Resource Documents: Connecticut (5 items)
Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.
Connecticut, Delaware, Economics, Emissions, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont •
Author: Stevenson, David
The nearly decade-old Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was always meant to be a model for a national program to reduce power plant carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explicitly cited it in this fashion in its now-stayed Clean Power Plan. Although the RGGI is often called a “cap and trade” program, its effect is the same as a direct tax or fee on emissions because RGGI allowance costs are passed on from electric generators to distribution companies to consumers. More recently, an influential group of former cabinet officials, known as the “Climate Leadership Council,” has recommended a direct tax on CO₂; emissions (Shultz and Summers 2017).
Positive RGGI program reviews have been from RGGI, Inc. (the program administrator) and the Acadia Center, which advocates for reduced emissions (see Stutt, Shattuck, and Kumar 2015). In this article, I investigate whether reported reductions in CO₂ emissions from electric power plants, along with associated gains in health benefits and other claims, were actually achieved by the RGGI program. Based on my findings, any form of carbon tax is not the policy to accomplish emission reductions. The key results are:
- There were no added emissions reductions or associated health benefits from the RGGI program.
- Spending of RGGI revenue on energy efficiency, wind, solar power, and low-income fuel assistance had minimal impact.
- RGGI allowance costs added to already high regional electric bills. The combined pricing impact resulted in a 13 percent drop in goods production and a 35 percent drop in the production of energy intensive goods. Comparison states increased goods production by 15 percent and only lost 4 percent of energy intensive manufacturing. Power imports from other states increased from 8 percent to 17 percent.
David Stevenson is Director of the Center for Energy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute. He prepared this working paper for Cato’s Center for the Study of Science.
Download original document: “A Review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative”
Author: Ambrose, Stephen; and Rand, Robert
At the request of FairWindCT, Inc., we submit our professional opinions for the review of the proposed Connecticut Siting Council Draft Wind Regulations dated 12 April 2012. …
Industrial wind turbine noise has proven to be a source of public complaints for non-urban neighbors living up to a mile away. This is especially true in locations where wind speeds can be calm to light at ground level and strong at the turbine blade heights, and/or wind directions differ from low to high elevation. The change in wind speed and/or angle with increased elevation is called “shear”. Changes in topographical elevation produce “turbulence”. Shear and turbulence are strong in New England, but mild at manufacturer test locations where winds are steady and there are small changes in wind speed with increased elevation.
Comment 1: Wind shear and turbulence consideration is omitted.
Comment 2: Low-frequency noise consideration is omitted.
Wind turbine manufacturer test data is obtained and published with A-weighting (as required by the IEC 61400-11 standard). This is very misleading since A-weighting filters out low frequency noise contributions and excludes infrasonic energy. Data published by wind turbine manufacturers discounts the significance of low frequencies and infrasonic energy. Un-weighted (linear or “dBZ”) field measurements have confirmed that most of the acoustic energy produced by wind turbines is low frequency and infrasonic (below 200 Hz).
Low frequencies are a well documented common complaint for wind turbine noise; i.e., it sounds like “a jet plane that never lands”. This is especially true indoors, where the higher frequencies are blocked and the longer wavelengths of low-frequency and infrasonic energy pass easily through the through exterior walls and roof into the home. The predominance of low frequencies inside homes is a leading cause for complaints.
The proposed regulations should include mandatory considerations for wind turbine low frequency noise by requiring the inclusion of a maximum low frequency limit for proposed facilities. A maximum of 55 dBC, outdoors at night (measured using the broadband “dBC” filter found on professional sound level meters) has a growing consensus by environmental acoustic and public health professionals. …
Comment 3: Proposed requirements are too lax to protect neighbors from excessive noise and adverse public health and well-being impacts. As written these requirements would result in widespread complaints and strong adverse community reactions. These findings are supported by the long-standing, industry-recognized and accepted community noise assessment methodologies published by USEPA dating back to the 1970’s.
Comment 4: Proposed requirements continue to “noise level excursions” (exceedances) allowed under the existing Connecticut law. These “allowances” would intensify wind turbine noise impacts especially at night when most people are trying to sleep.
Comment 5: Setback distances for noise must be greater than proposed for safety.
A setback distance of 1.1 times the wind turbine height, or the manufacturers recommended safety setback distance, may be appropriate for mechanical failure of the turbine structure and break-away parts. The safety setback does not address noise impacts. A reasonable and appropriate setback for noise is at a minimum 10 times the turbine height. This is supported by actual in-situ noise level measurements made in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines.
