Vote To Remove Falmouth's Wind Turbines Could Have Far-Reaching Impact

By: Brent Runyon
Published: 02/06/13

Falmouth Board of Selectmen’s decision last week to remove the two town-owned wind turbines at the wastewater treatment facility could have implications not only for Falmouth, but for wind projects across the state and the country, according to both proponents and opponents of the project.

If the turbines are removed it would represent a setback for wind energy in Falmouth, said Megan C. Amsler of the Falmouth Energy Committee, who worked to bring the town-owned wind turbines to Falmouth over several years, and could also impact the wind industry as a whole.

“I believe that this has ramifications that will ripple through the entire wind industry,” Ms. Amsler said.

Ms. Amsler was a participant in the Falmouth Wind Turbine Options Process that offered three options to selectmen, which were to run the turbines and compensate homeowners, curtail the turbines, or remove the turbines and perhaps install photovoltaic solar panels.

She said selectmen should have offered all three options to Falmouth Town Meeting and voters.

“I’m extremely disappointed,” Ms. Amsler said. “The town taxpayers should have all the options in front of them.”

J. Malcolm Donald of Ambleside Drive, West Falmouth, a vocal opponent of the turbines, said removal of the two turbines will set an example for other towns in Massachusetts dealing with similar issues of noise complaints and sleep disturbance among neighbors.

Setting A Precedent

“It’s going to be precedent-setting,” he said. “Whatever happens in Falmouth is going to be looked at in Fairhaven, Scituate, Kingston and Plymouth. Citizens from towns such as those are going to be looking to Falmouth to see what happens.” Those towns have commercial-sized turbines and have logged complaints similar to Falmouth, he said.

Mr. Donald said the experience with the Falmouth turbines has given the wind industry a bad reputation. For that reason, the wind industry would like to see the Falmouth turbines taken down to make siting more turbines elsewhere easier, Mr. Donald said.

“The Falmouth experience is known worldwide and it’s unfortunate for the wind turbine industry, but Falmouth has become a martyr. It’s an embarrassment to the industry,” Mr. Donald said.

For now, the Falmouth turbines are still turning, and it will likely take a vote of Town Meeting and voters to authorize the town to borrow enough money to remove them.

The Falmouth Wind Turbine Options Process reported that removing the turbines would cost the town $9 to $9.4 million. Last week, Assistant Town Manager Heather B. Harper told selectmen that number could be as high as $11.9 million. Town Manager Julian M. Suso said yesterday that there are many unknowns about the process of removing turbines. “Some work lies ahead to be certain what costs are appropriately in that figure,” he said.

Falmouth is seeking help from the state to relieve some of the financial burden of removing the turbines. Last week, Mr. Suso sent a letter to Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Chief Executive Officer Alicia Barton McDevitt, asking for relief from some of the money owed on the town-owned turbines. He asked the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center to consider relieving the town of any obligation to repay the $1 million in renewable energy credits that will not be produced if the turbines are removed.

At the same time Falmouth is reaching out to state representatives for help paying the debt associated with the turbines. “The board has directed that we contact other appropriate state officials regarding further assistance to the Town in regard to the very significant financial obligation related to this removal and dismantling,” Mr. Suso wrote in a letter to the Clean Energy Center.

Residents Reach Out To State

Mr. Donald and John J. Ford of Blacksmith Shop Road were scheduled to meet with Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Richard K. Sullivan Jr. yesterday morning to discuss the situation in Falmouth.

Krista Selmi, a spokesman for Energy and Environmental Affairs, said the meeting was a follow-up to a meeting Mr. Donald had with Mr. Sullivan and Governor Deval L. Patrick in December. Mr. Sullivan is looking forward to discussing the future of the town-owned turbines with town officials, Ms. Selmi said.

If Falmouth voters agree to remove the turbines, it could be the first case anywhere in the country of commercial-sized turbines coming down within three years of being installed because of noise and health complaints of residents.

