Yet another example of GI/GO noise monitoring, following the GI/GO noise modeling, notice of the discrepancies between modeled noise expected and the actual noise found in the post-construction noise modeling.

It doesn’t want to embed, so here’s the link:

https://minnesotapuc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1737&meta_id=205848

The noise study for Freeborn Wind at issue, Parts 1 and 2:

And Commerce-EERA “analysis” of it, with the emphasis on “anal” eh?

There was a lot of talk about the Minnesota noise standards (which are admittedly NOT designed to address wind noise), Minn. R. 7030.0040:

And not until quite late in the discussion did they even bring up the 47 dB(A) limits imposed by the “Special Condition” deal that Commission did with Freeborn:

Note that when there are levels above 47 dB(A), “the Permittee shall work with the Department of Commerce to develop a plan to minimize and mitigate turbine-only noise impacts.” Where does the landowner/resident/human “receptor” fit in? Zero consideration, evidence shows. GRRRRRRR.

Off-shore wind noise

January 13th, 2022

This came up again today, and studies popped up — if there are important ones not here, please let me know in the comments (with a link!!):

Note how this one sets it up: “Wind farms’ operating companies have increased their interest in noise impact due to resistance from people settling in the proximity of new projects.: See study:

This one is interesting because it specifies use of ISO 18406 (2017) (percussive pile driving), and not ISO 9613-2. Keep a lookout in these studies for ISO methodology, because as we saw with Freeborn Wind, GI/GO — gotta use the right measurement methods and criteria. So check out this article from Acoustics Today:

Freeborn Wind Noise Again!

November 9th, 2021

The Xcel Energy Freeborn Wind post-construction noise modeling equipment is up, this time at the tree line, not behind it.

Just filed today at the Public Utilities Commission:

Xcel Energy has 14 days to respond, and then off to the Public Utilities Commission for consideration. The Commission needs to take a hard look at what they’re doing, because these wind projects sited without rules and too close to people is harming those living in the project footprint.

Noise remains a problem for those trying to live in the middle of a wind project. No surprise when the owner uses a 0.5 ground factor to model bigger, louder turbines, several hundred feet above the ground (these have rotor diameter of 120 meters, or 393.701 feet!). This has been ongoing for so long, going on 5 years, I find I’m forgetting crucial details. But what’s happened in this docket, and what has happened in other dockets, all adds up, particularly with the Bent Tree noise exceedences demonstrated, and resulting settlements, and the Blazing Star noise issues going on right now.

Noise was a problem in Bent Tree with Vestas V-82 for the Hagens and Langruds.

Bent Tree Noise report confirms permit violations!

Wind turbine noise is a problem for the Blazing Star wind project with these bigger and louder Vestas V-120:

Blazing Star Wind NOISE!

More on Blazing Star noise

Freeborn Wind noise has long been an issue. Noise was a problem when the Freeborn Wind ALJ recommended denial of the permit because they had not demonstrated, using 0.0 ground factor, that they could comply. Yes, do not forget that we won that round, first recommendation of denial of wind permit application ever:

WE WON!!! ALJ Recommend Freeborn Permit be DENIED, or…

So then the PUC changes the rules, moves the goal posts, and allows use of 0.5 ground factor in modeling to predict noise, and don’t forget, these are now Vestas V-120 turbines, bigger and louder.

Freeborn? PUC upends ALJ’s Freeborn Wind Recommendation

Can you spell U-N-D-E-R-E-S-T-I-M-A-T-E ?? GI-GO???

Tried for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and got the gong:

PUC Freeborn Mtg 2-6-2020

Filed a MERA claim (Minn. Stat. 116B.03) and we were booted out of court:

Association of Freeborn County Landowners v. Public Utilities Commission

And we appealed the Commission’s final decision on Freeborn:

Freeborn Wind appeal – we lose…

We are persistent. The noise numbers are too high, and they’re higher than pre-construction noise modeling predicted. Yeah, well, DOH, using the wrong ground factor.

