LETTER OF SUPPORTJanuary 15, 2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Drilling, Secretary, NYS PSCNYS Department of Public ServiceThree Empire State PlazaAlbany, New York 12223-1350

RE: CaseE-0351

Please accept this Letter of Support for the Petition of Steven Moultrap of 2101 StandishRoad, Town of Attica, Wyoming County, New York 14011 dated January 12, 2012.

Petitioner respectfully requests the NYS Public Service Commission to institute a Re-hearing on the grounds that facts and new circumstances warrant a differentdetermination for (Order number 10 and 11) of NYS-PSC Order issued December 15,2011 for Stony Creek Energy, LLC.

In addition to endorsing the petition, this Letter of Support is intended to amplify severalfundamental issues embedded in the petition.

Issue #1 - Larger Equipment planned with less-than-recommended setbacks.

Issue #2 - Insufficient Public review of the larger equipment.

Issue #3 - PSC requests for set-back clarifications remain seemingly unfulfilled.

The applicant, Stony Creek Energy, LLC plans to construct 59 - GE 1.6MW-100industrial wind turbines within the Town of Orangeville. However, throughout nearly theentire multi-year SEQR process, Stony Creek Energy/Invenergy proposed use of theGeneral Electric 1.5-XLE turbine (with a rotor diameter of 82.5 meters or 271 feet). Theapplicant revealed intent to use the GE 1.6-100 turbine (with a rotor diameter oflOOmeters or 328.5 feet) only at the very end of the public review process. Records andminutes from the Town Board of Orangeville, NY (the lead agency) show that theapplicant revealed plans to use the larger 1.6-100 turbine on June 26, 2011 - after theFinal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published. In quick succession, thelead agency then issued a notice of acceptance of the FEIS on July 6, 2011. Followingthis notice, the town attorney (while accepting public comments) indicated that the TownBoard was under no legal obligation to consider them.

It remains unclear how the lead agency could have possibly digested the implications ofthe larger turbines in ten days. In particular, many citizens contend that the lead agencyshould have thoroughly understood the implications of this larger diameter turbine onnon-participating properties, homes, and seasonal uses with particular focus on protectinghealth and welfare of town citizens. Still others contend that the new information, and

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, NYS PSC NYS Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350

RE: Case E-0351

LETTER OF SUPPORT January 15,2012

Please accept this Letter of Support for the Petition of Steven Moultrup of 21 0 1 Standish Road, Town of Attica, Wyoming County, New York 14011 dated January 12,2012.

Petitioner respectfully requests the NYS Public Service Commission to .institute a Re­hearing on the grounds that facts and new circumstances warrant a different determination for (Order number 10 and 11) ofNYS-PSC Order issued December 15, 2011 for Stony Creek Energy, LLC.

In addition to endorsing the petition, this Letter of Support is intended to amplify several fundamental issues embedded in the petition.

Issue #1 - Larger Equipment planned with less-than-recommended setbacks.

Issue #2 - Insufficient Public review of the larger equipment.

Issue #3 - PSC requests for set-back clarifications remain seemingly unfulfilled.

The applicant, Stony Creek Energy, LLC plans to construct 59 - GE 1.6MW-I00 industrial wind turbines within the Town of Orangeville. However, throughout nearly the entire multi-year SEQR process, Stony Creek EnergylInvenergy proposed use of the General Electric 1.5-XLE turbine (with a rotor diameter of82.5 meters or 271 feet). The applicant revealed intent to use the GE 1.6-100 turbine (with a rotor diameter of! 00 meters or 328.5 feet) only at the very end of the public review process. Records and minutes from the Town Board of Orangeville, NY (the lead agency) show that the applicant revealed plans to use the larger 1.6-100 turbine on June 26, 2011 - after the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published. In quick succession, the lead agency then issued a notice of acceptance of the FEIS on July 6, 2011. Following this notice, the town attorney (while accepting public comments) indicated that the Town Board was under no legal obligation to consider them.

It remains unclear how the lead agency could have possibly digested the implications of the larger turbines in ten days. In particular, many citizens contend that the lead agency should have thoroughly understood the implications of this larger diameter turbine on non-participating properties, homes, and seasonal uses with particular focus on protecting health and welfare of town citizens. Still others contend that the new information, and

1

the following lack of public review, constitutes grounds for re-starting the review process.

