maine, she found no link to adverse health affects with turbines.  So we know she didn't have an open mind.”.

Ms. Barteau “knows” that Doctor Mills doesn’t have an open mind?  Geez, I didn’t realize that turbine opponents were blessed with ESP with which to look into a person’s soul.  Very impressive.

I encourage readers to do a web search of “Dora Anne Mills Maine”.  You’ll find that Dr. Mills is the scion of Public Health in Maine.  She served as director of the Maine Center for Disease Control for 15 years where she became widely recognized for her accomplishments that included reducing Maine’s rates of tobacco use, teen pregnancy and childhood obesity.

If you want to read the testimony that has damned Mills in the eyes of Ms. Barteau, click here.   Here’s an excerpt to give readers an feel for this supposedly close minded turbine supporter:

“I found no evidence of adverse health effects from the noise generated by wind turbines except for those associated with annoyances from the audible noises. These effects, however, are mitigated or disappear with proper placement of the turbines from nearby residences. So, although the noise qualities are different, it seems as though what was found to be true of airports and highways is true of wind turbines: It is primarily a matter of distance. However, there is no one proper distance for all wind turbines. Research indicates that a number of factors determine proper placement, including the height of the wind turbine, the surrounding topography, wind conditions, and wind direction. As with airports, annoyance levels are difficult to assess and vary from person to person. Careful measurements of different noise frequencies in a variety of weather conditions should assure proper placement of wind turbines that protect against annoyances and resulting effects.”

A highly respected, senior Public Health official conducts a review of turbine impact science and concludes that there is little evidence of impact.  Oh my God!  Unacceptable!  Unacceptable, that is, because she disagrees with anti-turbine people like Ms. Barteau.

Finally, before leaving Dr. Mills, if testifying on turbine science ruins a person’s credibility then Ms. Barteau as ruined hers.  See her recent testimony to her local health board here.

The second panel member with which Ms. Barteau has a problem is Dr. James F. Manwell of which she says:

“Manwell runs the UMass Amherst Wind Energy Center, which studies and promotes the use of wind turbines”.

Studies and promotes?  A review of the Wind Energy Center website finds it laden with descriptions of its educational programs and its research, but its promotional activities?  Sorry, there are none to be found.

Honestly, Ms. Barteau is on more solid ground criticizing Dr. Manwell than Dr. Mills:  When one devotes one’s career to research in a particular field it is often very difficult to avoid becoming a proponent of that field.  We probably can presume that Dr. Manwell is a proponent of wind power.  Of course, that doesn’t, mean that he didn’t act honestly and professionally during this review, but at least there’s some small basis for doubt.

So that’s one panel member out of seven who may possibly be biased regarding wind turbine effects.  The panel contains six other highly professional and qualified members, including an exceptionally well regarded Public Health official that Ms. Barteau just “knows” is in the pocket of the wind industry.

Weak, Ms. Barteau, very weak.   And, sadly, just what we expected from the anti-turbine crowd.

An Intriguing Study of the Falmouth Turbines

I’m writing to discuss a recent study of the Falmouth wind turbines that has come to be known as the “McPherson Study” for the name of its funder:  The late Bruce McPherson. 

I’ll start with a caveat:  I have no experience in acoustics.   Therefore, I’ll characterize this study generally.

Mr. McPherson, who died recently, was an opponent of the Falmouth Turbines.  Apparently, once he became ill and knew that he was dying, he decided to fund a study to examine infrasound from the turbines.  He hired a firm called Rand Acoustics which used microphones to measure infrasound in a single home located about 1,700 feet from the Falmouth Technology Park turbine.

A quick review of the Rand Acoustics website seems to indicate that it is a professional engineering firm working in the field of acoustics. 

The main finding of the study is very interesting:  Much more infrasound was recorded inside the home than outside.  This would seem to suggest that secondary infrasound can be generated by the vibration of homes.

The findings of this study, if confirmed, could explain a great deal.  Scores of people, including this writer, have listened to the Falmouth turbines from outside of homes in an attempt to gauge their impact.  As far as I know, nobody has heard much.  Additionally, outdoor acoustics tests have detected very little turbine sound.  These findings have caused many to doubt the complaints of neighbors.  If the offending sound is heard primarily inside homes then that could explain much.

