March 10, 2011 | 4:27 PM | By

Extended Interview: ‘What Can We Learn From Falmouth?’

FILED UNDER: Mitigation, The Falmouth Experience, wind energy

We heard from Liz Argo in this morning’s story, The Falmouth Experience: The Green Debate. Argo is a Cape Cod resident who has been a wind and renewable energy advocate since 2003. She has worked in sales and management for renewable energy and is now a renewable energy consultant. She’s been a vocal advocate for onshore wind. You can read or hear more of her interview here (and don’t miss our extended interview with wind opponent Eric Bibler, too).

Liz Argo: None of us want to throw Falmouth under the bus, but what can we learn from Falmouth?

As we go forward, there has to be a certain degree of conservatism that’s brought into doing a sound study. The parameters that guide what you are looking at — maybe those need to be adjusted.

What happened in Falmouth has very definitely made doing any well-sited wind project on Cape Cod nearly impossible right now.

Falmouth has proven that it comes right up against current the sound levels that are acceptable. We know why now: It’s an older turbine technology that is noisier and it’s a quieter environment. So 10 dB there over ambient (sound) — that’s probably little bit more than family should have to as we go forward. I think we’ll see as we go forward and that the sound level will be lowered. Instead of having 10 db over you might have 8 db over or less.

In Brewster, we’ve learned a lot form Falmouth, and it’s such a shame that it’s being characterized as another Falmouth, that it could be another unpleasant experience. We just know from the sound tests that its sound levels are so much lower than what they have in Falmouth. Different turbine technology and a louder ambient environment.

Sean Corcoran: So what happened in Falmouth has already infected the debate here on Cape Cod.

Liz Argo: What happened in Falmouth has very definitely made doing any well-sited wind project on Cape Cod nearly impossible right now.

Liz Argo takes video testimony of turbine neighbors in Hyannis Country Gardens.

Sean Corcoran/WGBH

Liz Argo takes video testimony of turbine neighbors in Hyannis Country Gardens.

You’re touching on the whole crux of the issue for getting a project to go forward, even a well-sited project. We have studies that are peer-reviewed journaled study. Let’s use real estate because that’s the topic it keeps coming back to, that and infrasound. We have the studies that say real-estate values will not be impacted. But we have too many people who are too panicked who are bringing forward less-than-peer-reviewed studies, but they’re throwing so much noise and study at it that even the peer-reviewed studies end up being questioned.

There’s a fellow from Illinois that has been asked to do a study, he’s an appraiser. His work has not been peer-reviewed. But it’s being bought as an equivalent to these peer-reviewed studies. And the planning board, unfortunately, they’re not able to distinguish between a study of one level and study another level, lesser level.

These planning boards and select boards and so on, they are not experts in wind, they have other jobs they are doing a great job, and without them we’d be lost. But to put these decisions in their hands is almost unfair to them. They’re expected to take in mountains of information and somehow digest it and sort through, saying, “Okay, this is legit, this is not legit.” It’s just asking too much of them.

With a well-educated and formulated wind-energy siting-reform act coming out of Boston, we’d have some guidelines that would help everybody.

The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act holds tremendous promise for wind development in Mass., particularly on Cape Cod. We need standards. If the standards can be brought forward with that kind of professional level of research and attention then we would have a terrific bar terrific guideline for correct wind citing.

We need a wind-energy siting-reform group they can come in and say those are hugely different projects, and help local planning boards understand it. And here’s why: Right now, (planning boards) are just being buffeted by the waters that are pushing them one way and then another way.

With a well-educated and formulated wind-energy siting-reform act coming out of Boston, we’d have some guidelines that would help everybody.

  • Anonymous

    The intent of the Wind Bill is shift the power of Town Meeting vote to an appointed panel that would make all wind turbine siting decisions. This Bill constitutes the erosion of public and environmental protections now in place in communities that include setbacks, height restrictions, and all local requirements.

    November 15, 2010, Boston Business Journal: “The Wind Bill will not allow the State to overrule local zoning rules said State energy spokesman Lisa Capone.”

    However, according to the State, the wind energy permitting board created by the Wind Bill “…has the authority to waive any local requirements needed to permit the facility, including, e.g., use limits and height limits in local zoning bylaws…”

    The Wind Bill is a bad Bill as it undermines citizens’ rights by design. It’s co-authored by a wind developer seeking unlimited, unmerited, development potential and profits. By the Wind Bill, the public surrenders current zoning protections and the power of Town Meeting 2/3 vote to wind developers and their investors.

