An impressive lineup of speakers, county, town, and district representatives, along with over 150 interested community members crowded the Kennedyville Fire Station Thursday night to learn more about Apex Clean Energy’s study to build 25-35, 500-ft. wind turbines in the area.
At this point, Apex has not submitted an application with Maryland Public Services Commission although they have been running feasibility studies with state and federal agencies and have been in contact with property owners to discuss leasing contracts.
MPSC has the final say over Apex’s application, trumping local county zoning laws. Kent County zoning limits wind turbines to 120 ft.
The meeting, sponsored by Keep Kent Scenic (keepkentscenic.org}, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and Queen Anne’s Conservation Association invited Theresa Czarski, Deputy People’s Counsel from the Office of People’s Counsel, as the evening’s keynote speaker.
Citing the solar power co-op in Chestertown as a good approach to alternative energy, Keep Kent Scenic founder William Graham said, “We are pro-green energy,” but warned that the negatives of wind-turbine energy far outweigh the advantages.
Deputy People’s Counsel Czarski described how the community could approach challenging an Apex filing during the Public Service Commission’s consideration of the company’s application. Groups and associations are required to be represented by counsel. Currently, several attorneys, including lawyers at Queen Anne’s County Conservation Association are looking at procedures to participate in challenging the approval process if it comes to that. She suggesting keeping track of the application process by checking into the Public Services Commission website
The People’s Counsel, created in 1924, is the oldest utility consumer advocacy office in the US. It acts independently from the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC), and works to “represent state residential consumers of electric, natural gas, telecommunications, private water and certain transportation issues,” according to an information sheet made available to the public.
Dr. Frank Lewis, who spoke last, said that initial counsel fees could be as much as $150,000 to $200,000. If the Motion to Intervene went on to further consideration, it would cost more.
Lewis also listed the downside to having 500 ft. wind turbines in the Kennedyville area; quality of life erosion, health issues from inaudible vibration and property devaluation among others.
Apex Clean Energy, in a May 12 Q and A with Kent County News, counters arguments about health impacts. They stated, in the article by Daniel Divilio that, “To date, no peer reviewed scientific journal articles demonstrate a causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise (audible, low-frequency noise, or infrasound) they emit and resulting physiological health effects.” (Knopper and Ollson, “Health Effects and Wind Turbines: A Review of the Literature.” Environmental Health 2011, 10:78.)
KKCS is currently looking for attorney representation and appealing to the community for contributions to fund the legal process if Apex files for approval from PSC.
“Queen Anne’s Conservation Association and its 40 year history is the oldest conservation organization on the Eastern Shore, with a long history of trying to stop bad development projects view this particular project as something that would destabilize not just Kent County but really the entire region,” Executive Director of QACA said.
Due to ambient sound issues and video distortion from an overheated camera, much of the recording could not be used. However, we have put together a few minutes of pertinent points.
Front photo is William Graham
To find out more about Maryland Office of People’s Counsel go to: www.opc.state.md.us
For more about Keep Kent Scenic, go here.
Joe diamond says
Any chance the Planning & Zoning commission and or the Kent County Commissioners could cite their reasons for opposition to solar power. An application for a solar installation on agricultural land was mumbled out the door. I can’t find reasons or laws to support this. But I understand why a group would go around them to get a fair hearing.
It appears the P&Z folks think solar panels are an industrial operation. The rest of the confusion follows. A farmer is now told five acres is all that is allowed for solar panels. What bad thing would happen if several hundred acres were devoted to this clean energy source?
Or is it better to continue to burn oil to produce electricity?
Joe
William Short says
Joe I would support a percentage of land to meet the requirements from the state and Feds .That being said we really need to get the comprehensive plan along with other regs in step with each other, times have changed faster then a 10 year plan.I welcome conversation to help further moving us forward….the system shut down the large solar fields not the commissioners.
CC Bill Short
Joe Diamond says
Bill,
Further conversation is needed. I am new to this game.
I was amazed at the way the P&Z board was able to sit on a solar application. I did not attend the original meeting that addressed the utility grade installation application but read the minutes and then listened to the recording of what was said.
Since then I have been doing homework in the area of agricultural solar ………….not as a way to keep the lights on …………..but as a crop that produces a constant income to augment changing market conditions, federal support and weather.
Further conversation would be great. I’ll contact your office.
Joe
william short says
Joe contact me direct I look forward to the conversation.
410-708-7946
Thanks Bill
Janet Christensen-Lewis says
I would like to correct the record by adding that the Kent County Farm Bureau was also a co sponsor of this Community Forum.