Taking the WHO night-time maximum limit guideline of 40 dBA and applying the wind shear design safety factor of 5 to 8 dB reveals a more realistic and appropriate maximum nighttime noise limit of 32 to 35 dBA. These noise limits may be achievable using a minimum noise setback distance of 10 times the turbine height (tower base to maximum blade height). Wind turbines rated at up to 2 MW require a setback of approximately 1 mile which is supported by in-situ wind turbine noise measurements in quiet areas (under 30 dBA nighttime); protecting public health and welfare. Short-term noise excursions, allowed by the existing Connecticut law, have been associated with sleep disturbance and should be disallowed. Low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines must be limited and considered to be a critical factor for determining the viability for a proposed site to be a good acoustic neighbor.
Download original document: “Ambrose and Rand Comments on Connecticut Siting Council Draft Wind Regulations”
Author: Lawrence, David
What is the basis of your testimony to the Siting Council?
I have concerns about the siting of wind turbines in residential areas due to documented health risks if adequate setbacks are not established. …
What is the basis for your concerns about setback distances?
There is safety in distance. Wind turbines emit sound energy that includes audible sound as well as infrasound. Infrasound has been documented to have acute medical effects in high doses over short periods. At lower doses over a prolonged period of time, there are also established negative health effects. The way to protect the exposed population is to ensure that there is a safe distance from the wind turbines. The current Connecticut sound ordinance standards would allow infrasound exposure to exceed safe levels. Given the unique qualities of wind turbines, new standards must be established and enforced regarding protection from infrasound and other harmful noises. Standards set by wind turbine manufacturers do not adhere to science and do not afford adequate protection to neighboring residents.
What evidence do you have about the harmful effects of infrasound from acute exposure?
The Health Protection Agency of the United Kingdom compiled research regarding ultrasound and infrasound to establish safe limits on exposure in a paper, “Health Effects of Exposure to Ultrasound and Infrasound: Report of the Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation” (February 2010). While the authors acknowledge that there is not a lot of research to review regarding infrasound, a number of available studies demonstrated that high energy exposure – usually about 100 dBA – over short periods in a repeated fashion can have physiologic and psychologic effects on animals and on humans. That is to say, the energy from infrasound can have a negative impact on living beings. …
Since wind turbines are already set back to limit sound energy maximum to 55 dBA daytime, 45 dBA nighttime, what are your concerns about exposure to infrasound from them?
Levels of 55/45 dBA are clearly too high. Connecticut environmental sound regulations were developed in the 1970s. They can not possibly account for the unique issues of infrasound generated by wind turbines. A significant number of scientific investigators from around the globe have demonstrated that sound levels exceeding 30-35 dBA have negative health effects. In a series of studies by Pedersen and others in The Netherlands it has been shown that there is a significant increase in annoyance above 30-35 dBA.
The World Health Organization in its position papers “Guidelines for Community Noise” (1999) and “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” (2009) notes that noise has detrimental effects on health above 30dBA, especially for “vulnerable populations”, that is, children and the elderly. These negative health effects include sleep disturbance with associated issues of daytime fatigue, reduced performance and accidents, as well as cardiovascular disease, depression and mental illness. The WHO furthermore states that “It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain”.
Geoff Leventhall, a highly respected acoustics expert in the UK, has numerous publications regarding infrasound. In his paper “Low-Frequency Noise and Annoyance” (Noise and Health, 2004, 6; 23: 59-72) he notes that infrasound and low-frequency noise (10-200 Hz) “ha[ve] been recognized as a special environmental noise problem”, “that the A-weighted level underestimates the effects of low-frequency noise”, and that “there is a possibility of learned aversion to low-frequency noise, leading to annoyance and stress which may receive unsympathetic treatment from regulatory authorities” [emphasis added]. In a report on the effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise for the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “A Review of Published Research on Low-Frequency Noise and Its Effects” (May 2003), Leventhall reviews the science behind his concerns. Quoting Leventhall (section 13.60):
There is no doubt that some humans exposed to infrasound experience abnormal ear, CNS [central nervous system], and resonance-induced symptoms that are real and stressful. If this is not recognized by investigators or their treating physicians, and properly addressed with understanding and sympathy, a psychological reaction will follow and the patient’s problems will be compounded. Most subjects may be reassured that there will be no serious consequences to their health from infrasound exposure and if further exposure is avoided they may expect to become symptom free. [emphasis added]
Are you familiar with a position paper authored by leading experts that dismiss concerns about infrasound?