Of importance to the PSC is a seemingly unfulfilled request for a clear presentation of the distance between the proposed turbines and property lines. This reasonable request by the PSC likely was to more fully illuminate a common method of protecting people from the hazards of ice throw and potential failure of blade structures - a method to assure that safe set-back distances are specified and utilized. Set-back requirements should be based on sound industry practices and the manufacturer's own recommendations.

Because the GE 1.6MW-100 has a 100-meter diameter rotor, the area swept by the rotor blades is 47% greater than the area swept by the turbines originally proposed - the GE 1.5-XLE. It is not necessary to rely on my calculation, or to do the calculation yourselves. It is only necessary to view the GE information brochure on the 1.6-100 turbines which is attached as reference. It is also found at http://www.ge-renewable­energy.comluploads/tx spdownloads/GE 1.6 100 Brochure en 01.pdf. This larger swept area increases hazard to birds and bats by at least 47%. Importantly, all of the various environmental studies in the DEIS and the FEIS were conducted for the smaller 1.5-XLE turbine. And there are many important studies for audible noise, inaudible low-frequency "ultrasound", impact on birds, flicker, health effects, etc ...

General Electric adopted an equation as the basis for their recommendations for safe set­back distances: Safe Setbacks should be (1.5 times (H+D)), where H is the tower height and D is the rotor diameter, in climates where snow and ice shedding may occur. In the case of the GE 1.5-XLE or 1.6-XLE models, this guideline requires an 800 foot setback. In the case of the proposed GE 1.6-100 model, the required setback would be 885 feet.

Simply, one may use the original GE 1.5-XLE turbine proposed for Orangeville as a benchmark, with a manufacturer's recommended 800 foot setback. With that in mind as a basis for comparison, the current proposal for Orangeville:

• Reduces setback by 12.5% to 700 feet, and • Increases swept area by 47% by use of the larger 1.6-100 turbine.

The setback issue may be viewed by the PSC in context not only of the manufacturer's recommendations, but also in context of good practice in other jurisdictions.

During public review of the Draft EIS, a table was requested of Stony Creek that would help put the proposed setback into perspective by showing common practice from other industrial wind installations around the US and the world. The Stony Creek response was far from satisfying as found at Table 41, page 160 of the FEIS. This table is very constrained in geographic scope. Compare what was requested with what was provided:

Requested via Citizen Comment on the DEIS: "Some in the Township have already expressed concern over set-backs - the minimum distance between a proposed turbine and the nearest dwelling. Since the value chosen

2

for this distance is important to many residents, it would be helpful for the DEIS to summarize the proposed set-back relative to common practice in other locales. An example format is suggested below: "

Table of Comparative Set-Back Distances

Distance in Feet as measured to the Nearest Property

Jurisdiction/Scale Minimum TYJlical Aver~e Dwellin~ Building Line This DEIS Nearby wind farms (Bliss, etc.)

(check as Western NY appropriate) NY State-wide National Europe

Provided by Stony Creek as a response:

.

Table 41. WTG Setback .. in Towns "ith Opemting Wind Project ..

Municip2lity County Non-Participabnl: Non-Participa~ DwelliDf Setback Property Line Setback

TownofEag ~ Wyoming Co .. }l:T 1.000 ft .2xTH (~iS ft for GE l.5xl~)

Town ofW~th~nfield Wvomiuz Co .. W{ 1.320 ft 500 ft

Town of Sheldon \Vyomiu2' Co .. NY 1,500 it u i 50 ft

Lackawanna Erie Co .. }I:-{ 1.500 ft .5xTH (59i ft for GE l.5xl~)

Martinsbur2' L~wi) Co., KY 1.500 ft 300 ft

Fenner Madi;on Co .. ~? Non~ 50dBA

Stockbridge Madi'lon Co .. ~? .5 xTH + R l.5xTH..,.R (73 2 f, for GE l .5xle) (i 32 ft for GE l.5xl~)

Climon ('limon Co .. }I:? 1.200 ft 500 ft < .