Matt Kakley, spokesman for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, said the organization looks forward to working with town officials and residents to resolve complaints about the wind turbines. Mr. Kakley said the only case in Massachusetts of a wind turbine being removed because of sound problems happened almost 15 years ago when a 10-kilowatt turbine at Halibut State Point Park in Rockport was relocated to Beverly High School because of noise complaints. That turbine is a much smaller model than the two 1.65-megawatt Vestas V82 turbines at the wastewater treatment plant that stand 252 feet tall at the hub.

MassCEC does not log complaints about wind projects, Mr. Kakley said, although it is currently funding an acoustic study for the Town of Kingston because of noise complaints about the turbines. “In addition to helping Kingston, MassCEC is working with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to develop and conduct a Research Study on Wind Turbine Acoustics,” he wrote in a statement. “That study will measure the level and quality of sound emissions from a variety of operating wind turbines in Massachusetts, and help provide information to the public and municipal decision-makers about specific acoustic characteristics of wind turbines.”

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association for America’s wind industry, there are 45,100 wind turbines in the United States with a capacity of 60,007 megawatts. Texas, California, and Iowa are the three largest producers of wind energy in the United States. Texas has over 12,000 megawatts, and California and Iowa each have more than 5,000 megawatts of wind capacity installed. Massachusetts has 100 megawatts of wind energy capacity installed and is 35th in the nation in producing wind energy.

Wind energy is growing rapidly nationwide, according to statistics provided by AWEA. Wind energy became the number one source of new electricity generating capacity for the first time in 2012, providing some 42 percent of all new generating capacity.

Today, United States wind power capacity represents more than 20 percent of the world's installed wind power, according to AWEA.

4 Responses to "Vote To Remove Falmouth's Wind Turbines Could Have Far-Reaching Impact"

1. markjcool says: 02/06/13
   

   The Falmouth Selectmen are sending two representatives from the board, to negotiate with State and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center officials regarding wind turbine debt relief. Falmouth legislative representatives (Senate President Theresa Murray, House representatives David Vieira and Timothy Madden) will lend their efforts and support to the negotiations as well. I’ve found some confused and contradictory information that may serve as justification for debt relief, and make the decommissioning and removal of Falmouth’s municipal turbines more palatable to Town Meeting and Voters. A document exists on public record, dated November 12, 2008 that may be instrumental in providing a large portion of Falmouth’s fiscal relief. The document is a “Request for Increased Award and Delegated Authority” addressed to the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust (MRET) Governing Board, from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (Nils Bolgen – project manager). The correspondence details the sale of the wind turbine for use in the Town of Falmouth wind project, and details pre-payment for renewable energy certificates from the Falmouth Wind Project. This request was MRET’s (loan) seed money used by Falmouth to move forward on this municipal infrastructure capital project through an advance on Renewable Energy Certificate (REC’s) payments. This request, made by the MassCEC on behalf of the Town of Falmouth, was intended to increase project cash flow and achieve minimum debt coverage ratios (municipal bond liabilities), thereby reducing overall finance costs. I noticed the date (November 12, 2008) of the correspondence. I noticed the project manager at the time and current MassCEC Chief Nils Bolgen, who attended all the Falmouth WTOP meetings. And I especially took keen interest in subparagraph 1. Sale of Wind Turbine – second sentence in the request document - “The Falmouth project is fully permitted and the Town has completed it’s public procurement process.” This correspondence makes two arguments of the Town’s recently conclued trial in Mass Superior Court, very suspect! 1) Abutter notification Why would Falmouth’s Energy Committee Chairman (Megan Amsler) testify that abutter notifications continued to be sent after 2008, if the project was “fully permitted” sometime prior to November 12, 2008 (date of document request)? 2) Building Commissioner Permit Process Why would Falmouth’s Building Commissioner (Eladio Gore) testify that he deferred his permit approval until the issuance of a variance rendered by the State Code Appeals Board in November 2009, when the project had been “fully permitted” prior to November 12, 2008 (date of document request)? I very well may be interpreting this wrong, if the meaning of “fully permitted” has some other connotation not associated with a building permit? Yet, it’s very concerning that MassCEC’s request for a funding contract alteration, from the MRET, should lead the funding/lending authority to believe the Falmouth wind project was fully permitted. Falmouth’s Wind 1 turbine’s building permit had not been issued by the Building Commissioner until June 30 2009 (see WTOP Final Report – Timeline appendices). The date of the MassCEC request, to the MRET, predates the issuance of the building permit by at least 7 1/2 months. This is a major conflict of process and transparency, requiring a full explanation. The predicament in which MassCEC places itself, if I’m interpreting this document accurately, potentially provides strong evidence / justification that Falmouth’s subsequent debt obligation, in the turbine removal process, is the direct result of false representations made TO the lending agency (MRET). It must be noted, the MassCEC mission is to accelerate the development and deployment of renewable energy projects in Massachusetts. The MassCEC performed as financial liaison /advisor for the Town of Falmouth, during funding contractual modifications necessary to move the Wind 1 project forward. The request made to the lender (Mass Renewable Energy Trust), BY MassCEC, was effectively based upon, subparagraph 1.’s (of MassCEC’s request), inaccurate and misleading information. All begging the question: Should Falmouth Citizens be responsible for a debt resulting from deceit, misrepresentation and lies exercised by an agency (MassCEC) concerned only with progress toward their mission goal, and achieving the State Administration’s wind energy agenda target? Should Falmouth Residents be left holding the bag? In a word ~ NO
2. artlindgren says: 02/06/13
   

