Many in Barre will face more than 30 hours of shadow flicker from turbines, more than town law allows

Editor:

As a resident of the Town of Barre community, and former Town Board Member, I have been trying to keep informed about the Heritage Wind project for our family and for our neighbors.

In reviewing the daunting modified application, I learned that my home is one of the non-participating receptors that will potentially be receiving above the 30 hours of shadow flicker and possibly up to 100 hours according to the Heritage Wind Shadow Flicker report.

We are located at Heritage Wind identified receptor 327 Tax parcel 107.-1-12.1. The report states that we could have a maximum of 1 hour and 9 minutes of shadow flicker at our home for 131 days of the year for a total of 114:05 hours “worse case scenario.”

I know that there are 52 of my non-participating “receptors” (aka people) that are predicted even after taking all other considerations into place in phase II and 43 even after taking into account passed wind speeds etc. that are predicted by Heritage Wind to receive over 30 hours of shadow flicker.

I would like to just note that the local ordinance for the Town of Barre states a maximum of 25 hours of shadow flicker, and the states has already deemed that to be unduly burdensome and overruled to a maximum of 30 hours. With this significant, and I believe major modification, that is being proposed by Heritage Wind, more people, myself and my neighbors will be negatively impacted.

My husband and I understand that the applicant is saying that there will be new technology, shadow flicker detection software in the wind turbines. However, this use of technology leads to many more questions, especially because of the significant number of homes, residents, receptors that will be impacted. Questions like:

• How does this shadow flicker detection software work on homes or buildings that are receiving flicker from multiple turbines?
• Where will the light sensors be located?
• How will the light sensors be maintained and ensure proper function?
• In the winter will snow cover deem them useless?
• How long has this technology been used? How has this technology been proven to be effective and actually work as they suggest?
• Where else in New York State is this sort of technology being relied on so heavily?
• Where else in the United States is this technology being used?
• Where is the supporting documentation for the effectiveness of this technology?
• What happens if a light sensor is not working and shadow flicker is greater than 30 hours annually? How will a resident be able to ensure that they, their property, their quality of life is protected?
• Majority of Appendix F is redacted and does not provide any proof of operation, how can this be relied upon? And why is this critical public health information being withheld from the public in the first place?

Table 4 is alarming because it shows some homes will receive over 3 times the maximum shadow flicker at their property with the other considerations already taken into place. For the 42 receptors listed in table 4 on average there are 22.5 hours over the annual maximum per receptor. The applicant’s “conservative assumptions”, still show a significant and major 967 hours of shadow flicker for residents that are non-participating of Barre that will need to be monitored with unproven technology.

The information above seems eerily similar to the information that the applicant (Heritage Wind) presented in regard to the proximity to the Iroquois wildlife refuge. In public comment #31 David Stillwell, Field Supervisor for the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services stated the following:

“We believe that the closer the turbines are to these unique biological habitats, the greater the impact is to species which frequent them. We recommend ORES deny the draft permit for the project and direct Heritage to design a project with less risk to wildlife.”

In response, ORES required the elimination or relocation of a handful of turbines. My question for ORES is, shouldn’t health risks to actual people require the same response? Does our health matter, or is ORES only concerned about impacts to birds? Does New York State’s energy policy demand that we be driven from our homes by incessant flashing light lasting over an hour a day, for a significant portion of the year!

Through the proceeding of this case, the applicant argued for unproven technology to be used to evaluate the impact of the industrial wind turbines on the unique biological habitats of the Iroquois Wildlife Refuge, and ORES ruled that this was not practicable and that those turbines would need to be removed or much more stringent environmental monitoring would occur.

As the unique biological habitats that are being more drastically and negatively impacted because of this new redesign are my neighbors, their children, their families, I ask you that you please protect them, as you did for the migratory birds and inhabitants of the Iroquois Wildlife Refuge.

Our residence is our home, our place of rest, and where we are raising and homeschooling our 4 children. The timing of the anticipated shadow flicker for homes that would need to be monitored by the sensors and everyone else is in the morning and evening, important gathering and activity time for our young family. These are times we often try to be outside enjoying the wonderful rural property that we have chosen to invest in.

We ask that ORES please maintain that the applicant has to keep the design of the project to have shadow flickers under the 30 hour maximum for non-participating receptors. This requirement was/ is a known requirement, and the modification of the project should meet this requirement; without the use of unproven technology.

Should the developer want to add this technology as a secondary measure to ensure that all non-participating receptors do not receive over the 30-hour maximum of shadow flicker, that could be beneficial. However, to use this unproven technology to ensure the maximum shadow flicker is not exceeded puts many Barre families like us at risk. What are our options if this latest technology goes awry? You are talking about our home, our biggest investment, and where we are schooling and raising our children.

We recommend ORES deem the modifications to be a major modification and work to ensure that the 30 hour maximum shadow flicker is maintained without the reliance on unproven technology and that Heritage Wind look to design a project within the scope of the law.

Kerri Richardson (former Barre town councilwoman)

Barre