"" The Town of Sheldon Local Law set; me dw~nin2' setback at 750 feet. but durin!! the SEQR.~ revie'\': for th~ Hi!!h Sheldon Wind Farm Proi~c' the Town set the Project s~tback at 1500 from~the near~ >! non· participating dwelling. ' .

2. TE= Wind ntrlline tip height 3. R = Wind ntrlline rolor radius

With this disappointing Table 41 in mind, please examine the following sampling of setback guidelines in use and proposed for use around the world for large industrial-scale wind turbines. Additional setbacks in use in Europe are provided for consideration as Attachment #2. Surely Stony CreeklInvenergy could have provided a bit more information than is shown in Table 41 above.

3

Canada - Ontario Canada - Nova Scotia

Scotland Wisconsin

1800 feet 1.4 km or 4435 feet [http://www.ngnews.caINatural-resourceS/2008-11-

03/article-3211 85/Shear-Wind-moving-turbines/ l]

Variable: 572m - 1000m (1877 to 3281 feet) 1250 feet increasing to 1800 feet [http://daiiyreporter.coml20 11 10 1 1I2/state-proposes-new-wind-fann­regulations!]

The topic continues to evolve. The following is extracted from a January 6, 2012 article in the Pratt Tribune by J.W. Keene [www.pratttribune.com] (Kansas, USA) "The suggested setbackfor wind turbines from houses on leased property was 1,500 feet, one mile for houses on non-leased property, one-half mile from any non-leased property with, or without, a house, and the height of a tower, including blades of the turbine, plus 50 feet from any roadway. It is to be understood ifleased property owners want to have wind turbines closer to their homes than the proposed 1,500 feet, they may by signing a waiver to that effect. "

Eric Rosenbloom of National Wind Watch, an information clearinghouse, says the group recommends I-mile setbacks from homes. (5280 feet).

Rick James, an acoustical engineer from Okemos, Mich., suggests keeping turbines 1 Y4 miles from homes. (6600 feet).

It is not difficult to see that Stony CreeklInvenergy has skirted repeated requests for this information by either partial responses or non-responses.

Thank you for the various conditions that you have placed in your Order number 10 and 11 ofNYSPSC Order issued December 15,2011 for Stony Creek Energy, LLC.

I believe that the petitioner is on solid ground in requesting are-hearing. Thank you in advance for your consideration of his petition and this letter of support.

Sincerely,

David Bassett 180 West Buffalo Street Warsaw, New York 14569 240-535-3767 cell

Attachments:

Attachment # 1 -Introducing GE's 1.6-100 by GE Power & WaterlRenewable Energy (PDF)

Attachment #2 -European Setback Requirements (Word, attached to this letter)

4

Attachment #2 - European Setback Requirements [from http://www.wind-watch.orgldocumentsleuropean-setbacks-minimum-distance-between-wind­turbines-and-habitations!]

BELGIUM 350 metres (1,148 feet) in theory (stated in draft legislation, but never voted). In practice the developers avoid problems by making it no closer than 500 m (1,640 ft), although many turbines are as close as 150 m (492 ft).

CZECH REPUBLIC There are no regulations on setbacks from wind turbine. In practice: 400 m to 800 m (1,312 to 2,625 ft).

DENMARK Windmills must be situated at a minimum distance of 4 x their height away from habitation. If the windmill is erected closer than 6 x its height, an estimation is carried out free of charge regarding the depreciation of the property value. If the loss is more than 1 %, full compensation of the loss in property value is paid out. If the property is situated farther away than 6 x the height of the windmill, 4,000 DKK is payable to have an evaluation of the loss in value carried out. If it is estimated that the depreciation is more than 1 %, the loss in value of the property is paid out and the 4,000 DKK reimbursed. If it is estimated that there is no loss in value ofthe property, the 4,000 DKK is forfeited. Owners of windmills have to pay the compensation.

ENGLAND, WALES No regulations. I suppose the courts would enforce the laws on noise levels, but the experts invariably seem to show up on days with little wind, and of course never at night. In a court case, the previous owners of a house were condemned to compensate the buyers because they had not disclosed the windfarm project affecting the house: "District Judge Buckley decided that this amounted to 'material misrepresentation' and ordered the Holdings to pay compensation of20 per cent of the market value of the house in 1997, £12,500, plus interest, because of damage to visual amenity, noise pollution and the 'irritating flickering' caused by the sun going down behind the moving blades of the turbines 550 metres [1,804 ft] from the house." John Etherington says: "There have been permissions as close as 350 m [1,148 ft] I think."