The paper in question is “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review” (December 2009). It was sponsored by American and Canadian Wind developers and should stand as an embarrassment to them. The positions taken by the experts have omissions, misstatements, and unsupported conclusions. They offered little science to back their claims, and at times contradicted the science they presented. A fairly comprehensive critique with exposure of many of the misstatements was published as “An Analysis of the American/Canadian Wind Energy Association Sponsored ‘WTSHE/EPR’” (January 2010). I will add that when I read the report I felt that there were even more errors that those critics pointed out. All in all the “WTSHE/EPR” paper was poorly done and can not be considered seriously in siting guidelines. As a troubling aside, Geoff Leventhall, quoted by me in question 5, was one of the co-authors. By co-authoring the paper, he stands in contradiction to his own work, even if it is tacit approval of the statements. I say this to point out that apparently even a highly respected researcher can bend the rules of integrity with the right incentives.
Do you have any comments about studies raised by researchers such as [doctors] Nina Pierpont and Amanda Harry?
I think that time will validate much if not all of the findings that these researchers claim. They [the findings] are dismissed by the wind farm developers because they are not blinded studies and are based on reporting as opposed to concrete facts. However, given scientific studies in the lab and with study groups that show harm at acute, high-level exposure, and studies that demonstrate annoyance and related health issues above 30-35 dBA, it is reasonable to think that wind-related health issues as determined in these studies are real. The practice of medicine approaches evaluation and care of patients scientifically. Data are gathered, patients are assessed, and conclusions are based on probabilities. If someone is evaluated for a fever, even though there is a tremendously long list of possible causes, one can usually determine its cause through evaluation and taking into consideration likelihoods. In that way I believe that the researchers noted have sound reason to draw the conclusions they have. …
In your opinion as a medical doctor, would you agree that annoyance can cause negative health effects?
Annoyance even vaguely defined would include emotional responses that could easily affect physical and psychologic well-being. As stated by the WHO and others, annoyance is associated with sleep disorders, cognitive impairment, headaches, agitation, and depression among other issues. Annoyance is seen to be a factor that causes stress. In the practice of medicine we recognize stress a s a risk factor for heart disease, high blood pressure, migraine and tension headaches, fibromyalgia, and anxiety and depressive disorders, to name some of the prominent problems. Therefore there is a natural connection with annoyance and physical and psychologic disorders. In my clinical practice I have seen significant physical and health problems that have at least in part been caused and or made worse by stress. …
How do you propose the Siting Council establish safe standards?
The Siting council would do well to collate the abundance of data that is available from researchers and from experiences with existing wind farms. Siting guidelines should conform to WHO standards of limiting exposure to 30-35 dBA. Distance from the source, i.e., the wind turbines, is the only reasonable way to limit exposure. Kamperman and James (“Simple Guidelines for Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks”; Noise-Con 2008, 2008 July 28-31) review various sound considerations and propose guidelines that would set back wind turbines a minimum of 1000 meters. Petersen and Waye (“Wind Turbine Noise, Annoyance and Self-Reported Health and Well-Being in Different Living Environments”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2007; 64: 480-486) account also for site topography, stating:
Perception and annoyance were associated with terrain and urbanization: (1) A rural area increased the risk of perception and annoyance in comparison with a suburban area; and (2) in a rural setting, complex ground (hilly or rocky terrain) increased the risk compared with flat ground.
Professor John Harrison recommend specifically addressing the additive noise impact of wind turbulence as well as the summation of direct sound plus sound reflected from the ground (i.e., coherent reflection) (“Disconnect Between Turbine Noise Guidelines and Health Authority Recommendations”, white paper, Queen’s University, Ontario). …
Do you have any concluding remarks?
I believe that there is strong scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbine have inherent health risks related to low-frequency noise and infrasound. I believe that the safety of the pubic must be upheld over the ideals of green energy production, and that to protect the public wind turbine setbacks must be long enough to minimize the intensity of the sound such that it does not exceed 30-35 dBA at the residences. The lower level should be applied for children and the elderly, who are the most vulnerable. The setbacks are the be determined not only be distance, but must also accounting for site topography, turbulence and coherent reflection. Furthermore, as this case sets a precedent for future wind turbine siting, the outcome of these hearings must uphold the greater good of the residents of Connecticut regardless of political pressures and potential financial gains. This should be about what is right and correct, not “who wins the battle”.
Download original document: “Pre-filed testimony of David R. Lawrence, MD”
Alberta, Arizona, Australia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Denmark, Germany, Grid, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Maine, Manitoba, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Netherlands, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ontario, Oregon, Poland, Portugal, Rhode Island, Spain, U.K., Washington •
Author: National Wind Watch