The Commission needs to address this obvious problem and deal with the consequences. Avoidance just doesn’t cut it. This is real, and it’s not going away.

ONWARD!

More on Blazing Star noise

February 3rd, 2021

Turns out that this morning, I received an “invitation” to the Public Utilities Commission meeting tomorrow.

Tune in: Agenda MTG Thursday, February 4, 2021, 1pm

Meeting Details
Agenda
Live Webcast
Viewing Instructions

I’d really not had time to think much about this on Monday, had to take a quick look and zip something off — testimony was due for WI so I had lots of back and forth with clients — so in afterthought, I realized that I’d missed the flip side of this, that the folks complaining were left in the dark here. THEY’RE NOT EVEN ON THE SERVICE LIST! WTF??!?!?!

So today after I got the Wisconsin testimony filed, I fired off a missive, and as I went to file, there were Xcel filings in the inbox:

Here’s my second missive:

Here’s my post from Monday:

Blazing Star Wind NOISE!

February 1st, 2021

Blazing Star Wind NOISE!

February 1st, 2021

Turns out a landowner couple have been complaining about noise since March 9, 2020, and this Thursday it is coming up before the Public Utilities Commission. I read through some filings and got OH-SO-PISSED-OFF! Better pissed off than pissed on… and filed this:

THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WAS WARNED! THEY HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT NOISE IS A PROBLEM, AND ACCEPTED GI/GO “MODELING” AND PERMITTED THE PROJECT.

Here’s a letter summarizing the landowners complaint:

This above complaint was dated September 25, 2020, but was not filed in the PUC’s eDockets until January 12, 2021.

They made their first complaint March 9, 2020, and there were other complaints March 17 and 24, and April 2 and 14, 2020, regarding turbines 11, 28, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 83, 84, 85 and 86.

Complaints made were reported in the monthly permit-required “Complaint” compliance filing as “pending,” with repeated complaints not disclosed. Thursday’s agenda item deals only with the Weverka noise complaint and turbine 90, and does not address the multiple complaints of March 17 and 24, and April 2 and 14, 2020, regarding turbines 11, 28, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 83, 84, 85 and 86.

The time-frame of Weverka noise complaints and actions by Xcel are listed here — pay particular attention to the dates, and note it’s XCEL hiring the consultants for the noise monitoring, not Commerce as occurred for the Bent Tree noise complaints:

DoC-EERA notes that:

… and Commission staff repeats this statement in the Staff Briefing Papers (p. 6):

… to which I can only say, DOH!

Doc-EERA recommends this be addressed regarding Turbine 90 only, when a more logical response would be to look at the entire project and compare monitoring results with the pre-construction noise modeling DONE AT THE IMPROPER 0.7 GROUND FACTOR! DOH! and DOUBLE DOH!

Post-construction noise modeling of the project “was completed during the summer of 2020,” but it’s not been filed yet, as of January 14, 2021. WHAT?!?! How long does it take to print out the results, write up a summary, and file it?

And what’s this Xcel July 9, 2020 noise report that was filed on 11/13/2021?

And this November 23, 2020 “Xcel Response to Noise Complaint” that also was not filed until 1/13/2021:

Here’s the initial Noise Modeling from the Application, Appendix A:

Here’s an “updated” Noise Modeling – REDACTED, dated December 2016, filed June 2020:

I really don’t have the time to dig into this, but it’s clear they’re hiding info, that the complaints are legitimate, that there are noise exceedences, and that the Commission knew the noise modeling was off, garbage in, garbage out. The Commission also knew that the setbacks were not adequate, because setbacks at Bent Tree, with smaller turbines, less noise turbines, were not adequate, and there were noise exceedences at 1,150 feet at Hagen’s home and 1,525 at Langrud’s home. They’re “resolving” this in secret, with back and forths between Xcel and Commerce-EERA without involvement of the landowners. THE LANDOWNERS ARE NOT EVEN ON THE SERVICE LIST!

THERE IS NO EXCUSE, NO EXCUSE FOR THIS!