The main drawbacks of this study are its narrowness and its brevity:  Infrasound was measured in a single home for less than 48 hours.  This means that we can’t begin to draw conclusions from the study.  At best, it has generated a new and interesting hypothesis worthy of further study:  That the vibrations of homes near wind turbines can generate secondary infrasound that affects residents.

Some say that the fact that Mr. McPherson was a turbine opponent reduces the study’s merit.  I disagree because I have seen no reason to question Mr. McPherson’s and Rand’s honesty and motives.  

Overall, the findings of this study are very intriguing.  If, as the study suggests, aggravating infrasound occurs primarily within homes then that could help resolve much of the confusion that we’ve experienced here in Falmouth.

Certainly, no conclusions can be drawn from this very narrow study.  But the Town of Falmouth should give it serious consideration and consider replicating it with expansions in scope.

The McPherson Study can be found at:  http://randacoustics.com/wind-turbine-sound/wind-turbines-published-articles/the-bruce-mcpherson-ilfn-study/

A Huge Year End Victory for Cape Wind!

Anyone following Cape Wind recently knows that the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has been crowing over its successful 2011.  To be honest, this crowing has not been without some justification:  The FAA was ordered to reconsider Cape Wind and the Alliance did finally reverse an alarming downward trend in fundraising.   How sad then for the Alliance that all of that was overshadowed in a stroke today when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) unanimously upheld the Cape Wind/National Grid Purchase Price Agreement (PPA).  This was a critical court challenge for the Alliance and it got squashed…. unanimously!  

Did I mention that the decision was unanimous?  OK enough gloating by me.  At the risk of getting too down and dirty, let’s take a look at this SJC ruling.  The following are the grounds upon which the Alliance and several other interveners challenged the DPU’s approval of the PPA:

1. The PPA violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution
2. The DPU improperly found that the PPA was cost effective and in the public interest
3. The contract should have been solicited through competitive bidding
4. The contract should have been subject to a cap on its size
5. The DPU erroneously approved a method for recovering costs
6. The DPU erroneously required that the contract facilitate financing of a renewable energy generation source.

For each of these, I’ll summarize the position of the interveners and then summarize the response of the SJC relying upon quotes from the decision as much as possible.

1. The PPA violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution

Interveners:  The MA Green Communities Act (GCA) forced National Grid to purchase renewable energy from a Massachusetts supplier.  This violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

SJC:  In  acknowledgement of the correctness of this objection, the GCA was previously amended.  That is, the GCA no longer requires that distribution companies like National Grid purchase only MA renewable energy.

Interveners:  The PPA was negotiated before the GCA was amended and thus was influenced by its original geographic requirement.

SJC:  Nowhere in the extensive documentation supplied by National Grid to explain its decision to sign the PPA does evidence exist that National Grid considered the geographical location of Cape Wind.  There is no evidence that the geographical source of the PPA’s power factored  into National Grid’s decision.

2. The DPU improperly found that the PPA was cost effective & in the public interest

Interveners:  The fact that the PPA prices exceed market prices clearly shows that the PPA is not cost effective.

SJC:  “The department’s analysis was thorough.  It carefully considered, and in some cases adopted, counter arguments made by the interveners.  It relied on a number of independent analyses and forecasts to reach its ultimate conclusion.  The record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that [its] benefits outweighed its costs”.  Basically, the SJC said that one must consider the benefits along with the costs.  Then it agreed with the DPU that the long term benefits outweigh the long term costs.

3. The contract should have been solicited through competitive bidding

Interveners:  National Grid did not solicit competitive bids as required.

SJC:  The GCA is clear on this point:  “The electric distribution company shall select a reasonable method of soliciting proposals which may include public solicitations, individual negotiations or other methods.”  National Grid acted properly when it conducted an individual negotiation with Cape Wind.

4. The contract should have been subject to a cap on its size

Interveners:  The GCA caps long term renewable energy contracts at 3% of customer load.

SJC:  “The short answer to [the interveners’] argument is that it is inconsistent with the language of the Act” which “prevents the department from forcing distribution companies to enter into LTCs for more than 3 percent of [customer load]”.  Basically the GCA limits the amount of renewable energy that National Grid must purchase but it does not limit how much National Grid can purchase.

5. The DPU erroneously approved a method for recovering costs

Interveners:  National Grid’s plan to spread the cost of the Cape Wind contract over all of its MA customers is improper.