   ... "If the turbines are removed it would represent a setback for wind energy in Falmouth, said Megan C. Amsler of the Falmouth Energy Committee, who worked to bring the town-owned wind turbines to Falmouth over several years, and could also impact the wind industry as a whole. “I believe that this has ramifications that will ripple through the entire wind industry,” Ms. Amsler said." Exactly! Ms. Amsler has it quite right, and as it should be.
3. Billcarson says: 02/08/13
   

   The big question is why wasn't a Special Permit pulled to build the Wind 1 turbine ? The study was completed on April 19,2005 and said a Special Permit is required. Timeline The Falmouth Energy Committee minutes and discussed in the 3/28/2005 minutes . The rough draft of the Falmouth Community Wind Project Site Screening Report was reviewed at this meeting with all the members of the Falmouth Energy Committee and the Falmouth Select Board . Click here or paste to your browser: http://www.falmouthmass.us/meeting.php?depkey=energy&number=290 Next : The feasibility study was done for Falmouth in two parts one April 19,2005 and November 2005 . The first part of the study is not on the town web site or the CBI documents for some unknown reason. The April 19 ,2005 report clearly shows that a review of the Cape Cod Commission etc shows a SPECIAL PERMIT is required. Falmouth Community Wind Project Site Screening Report Apr 19, 2005 – FALMOUTH SITE SCREENING REPORT This report was prepared by KEMA ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC and funded by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The date of the report April 19, 2005 The report says a Special permit is needed . Falmouth Wind 1 Turbine Falmouth Community Wind Project Site Screening Report April 19,2005 The date is important for this report April 19,2005 Page 28 of the April 19, 2005 site review says : 6.2.2 a special permit is needed for the wind turbine Please click here to review report or paste to your browser: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Yl3ICFJcNtcJ:www.cirenew.info/Electricpdfs/falmouthwindscreening.pdf+town+of+falmouth+community+site+screening+report+2005&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi49W9MYZShc48WC9-Zy-Vomge2o-MeG6_B-PTQP1IuL-V2ABWVkeBIpUpKBiJoGkaJc2xEjAGEstT91nAIM4rTWgxq1YCgG9SI4bGTTgvJhXVRbMmbSvNpmryPqPdVKNZL7ok8&sig=AHIEtbQsliJQJ-ShoM6WzyWqthnFcBdsMw The information shows that a Special Permit should have been used to build the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine
4. Barry51 says: 03/08/13
   

   The only "far-reaching" consequence of this imbroglio is the reputation for idiocy and hysteria the community of Falmouth has emblazened on its forehead. As for the cost of removal, I would say a fourth option is to shut them down but maintain them so when this generation of homeowners and hypochondriacs passes from existence the next generation who is dealing more directly with climate change issues can ramp them back up. It would be cheaper and at least someone gains from the capital investment made.