Editor’s note: This commentary is by Sarah Wolfe, who is a clean energy advocate at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
Recently, state officials announced a new draft regulation that would, if enacted, make getting to Vermont’s goal of 90 percent renewable energy much, much harder. Sounds like headline news, no? So why haven’t you heard about it?
Simple – the announcement came in the form of a proposed regulation on sound from wind turbines. One technical detail after another, the topic is about as interesting as watching paint dry. So, it largely flew under the radar. But make no mistake, if this proposed regulation goes into effect any realistic chance of seeing more wind power in Vermont goes out the window, and with it our ability to reach our renewable energy goals.
Step back and look at the big picture: Wind power has clear, proven economic, environmental and health benefits to Vermonters and the country. The risks of wind power are similarly well researched and pale in comparison to those benefits. And the risk of continuing to rely on fossil fuels? Enormous.
These high stakes are why VPIRG waded into this process, doing research, reaching out to our members, and bringing in an acoustic engineer with decades of experience working for regulators, developers and turbine neighbors alike. Throughout this process we have advocated for a standard that would be more conservative, transparent and predictable than anything that currently exists in Vermont – but one that would also allow wind projects to be built.
What the Public Service Board proposed, in a rule filed last month, would not. It would be a functional ban on wind (large and small), and it’s unsupported by the clear weight of scientific evidence on acoustic engineering and public health.
So regulators must have a really, really good reason for doing what they did, right? Nope.
The science is clear. Sound from wind farms, at the levels that have been allowed in Vermont, have consistently been shown to have no impact on public health. The standard we proposed would have been even more strict.
Let’s look at this question from another angle. When was the last time someone took to the streets to protest cars driving by the road near their home? I’ve seen no commentaries about noise from nearby farms – milking machines, tractors and other farm equipment. I hear no complaints about Vermonters being unable to sleep due to the sound from their refrigerators, dishwashers and heaters. All of these examples are anywhere from 10 to 50 decibels louder than the current limits on sound from wind turbines.
I’ve seen no commentaries about noise from nearby farms – milking machines, tractors and other farm equipment. I hear no complaints about Vermonters being unable to sleep due to the sound from their refrigerators, dishwashers and heaters.
It begs the question, why is something with a clearly proven public good coming under such intense attack? The simple truth is there are a small number of Vermonters that just don’t want wind turbines in Vermont, period. They’d prefer to have that ban in law. But barring that, they have made it clear that they will continue to advocate for anything that makes it harder (or impossible) to build wind turbines.
But since the sound from wind turbines is currently what’s on the table, let’s dive into the nitty gritty details of the science behind wind sound limits. (Who’s excited?)
To start — when we’re talking health, studies agree that the only potential risk from sound levels in this range is sleep disturbance. So what’s the right level to ensure good sleep? Numerous studies have shown that a well-defined and regulated limit of 45 decibels at night is protective of public health. That’s what VPIRG proposed. On the ground testing of this type of standard has shown that once the project is built, sound levels actually come in several decibels below the limit. Such a standard in fact exceeds the World Health Organization (WHO)’s guidelines for sound levels to protect sleep and public health.
So with all of this information, what did the board propose? A 35 decibel nighttime limit. How drastic a move is that 10 decibel difference? Because of the way sound is measured, that decrease is actually cutting the perceived sound by half, and reducing the sound intensity by tenfold.
Let me restate that: this standard is literally twice as restrictive as it needs to be.
Not only does this go against the clear weight of scientific evidence, it is also unprecedented in the United States. The lowest comparable standard is Maine’s nightime limit of 42 decibels (Maine’s daytime limit is 55 decibels).
You’ll hear comparisons to wind sound limits in Europe, but there are a few reasons to take those cross-ocean comparisons with an ocean of salt. For one, zoning in Europe is almost the exact opposite of zoning in the U.S. In Europe, they consider the most rural areas to be their working landscapes, and allow the highest sound limits in those areas. So the regions where wind is being built in Vermont would actually be subject to limits just like what we proposed.
I want to be clear: What VPIRG proposed is a standard that would be more conservative than what’s currently in place, and even stricter than what is necessary to protect public health. But it would still allow us to take advantage of this critical renewable resource and make progress toward our state goals. The board’s proposal, on the other hand, is unsupported by the evidence and would ban future wind projects.
It’s absurd that in 2017 in Vermont – a year we had a 70-degree day in February, and our first sugaring day in January – we still need to defend clean energy solutions. But that frustration only spurs me to action. I, and VPIRG, and thousands of other Vermonters, will continue to passionately advocate for clean energy. We will fight the board’s proposed ban on wind, and any other policy that would result in the same outcome. We will continue to provide the facts and research to demonstrate wind’s necessity and utility. We will continue to be a voice for what we know to be right.
I hope you’ll join us in the fight. And I hope that Vermont policymakers will choose to base their decisions on science and fact.