SJC:  “The department permissibly determined that the benefits of PPA-1… will accrue to all National Grid customers, and it is therefore appropriate to require all customers to share in the costs”.

6. The DPU erroneously required that the contract facilitate financing of a renewable energy generation source.

I’m afraid that this one is just to obscure for me.  I'll have to punt on it.

Did I say above that I was done gloating?  Oh well, I’m weak. 

This is a HUGE win for Cape Wind and a HUGE loss for the Alliance… regardless of how Audra Parker tries to spin it!

Senate Majority Leader Murray Bails on Wind Turbine Approval

I’m writing today to discuss State Senate Majority Leader Patricia Murray’s change of heart on the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (WESRA) that would alter the approval process for land-based wind turbines in Massachusetts.  Senator Murray’s decision to oppose will likely be the last nail in the act’s coffin.  

On the one hand, I am unhappy with this because I hate to see irresponsible public relations campaigns succeed.  The WESRA would alter the approval process and diminish local influence to some degree.  Such a diminution would be appropriate considering today’s local-only process which is dominated by NIMBY interests.  Without some alteration of the process, local NIMBYs will continue to prevent the construction of any turbines anywhere.  I say “any” and “anywhere” because, let’s face it folks, we live in an age of NIMBYism when it’s hard install a shed in your backyard much less build something of industrial size, no matter the need.  And that’s just not right.

So what has been the opposition’s argument?  That the act would eliminate ALL local control.  As I described in a previous blog, that is a blatant distortion of the facts.  So, on the one hand I’m unhappy to see such an unscrupulous approach carry the day.

On the other hand, and somewhat unrelated to the WESRA, the recent Falmouth experience has uncovered a serious problem with Governor Patrick’s plan for on-shore Wind:  Patrick greatly over-estimated how much power can be generated by on-shore turbines because he greatly under-estimated the opposition that they would face.  Of course, it's easy for me to criticize with the benefit of hindsight, isn't it?

It took me about a year and a half to stop questioning the residents who object to the Falmouth turbines because I believed, for a long time, that they were emulating the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound vis-à-vis Cape Wind.  You know, the old “Say anything, no matter how false, as long as it works” approach.  I can’t explain exactly why, but something has changed my mind:  I now believe the neighbors.

Why is this relevant to the current subject?  Because, if one believes the Falmouth neighbors, one must conclude that large (over 1 MW) turbines do not belong in the kinds of urban and suburban neighborhoods that cover the whole coast of Massachusetts.  

In short, it’s a shame that an irresponsible public relations campaign is about to succeed.    But in the larger picture the WERSA is part of a flawed State plan for on-shore Wind.    So, we shouldn’t get too worked up if its enabling act goes down the tubes.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 11th Commandment

I have a question for readers:  If you saw the following graph of a company’s sales, would you be likely to describe 2010 in the following way?

"Company X nets a flood of sales!"

I didn’t think so.  You’d probably be more likely to say something like:

“Company X has finally halted an alarming downward trend in sales”

Of course, the above graph doesn’t describe the sales of a company.  Rather, it describes the fundraising of that inveterate Cape Wind enemy, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.  The first Company X statement above was inspired by the silly title of Friday’s fawning Boston Herald article:  “Cape Wind Foes Net Flood of Donations”.  In case you missed it,  the Alliance’s never to be believed Audra Parker is making the rounds gushing breathlessly to anybody who will listen about the Alliance’s remarkable 2010. 

Well, let’s give credit where credit is due:  Congratulations to the Alliance for its 2010 fundraising.  Congratulations, that is,  for reversing an ugly downward trend in contributions …. at least for now.

There are, of course, a couple of less favorable items in the Alliance's 2010 Tax Return:  Its expenses and its burgeoning debt as shown in this graph:

The Alliance began the year just over a half million dollars in the hole and ended the year a whopping $1.3 million in the red!  In other words, during a year of supposed robust success the Alliance slipped over three quarters of a million dollars further into debt!  I hope that, when Ms. Parker attended business school, she learned that that is not normally considered to be the hallmark of a solid year.  Then we have 2009, when - according to the that year's tax return - world class anti-environmentalist Bill Koch paid Parker's salary!

As I always say:  Never believe anything from Audra Parker.  Heck, perhaps it’s time to strengthen this into an 11^th Commandment:

Thou Shalt Never Believe Audra Parker

^* Source:  The 2010 Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound IRS form 990:  Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.  Line 22.