  • Platimer4943

    Thank you Liz, good information. Thankfully we concluded the same issues in Harwich before they were built.
    Pam Latimer, DC

  • Lisa

    It is painfully clear from this extended interview that Ms. Argo has no idea what she is talking about. I hope that NPR gives some well informed person from “the other side” the opportunity to explain the seriousness of the noise issue. I live within a three quarters of a mile of 3 GE, 400 foot wind turbines on Vinalhaven, and although these are “new” turbines, I find they keep me up at night and ruin my island days. If Ms. Argo actually believes that the AGE of the turbines is the PROBLEM, she is a public hazard! Perhaps she should come to Vinalhaven and spend a few weeks living under our turbines and she what she thinks about the newer models.
    I would also like to point out that the “peer reviewed” real estate study she mentions, most likely Ben Hoen’s, was done on the VISUAL impact of turbines, not the noise. His study has been misused and misunderstood by the wind industry. As a matter of FACT, Ben Hoen is
    quoted as saying that those people who are within a wind farm noise umbrella, should be given property guarantees. HE recognizes the problem! I would strongly suggest that Ms. Argo do
    the same!!

  • Michael

    Wind does not work. All wind turbines have moving parts and require lots of maintenance and sooner than later will break. Most of the electricity is wasted as is the electricity from steam turbines at night. Wind turbines require MASSIVE TAX subsidies. The list just goes on and on how wrong wind turbines are. Photovoltaic’s provide on site peak power production when electricity is needed. They have no moving parts, they require little maintenance. They typically have between a 5 – 10 year payback period. Photovoltaic’s typically have a 25 year warranty to produce electricity. Photovoltaic’s are becoming cheaper and cheaper to produce. Europe is rapidly switching to photovoltaic’s from wind turbines, leaving the USA in the dust as a third world country, in terms of production and application. The list in favor of photovoltaic just goes on and on. They require no MASSIVE TAX SUBSIDES. The main reason the government is in favor of wind turbines is the TAX revenue, you see it on your electric bill every month. With the electric rates tripling the tax revenue will also triple.

  • ChrisKapsambelis

    What we learn from Falmouth, Vinalhaven, and Mars Hill, Maine is that the methodology for predicting the distribution of sound from wind turbines is flawed. While there are installation where wind turbine noise is well tolerated by local residents, there are many like Falmouth where the noise is intolerable. The source of the offending noise appears to be Aerodynamic Amplitude Modulation (AAM) which results from the edge of the blades as the intercept the wind at high speed. Ms Argo’s claim that the newer turbines will avoid this type of noise needs to be verified. Theoretically, AAM can be minimized by use of blade pitch control methods. There is no guarantee that any new installation will be so adjusted as to minimize noise. I would expect that pitch control is designed to maximize energy production. Energy production and noise abatement may be mutually exclusive.

    The other thing we learned from Falmouth is that the state’s noise control regulations are inadequate when it comes to providing any post installation relief. MassDEP has not conducted any studies of their own, and the study commissioned by Falmouth that declared Wind-1 in compliance, has now been rejected by MassDEP. Furthermore, the amount of data needed to satisfy MassDEP could easily take a year to collect.

    It should be clear to all concerned that until the exact cause of what happened in Falmouth and other locations around the world is understood, the only way to avoid another Falmouth is to establish a setback distance that is guaranteed to avoid complaints. That setback distance now appears to be 1.25 miles. That will easily result in no more wind turbines on Cape Cod, but the burden should be placed on wind energy developers to prove the wisdom of placing them closer. Placing the burden on people like Funfar, Andersen, Donald, and others is just not fair.

    Chris Kapsambelis

  • Anonymous

    Argo has no clue of what she speaks. The Hoen study claims to be peer reviewed yet the LBNL author refused to provide the basic sale data in any identifiable fashion to the invited Reviewers. I know this for a fact, because I was one of the pre-publication reviewers. Regardless, the truth could not be concealed entirely by hiding the base data.

    Had she actually read the report, she would also see that LBNL ACTUALLY found over 5% lower values within 1 mile, and 8% lower value for close in properties in the All Sales Model. Keep in mind that this is before applying the range of 10% error, and the possibility that the LBNL data actually may indicate 15% to 18% lower values, on average, near turbines.

    I f she bothered to read the footnotes on page 14 of LBNL report, she would also have found that developers bought out 4 homes in one LBNL study location, and was able to resell only two of those homes. What Hoen fails to mention is that those two homes resold for 40% & 80% less than the purchase price. Hmmmmm! Those particular sales would have changed the statistical indication and maybe even the LBNL conclusion, thus, they were rejected as “related party” transactions. A poor justification for exclusion is evident by the fact that they were not related, per the Assessor Manual authority cited to justify exclusion of this opinion-impeaching sale data. As a professional appraiser, I can state with confidence and authority that “case study” data such as those (and other) sales merit consideration and priority, over and above a secretive & biased regression analysis. The devil is in the details!

