This just in from New Hampshire Wind Watch (NHWW). The Site Evaluation Committee--the state body that would give the ultimate thumbs up or down on the Spruce Wind Project--approved a set of new rules that take wildlife and views into account, and expand the visual impact range to 10 miles. On Thursday, the legislature's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules approved the new regulations, allowing them to take effect.
Here is the text of NHWW's bulletin:
NH SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE – RULE Adoption
The NH Site Evaluation Committee has finalized the changes to its rules governing the safe siting of energy facilities in the State. On Thurday, December 3rd, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) APPROVED the Rules. The motion to approve the Rules, put forth by Senator Reagan and supported by the Committee, included a petition to the SEC to provide more specific criteria for the Suspension and Revocation of a certificate, in an expedient manner. This motion will enable to SEC Committee to use the new Rules to adjudicate any recently accepted applications while they further define the permit Suspension and Revocation criteria.
The information below represents a small part of the many rule changes adopted by the Committee, with respect to wind energy systems, that are of most significance to the general public. The SEC Committee did a good job of listening to the concerns of the stakeholders, gaining an understanding of those concerns and adopting appropriate Rules to better protect the residents and environment of New Hampshire.
1. Abutter notification – The SEC added a rule requiring developers to notify abutters of their projects when the pre-application Public Information session is scheduled.
2. Site Control – The adopted language reads as follows, “Evidence that the applicant has a current right, an option or other legal basis to acquire the right, to construct, operate and maintain the facility in the form of: a.) ownership, ground lease, easement or other contractual rights or interest…. The Application would not be considered ‘complete’ until the Applicant has full control of the required energy facility property (turbine sites, transmission line, substation, etc).
3. Aesthetics – Visual Impact – the visibility analysis for wind projects must extend to a minimum of a 10 mile radius from each turbine. For transmission lines longer than 1-mile located in rural areas along existing transmission corridors that will not require increased corridor width or increased height, a visibility analysis of a 3-mile radius is required. For transmission lines longer than 1 mile within a rural area with no prior transmission line, a visibility analysis of a 10-mile radius is required.
Photosimulations are required from key observation points and a sample of private property observation pointsin the area of potential visual impact. Simulations are to be produced under clear weather conditions, at a time of day with optimal clarity, avoiding obstructions, turbines will have full frontal view with no haze or fog applied, representing the shape and height of the actual turbines. If FAA lighting is used, a nighttime lighting assessment is required. At least one set representing winter season conditions (no foliage) is required.
4. Sound Modeling and Standards – a sound impact assessment must be done pre- and post-construction in accordance with professional methodologies and detailed in the rules. Wind energy facilities must meet a ‘not-to-exceed’ standard of 45dBA from 8am-8pm and 40dBA at all other times of the day. The sound measurements will be taken ‘on property that is used in whole or in part for permanent or temporary residential purposes.’
5. Shadow Flicker – A shadow-flicker assessment must be completed for each residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, public gathering place (outdoor and indoor), other occupied building and roadway that falls within a minimum of 1 mile from any turbine. Shadow flicker may not occur more than 8 hours per year at any of these locations.
6. Setbacks – Applicant must provide a description of planned setbacks that indicate the distance between each wind turbine and the nearest landowner's existing building and property line, and between each wind turbine and the nearest public road and overhead or underground energy infrastructure or energy transmission pipeline within 2 miles of such wind turbine along with an assessment of the risks of ice throw, blade shear, tower collapse on public safety (emphasis added). The SEC committee will determine on a case-by-case basis whether there is a concern with the setbacks and/or the appropriate distance that should be set. The same distance consideration is true for transmission lines.
7. Decommissioning – The Committee adopted language that followed the Vermont decommissioning standard for wind facilities. A decommissioning plan prepared by an independent, qualified person with demonstrated knowledge and experience in wind generation projects and cost estimates, which plan shall provide for removal of all structures and restoration of the facility site with a description of sufficient and secure funding to implement the plan, which shall not account for the anticipated salvage value of facility components or materials, including the provision of financial assurance in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit, performance bond, surety bond, or unconditional payment guaranty executed by a parent company of the facility owner maintaining at all times an investment grade credit rating.
8. Orderly Development – The general consensus was to include consideration for both the host and affected communities. Affected community is defined as the host and abutting communities and other municipalities (or unincorporated places) that are expected to be affected by the facility, as indicated in studies included in the application. As stated in the Rules, “Each application shall include information regarding the effects of the proposed energy facility on the orderly development of the region, including the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies regarding the proposed facility, if such views have been expressed in writing, and master plans of the affected communities and zoning ordinances of the proposed facility host municipalities and unincorporated places, and the applicant's estimate of the effects of the construction and operation of the facility” on land use, economy and employment of the region. The SEC committee shall consider these items in their decision whether to grant a certificate.
9. Public Interest – To determine whether the proposed facility serves the public interest the committee shall consider:
(a) The welfare of the population:
(b) Private property:
(c) the location and growth of industry;
(d) The overall economic growth of the state:
(e) The environment of the state;
(f) historic sites
(g) Aesthetics:
(h) Air and water quality:
(i) The use of natural resources; and
(j) Public health and safety.
10. Cumulative Impact – For all wind energy facilities, the committee shall consider the cumulative impacts to natural, wildlife, habitat, scenic, recreational, historic and cultural resources, public health and safety, including aesthetic impacts and sound impacts and with respect to aesthetics, the potential impacts of combined observation, successive observation and sequential observation of energy facilities by the viewer. Cumulative impacts must be considered for all existing energy facilities and any application for which an application has been accepted.
For those of you wondering what these Rules mean for the projects proposed within the Newfound/Cardigan area, EDP Renewables submitted a letter to the SEC containing the following statement: “As currently drafted, the proposed rules contain some of the most restrictive standards for wind development in the United States. If adopted, these rules will severely limit or prevent certain wind energy projects from being developed in New Hampshire. Such a result is inconsistent with New Hampshire’s support for renewable energy technologies found in RSA 362-F and the energy policy articulated in RSA 378:37 which recognizes the need for diversity of energy sources. Adoption of these rules would signal to wind developers that New Hampshire is no longer open for business, and that the clean energy, jobs, tax revenues and other benefits of these projects should go elsewhere.” The full letter can be found here: http://www.nhsec.nh.gov/projects/2014-04/documents/2014-04_2015-11-12_edpr_late_filed_comment.pdf
Do you believe EDP Renewables or was this a failed attempt using a standard but transparent wind industry tactic to pressure the Legislators and SEC Committee to adopt less stringent Rules? Time will tell...Antrim Wind will be the next wind project before the SEC. The outcome of that project will provide more useful insight.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 2:05PM