FRANCE On a case-by-case basis, only limited by noise legislation. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1,500 m (4,921 ft). This is not respected, however. In practice, 500 m (1,640 ft) seems to be the minimum observed.

GERMANY Different setbacks apply according to the noise level protection of the area :

5

- "quiet regions" [35 dB(A)]: 1,000-1,500 m (3,281-4,921 ft) - "middle regions" [(40 dB(A)]: 600-1,000 m (1,969-3,281 ft) - "standard region" [(45 dB (A)]: 300-600 m (984-1,969 ft)

All makes and models of wind turbines are not equally noisy, hence the lack of a precise distance. Some states have standards of their own.

ITALY Setbacks are determined by regional authorities. Some regions have defmed setbacks, others don't. Calabria and Molise: 5 x the height of the turbines (not specified ifmast or total height). Basilicata: 2 km from urbanized areas. Campania: 10 x the turbine height from urbanized areas. Molise: 20 x the turbine height from urbanized areas.

NETHERLANDS In practice, they use 4 x the height of the mast of the wind turbine. This is not a legal setback. The legal setback is linked to a maximum noise level [40 dB(A)]. New limits are proposed and in discussion at this time and a possible change of setbacks is expected to become law in the middle of this year (2009).

NORTHERN IRELAND The "Best Practice Guidance to Planning Policy Statement 18 'Renewable Energy'" (August 2009) states: "As a matter of best practice for wind farm development, the Department [of the Environment] will generally apply a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property (with a minimum distance of not less than 500m)."

ROMANIA The setback is 3 x the height of the mast, and this distance may be shortened with the approval oflocal communities but not shorter than height of the tower + length of blades + 3 meters. So far, this appears to be the European record on the nuisance scale.

SCOTLAND On a case-by-case basis within 2 km of the edge of cities, towns, and villages (SSP6 legislation). Some people skim this and interpret it as a 2 km setback. It is nothing of the sort. The policy was adopted after the vast majority of wind proposals were submitted so does not apply to them. Another caveat: note that "cities, towns, and villages" in practice suggests probably a minimum of 3,000 or more homes. Isolated country houses, in any event, are excluded from this. Some examples:

- Bankend Rigg (awaiting approval): just over 1,000 m (3,281 ft) - Chapelton (awaiting approval): 750 m (2,461 ft) - Dungavel (awaiting approval): 1,000 m (3,281 ft) - Whitelee (built): about 1,000 m (3,281 ft) - Gathercauld Ceres (awaiting approval): 572 m (1,877 ft) - Auchtermuchty (approved): 650 m (2,133 ft)

6

Addendum, April 18, 2009: The Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign wrote to Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, for clarification. In reply, the Directorate for the Built Environment wrote: "The 2km separation distance is intended to recognise that, in relation to local communities, visual impacts are likely to be a prominent feature and this should be taken into account when identifYing the most suitable search areas. However, impacts will clearly vary considerably depending on the scale of projects and the proposed location. That is why SPP6 confirms that, in all instances, proposals should not be permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. This principle applies to houses within and outwith 2km of the proposed development and regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a settlement." Click here for a copy of the correspondence in full, by courtesy of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum.

SPAIN National: noise legislation applies. Regional: windpower policies sometimes specifY a setback. Examples:

- Valencia: 1,000 m (3,281 ft) from any piece ofland that may be built upon. - Andalucia: 500 m (1,640 ft)

SWEDEN The only limit is the noise level [40 dB(A)]. In practice, 500 m (1,640 ft) seems to be the setback applied, but there are exceptions (350 m [1,148 ft] in one case). I am told there are regulations for shadows.

SWITZERLAND Documentation from Suisse Eole (quango promoting windfarms) mentions 300 m (984 ft) from the tip of turbine blades of a 70 m (230 ft) turbine. But each canton is still working on a clear setback policy.

7