    But, like the authors of the report, Miz Argo uses carefully chosen words to discount the reality of value impacts. Despite the fact that neither Argo nor Hoen even acknowledge the growing number of worst case examples of abandoned homes or developer buy outs that come with “gag” conditions of settlement, the fact is that Hoen does not claim there is no SALE evidence of value losses, but trather, chooses to focus on the lack of statistical significance, watered down even further by making the conclusion contingent on “wide spread and consistent” value loss. To his credit, Ben Hoen acknowledges some loosely described instances of value loss, but unfortunately dismisses these equity destroying examples as “too small” or “infrequent” to matter in the narrowly focused statistical model they developed for the purpose of advising Zoning Boards, etc.

    So Liz, it would seem that you are incredibly out of touch with what peer review actually means, and you apparently have not got the news that Hoen now recommends PVG’s for homes near turbines, and admits there is much to be concerned about for home values when turbines are developed nearby. He also stated that wind developers often misquote his report, claiming it says there is NO value impact. You, Liz, are no exception.

    I find these attempts to mislead the public to be an unfortunate and life-changing trend for homeowners, advanced by people who don’t even read or understand the reports they cite.

    As Liz has stated, the siting decisions should be based on solid facts, I agree. Come to Wareham and the fellow from Illinois will provide you a few more facts, rather than self-serving “spin”.

    Regards,

    Mike McCann
    McCann Appraisal, LLC

    I

  • Anonymous

    The facts don’t support wind energy, so Liz is at a distinct disadvantage. And, there appears to be no penalty for misrepresentations made regarding wind energy. As an example, Cape Wind stated they would be, “lowering electric costs”, on their Website in 2006. Yet, the “Green Energy Tax” for only 1/2 of Cape Wind’s energy, by NGrid contract over term, is $4.0 billion without factoring $600,000 in federal taxpayer subsidies. This is clearly a bait and switch, unfair and deceptive business practice, yet tolerated, more accurately “rewarded” behavior.

    Thanks to Mike McCann, we have the facts delivered that demonstrate property value loss should be anticipated by wind turbines. I know I would not buy a home with a wind turbine proposed or installed nearby. And I would expect my Realtor would inform me about any wind turbine proposal within view or hearing distance of a property that is listed in which I expressed interest. As if I moved in, and a wind turbine disturbed my sleep and diminished my property value, and I could demonstrate that the Realtor withheld this information, I would file a 93A lawsuit seeking treble damages in attempt to recover my financial loss.

    Thank you, too, Lisa, for sharing with us your personal experience. It would be beneficial if all politicians and promoters of wind installed wind turbines in their backyards–first. As I think the only reason for their existance, public subsidies, would wither away and die.

    The burden of proof of benefits must be lobbed back to the wind industry that should be held accountable for misrepresentations and omissions.

  • Anonymous

    “With a well-educated and formulated wind-energy siting-reform act coming out of Boston, we’d have some guidelines that would help everybody.”

    Liz’s last comment says it all. Apparently only the people in Boston, as opposed to local planning boards, are well-educated and that they know how we should be forced to live, all the while knowing they will never have these problems. How on earth would a Bostonian know what is best for our Cape towns?

    Boston has long used up the rest of the state to keep itself in supplies. Four towns were “discontinued” in the 1930s to keep Boston supplied with water. In the 1980s a state prison was to be built in New Braintree (population 927) to house Boston prisoners, until the town rose up to put a stop to it. The town is now the home of the State Police academy.

    Cape Cod is crucial to the state mandate for green energy, yet what role does Boston play? Ms. Argo would be happy if Boston told us what to do and how to do it without taking part in the green initiative themselves. Help everybody?? The only people being helped would be the city of Boston with their lower utility bills and high property values.

    Ms. Argo’s own hometown of Orleans has rejected turbines for their town. She says that planning boards are buffeted by both sides. However, it seems that one side would be people from out of town pushing for turbines they don’t have to live near, the other being the townspeople, the ones who elected the planning board. It seems clear that the planning boards should look out for the town they were elected to serve, and not to serve outside interests.

    So-called wind “experts” see only their side as being well-informed and other viewpoints as being ignorant and “wacky.” Of the Falmouth residents experiencing misery from turbines she says: “We had expected that they would be kind of wacky. And we would be able to dismiss them. And none of us will dismiss their complaints now.” Why would a person be “wacky” for having physical ailments related to the turbines? And admitting that their complaints are valid should make one stop and think rather than just make excuses for the turbines.

    Please, Ms. Argo, knowing that you can no longer dismiss these complaints should make you reconsider if it’s the wind or the just the money that is green.