James Dissette says
Thank you, Janet. I’m sorry more of the video could not have been shown. Kent County Farm Bureau is an important of the alliance opposing the Apex project.
Joan Berwick says
I am having trouble understanding how a renewable energy source such as wind turbines is causing such opposition.
Joanne Levesque says
Dear Joan Berwick,
Four years ago I was much like you appear to be at this point – meaning I too had trouble understanding what could be so wrong with wind energy conversion systems aka wind turbines or wind turbine generators.
Then I had one proposed for adjacent to my neighborhood. The learning curve is steep as wind industry consultants and those that drink their kool-aid avoid the facts and stick to false narratives along the lines of saying “there is no evidence” of health impacts. I beg to differ and if you are open to looking around the country and yes around the world you will see a mountain of direct evidence.
I live in Massachusetts and we have lots of documented violations of our Air Pollution Regulations – yes all states differ in their protective regulations. I bet you’d be surprised to know that excessive and invasive noise IS Air Pollution and any combination of noise sources are considered here in Ma – if they exceed a certain raise in decibel level – NOISE pollution. IN fact you might benefit from a quote from a former Surgeon General of the United States, and that is “”Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere.” former U.S. Surgeon General William Stewart, 1969″
The World Health Organization in fact sets limits on night time noise levels in order to protect public health – especially during the critical hours of sleeping time when humans need a restful sleep. Acceptable noise levels often depend on what area is being developed – if you have a quiet rural area farming and whatnot it is likely very quiet – and at night the ambient background sound level may well be in the low 20DB(A) – Here in Massachusetts a single 2MW turbine @ 403.5 ‘ in height has been documented up to 67 d(B)A by a local acoustic consultant. You would be wise to have an independent acoustic consultant NOT tied to or paid for by the wind industry to inform you of the impacts of such an increase in noise levels, especially at night! We have lots of direct evidence from disasterous wind projects in Massachusetts – the previous Governor and his supporters have done all in their power to subvert the truth – but SLOWLY the onion is being peeled back layer by layer and the truth is shining through – and the TRUTH is that industrial wind turbine generators do NOT belong anywhere near human habitation not to mention environmental areas of significant interest – watersheds, aquifers, wildlife bird and bat (insect control) are an entirely other matter and add up all the negatives, along with the financial projections that support a boondoggle of epic proportions and directly lead to increased electric rates WELL THEN – taking all into account you have the perfect storm for a public health disaster and a public policy boondoggle!
Be glad to share any and all background – beware of acoustic consultants funded by the wind industry that file acoustic reports riddled with errors omissions and misrepresentation of facts – THIS is how the gain permit approval only later to find their reports seriously understate the aoucstic reality and DO NOT address the now documented in more than one project area the very insidious low frequency and infra-sound emissions and impacts. The larger the turbine – the larger the rotor diameter (needed for low wind areas) the HIGHER the levels of infra-sound.
Hope this information helps you, Joan, to understand that wind turbines – though advertised as clean energy are nothing of the sort – it is one of many false narratives intended to gain access to destroying your communities! feel free to contact me @ [email protected]
Joanne Levesque says
Hi Joan,
I should have added that the Massachusetts Court system has begun to rule on wind turbine by way of Nuisance Suits and Anticipatory Lawsuits.
In Milton Ma vs Granite Links Golf Course an arbitrator (retired judge) ruled that the operations would constitute a trespass to golfing operations – we joke that golfers have been given more consideration here in Ma than residents who unwittingly had industrial wind generators sited way too close to residential areas/human habitation. This is after all a “commercial” use not a benign operation at all.
Below is a press release from the educational organization Wind Wise Massachusetts, an all volunteer group that tries to publish facts as opposed to fiction and they document many of the struggles both here locally and around the world. Their document file is impressive. Here is a Barnstable Superior Court Judge’s ruling that upholds “documented harm to the neighbors”. I hope Maryland does not go the Massachusetts route and ends up destroying and dividing communities and forcing neighbors to mortgage their futures to regain their health and well-being from having completely out of scale industrial power plants sited too close under the guise of “clean” energy. This press release is from November of 2013, so you might ask APEX why they haven’t shared this relevant information. A judge’s ruling based on the evidence – powerful stuff!
PRESS RELEASE _ NOVEMBER 2013
Judge Rules that Falmouth Must Reduce Wind Turbines Hours of Operation. Court Finds Nearby Homeowners Suffer ‘Irreparable Physical and Psychological Harm
BARNSTABLE (Nov. 22) In a major victory for homeowners living near a wind turbine in Falmouth, Barnstable Superior Court Judge Christopher J. Muse issued a preliminary injunction today to sharply reduce the turbine’s hours of operation.
The Court found that the defendants in the case face “a substantial risk (that they) will suffer irreparable physical and psychological harm if the injunction is not granted.”
Under today’s ruling, Falmouth’s two turbines must shut down from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and all day on Sundays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s, effective immediately.
“This is believed to be the first time that a Court in the U.S. has ruled that there is sufficient evidence that wind turbines near residential areas are a health hazard to families living nearby,” said Virginia Irvine, president of Wind Wise Massachusetts.
Falmouth residents Neil and Elizabeth Andersen who live near the turbine had submitted affidavits and medical records to the court supporting their claim that “the nuisance produced by the turbines has resulted in substantial and continuous insomnia, headaches, psychological disturbances, dental injuries, and other forms of malaise.”
In the written injunction, Judge Muse said “The court finds the Andersens claims that they did not experience such symptoms prior to the construction and operation of the turbines, and that that each day of operation produces further injury, to be credible.
The Court rejected the town’s claim that reducing the turbines in hours would cause financial harm, as it was counting on revenue generated by the sale of excess energy back to the grid.
“Regardless of whether there would be any financial impact on the Town from a preliminary injunction, the source of the Town’s eventual payments to satisfy its financial obligations are irrelevant and do not warrant close analysis by this court,” the judge ruled.
Also CBS report here:
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/22/judge-orders-limited-use-of-falmouth-wind-turbines-cites-health-problems/
Steve Payne says
https://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/courts-worldwide-reject-anti-wind-experts-evidence-42813
Anne Watson says
https://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Portuguese-Supreme-Court-orders-4-wind-turbines-removed.pdf
Joe Diamond says
Joan,
It is never the renewable energy concept that causes the opposition. I think all would agree on the desirability of renewable energy. The extent that an operation has an effect on other properties produces the noise from the neighbors. Added to the mix there is the expected need of the nation that may be greater than local concerns.
The question you ask is different, however. The idea of government allowing anything seems backwards. Citizens grant governments power to act on their behalf. AND elected officials who do not seem to be responsive to the needs of the community can be replaced by others who might take a different position….in theory.
Outside of all this seems the concept of “scenic.” Keep Kent County Scenic……..I don’t get that part. Forests and rivers might be scenic….crop fields maybe not so much. You might ask who gets to decide? You might ask what basis should the decisions be based upon? Crop fields don’t have to be scenic…just produce income. Here we have farmers who want to produce income on their land.
So we watch how various agencies of government decide the issue…………as we decide what the role of government should be in this case.
Joe
Judy Gifford says
There is ample evidence about the negative imoacts from wind turbines, including Apex’s own leases which have “a non-exclusive easement to generate electromagnetic, audio,flicker, visual,light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electrical, radio interference, shadow or other effects attributable to the Facilities. ” Hmm. Makes you wonder why any government would allow these giant machines within 10 miles of our homes.
Joe Diamond says
Joan & Judy,
It is never the renewable energy concept that causes the opposition. I think all would agree on the desirability of renewable energy. The extent that an operation has an effect on other properties produces the noise from the neighbors. Added to the mix there is the expected need of the nation that may be greater than local concerns.
The question you ask is different, however. The idea of government allowing anything seems backwards. Citizens grant governments power to act on their behalf. AND elected officials who do not seem to be responsive to the needs of the community can be replaced by others who might take a different position….in theory.
Outside of all this seems the concept of “scenic.” Keep Kent County Scenic……..I don’t get that part. Forests and rivers might be scenic….crop fields maybe not so much. You might ask who gets to decide? You might ask what basis should the decisions be based upon? Crop fields don’t have to be scenic…just produce income. Here we have farmers who want to produce income on their land.
So we watch how various agencies of government decide the issue…………as we decide what the role of government should be in this case. The list of effects on others that Judy presented can me measured. They also suggest that IF a landowner had a big enough property it would be OK to erect a wind generator system because it would have no impact on others…except the scenic thing.
Joe
Joanne Levesque says
Joe, I am curious…
You say IF a landowner had a big enough property it would be okay to erect an industrial wind turbine generator – I would agree in theory
BUT the key question is to answer the question HOW much of a setback is required to prevent adverse impacts to others?
You claim “IT” would be okay to erect a turbine because it would (you sound conclusive here) have “NO IMPACT ON OTHERS”
Question: What is the distance required to protect operational impacts from trespassing outside the property boundaries?
Does the size and scale of the wind turbine impact the distance equation? Do larger diameter rotors increase the infras-ound emissions and thereby increase the need for further setbacks?
The whole scenic argument is a bit of a red herring in my book – it is valid to say one does not want to ruin a view-shed but there are more important reasons (public health and safety) to question the allowance of power plants in residential areas.
I would appreciate knowing what distance is a safe distance?
joe diamond says
Hi Joanne,
I think there is a difference between a safe distance and a distance that might be noticeable; called “scenic.” Likewise a definition of an adverse effect should be established.
Consider…….for many years there was a grain elevator business in Chestertown right where the new traffic circle is now. When in operation it emitted noise and dust. Because it was agriculturally linked the complaints about it were ignored. The man who operated it was also a community leader who gave back to the community as much as he accepted for his business operation; a good guy!
There were two propane operations inside city limits…now gone. A fire & explosion would have leveled much of the residential neighborhood around them.
There was an oil delivery pier with an oil barge delivery system on the Chester River……..a single spill would have flowed directly into the sewerage treatment area that was also on the river.
An exact definition of a real or potential danger depends upon how much risk is acceptable. Who gets to decide is open to debate.
I think I would start with the noise level already deemed acceptable by most….traffic noise or the sound of trains or planes. This noise level can be measured. I think it would follow that a noise level that cannot be suppressed would require an operator to buy or otherwise compensate any property owner within the zone. This would follow for fumes, odors & gasses.
What we are left with is a search for an acceptable zone size that is still economically viable. I visited a county in Indiana where a coal company leased the county….the whole county!……removed all structures, relocated the people and strip mined the coal…with the plan to re set everything when done. There was enough coal there for that to make money……..I doubt these wind generators will produce the same level of profit.
If you want to look for NO IMPACT you have to examine other sources. Solar systems might be a good place to look. Hydroelectric is pretty good…………won’t work here because of the local topography. Fuel burning systems could work but you have to control the emissions. It goes like that………but you have to exclude “scenic” and document property value changes. As you accept or reject parts of your impact definition you get that safe distance you seek.
Joe
Joanne Levesque says
Hi Joe,
As to your grain elevator example – I wonder if the “complaints” would have been dealt with IF the business operated during the night time hours which is when wind turbine generators typically produce the most power. What I am saying is to compare a business that operates during typical “business hours” is one thing – especially if in an area which allows for such operation (ie farming/agricultural) BUT – big difference here is that wind turbine generators create the most consistent and persistent community noise complaints at night when humans require restful sleep. Sleep disturbance both from audible noise and low frequency and infra-sound pressures are the adverse impacts that make any comparison with a grain elevator as not apples to apples.
As to the propane example – you make the point…they are now GONE. I would have to say based on the Massachusetts experience and given the open question of the setback distances you are dealing with in Maryland any industrial scale wind generator erected too close to neighbors should also be GONE as they will adversely impact the neighbors – we have documented the harm here so you’d be wise to not make the mistake of siting these power plants too close.
Reading all your attempts to point to one wrong to apparently justify another is, in my respectful opinion, OFF base.
I see this all the time in the wind talking points – point to another wrong to justify all the wrongs (there are several) with wind power plants. Human health impacts is just one category that needs fleshing out.
You also have created a red herring by saying I am implying no impact – I never said that at all. I simply have witnessed first hand the adverse impacts that violate private property rights and the courts here in MA have ruled the harm is real – I would sure hate to see the beautiful state of Maryland fall down the rabbit hole that IS the boondoggle of wind power production plants as they are currently engineered – unlike power plants that operate inside a building that can be properly insulated this is not the case with wind turbine generators…there is no way to mitigate the adverse impacts except through distance and a pretty good distance at that!
Lastly, I had a conversation with a Board Certified Institute of Noise Control Engineer recently and he has been in the Noise Control business for many many years and he shared his disgust with the wind industry as it has operated unlike power production companies in the past – that is in the old days companies looked to be “good acoustic neighbors” BUT not the wind industry – they just want the money that flows into their coffers …most zoning laws are intended to follow the good neighbor rule and that is why I imagine the grain operations did NOT run during the night time hours…
Thanks for listening and try to keep away from generalizations that really do not apply – they tend to mislead you from the critical truth you need to know to avoid the disasters that are occurring elsewhere. Best to you – be smart and seek the TRUTH rather than the wind spin which has, here in Massachusetts, been proven wrong on many counts – especially the fact that the NOISE impacts will not be a fatal flaw or violate our Air Pollution Regulations – THEY DO!
joe diamond says
Yo Joanne,
We have maybe overwhelmed the system here……………not sure how many retorts are allowed. Anyhow, every example I cited was background / context. Now that we are focused on the present and the future…………..all can use the results of the past to guide us.
Things we are all missing = The proposed wind farm may or may not produce profits as presented. The operators of the equipment are really new in the business world. There is a difference between having funds and knowing what ………you are doing (my opinion).
While this scenic crap is floating around……….smart guys on both sides will look at issues with evidence from both sides. My whole interest, observations and reasons for following all this = there appears to be a local government faction that is against….EVERYTHING. They look to the past and smile. They cite opinions from their own limited education and ignore recent scientific reports. They see success in their lives as working for a government entity.
You and I are looking beyond all this! Identifying TRUTH is tough…if it was easy everybody would do it. Let us work to an appropriate result…………………..based upon current knowledge because that is all we have. Allow the emotionalism to drift. All should be able to be friends in the end.
Joe
Steve Payne says
That clause in the contract is probably due to the coordinated effort by opponents of wind over the last few years.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/wind-turbine-noise-not-linked-to-health-problems-health-canada-finds-1.2826206
https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/alternative_energy/2013/03/wind_turbine_syndrome_debunking_a_disease_that_may_be_a_nocebo_effect.html
Janet Christensen-Lewis says
Caveat from CBC article listed above: “Health Canada said the results of the study are considered preliminary”
But this from an actual published paper, not the cliff notes from the newspaper: The report has found sufficient evidence that exposure to wind turbine noise can contribute to annoyance” and ” for many other adverse health effects investigated, there was inadequate evidence to reach conclusions concerning the absence or presence of a causal link.” https://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/wind-turbine-noise/WindTurbineNoiseFullReportEn.pdf
Steve Payne says
That is correct, almost all the studies have found a link, or possible link to annoyance. But as you say, they found no link to the other health issues some claim to exist.
Thomas Wasilewski says
An excellent source of information to find out the truth of industrial wind turbines is http://www.windaction.org For example a reader can learn that less than one per cent of electricity in the U.S. Is generated from oil. Also a Wall Street Journal article from Friday is posted which covers the problems the large solar projects cause including the massive costs to electric ratepayers and taxpayers. People can learn that inefficient, costly, environmentally dangerous industrial wind turbines must have reliable, conventional generated on line or which can be ramped up quickly. As to solar I have heard from people that individual residential solar is favored but people know the utility industry and Wall Street want the massive solar (and wind ) projects because they can control everything and make money.
joe diamond says
Thomas ,
I took a look at the site you shared. It seems to be a clearing house for reprints of various news sources. This is not the same thing as science….just well wrapped opinions and summaries. It is worth a look but is not a persuasive presentation of anything but local incidents.
What jumps off the page is your statement that less than one percent of electricity in the US is generated by oil. All other sources indicate petroleum, natural gas & coal make up more than half the production of electricity used here. Hydroelectric, nuclear, wind and solar sources taken together do not equal the energy produced from hydrocarbon (oil ) sources. That one percent statement needs an explanation.
That last part of your statement that begins ” I have heard . . .” suggests something but no facts or sources are offered. I am sure you are correct that the power companies do want to make money. They operate on a large scale and the thousands of potential meters to monitor have to be a consideration…….just can’t tell from what you have heard how significant the situation is.
Thanks for sharing,
Joe
Steve Payne says
Here’s a report done by MIT:
https://journals.lww.com/joem/Fulltext/2014/11000/Wind_Turbines_and_Health__A_Critical_Review_of_the.9.aspx
Joe diamond says
Steve,,,,,,,,,,nice report……….here is as much of a conclusion as will fit. The authors comment upon the science & other reports.
The authors of this review are aware of the Internet sites and non–peer-reviewed reports, in which some people have described symptoms that they attribute to living near wind turbines. The quality of this information, however, is severely limited such that reasonable assessments cannot be made about direct causal links between the wind turbines and symptoms reported. For example, inviting only people who feel they have symptoms because of wind turbines to participate in surveys and asking people to remember events in the past in the context of a current concern (ie, postturbine installation) introduce selection and recall biases, respectively. Such major biases compromise the reliability of the information as used in any rigorous causality assessment. Nonetheless, consistent associations have been reported between annoyance, sleep disturbance, and altered QOL among some people living near wind turbines. It is not possible to properly evaluate causal links of these claims in the absence of a thorough medical assessment, proper noise studies, and a valid study approach.
Reading the whole report is suggested…MIT is a pretty well respected source.
Joe
Elizabeth Alexander says
yet another study showing the adverse effects of WT’s on the brain: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11736728/Wind-turbines-may-trigger-danger-response-in-brain.html