Ms.

Ryan Christenberry

Planner – Energy Policy

Cape Cod Commission

November 10, 2010

Ms. Christenberry,

Thanks for clearing this up.

Let me make sure that I understand what the Cape Cod Commission proposes to do with respect
to industrial wind turbines.

My understanding is that the Planners (including you) and the Executive Director of the Cape
Cod Commission, Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki, have proposed, and/or endorsed, new language for
“Minimum Performance Standards” for “Wind Energy Conversion Facilities” – large industrial,
open-air wind factories -- that will be inserted into the Regional Policy Plan under the section on
Energy Policy. This action requires the approval of both the Cape Cod Commission Members
and the Barnstable County Commission Assembly of Delegates.

The Commission Members have approved the language – on your recommendation -- and the
CCC will now seek the approval of the Assembly of Delegates at their next meeting on
November 17th. Although the language of the “Minimum Performance Standards” for which
you seek approval repeatedly states that “Guidance can be found in Technical Bulletin 10-002,”
the fact of the matter is that no such “guidance” can currently be sought by anyone because the
“Technical Bulletin 10-002” hasn’t been written yet.

That is where things stand now.

You maintain in your note to me below that the CCC will need to hire the services of an acoustic
expert in order to write the provisions of the Technical Bulletin. Presumably, you are referring
to those provisions of the Technical Bulletin which refer to noise from wind turbines. The need
for special expertise just such as this is why the Technical Bulletins come after approval of the
Minimum Performance Standards.

But it is unclear to me why the Cape Cod Commission needs “Minimum Performance
Standards” in the first place. And it is particularly perplexing to me why, if it is necessary for
some reason, to have some “Minimum Performance Standards” in place, you should have made
the wording so vague, or so ludicrously easy to meet, that they essentially have no meaning (see
copy attached from your website). What purpose does that serve?

For example, under the heading of “Noise,” your “Standard” requires nothing more than “a noise
study” (which may be reviewed by CCC) and a commitment “to adequately mitigate adverse
impacts to residential uses outside the applicant’s development site.” But surely you must
realize – especially because of your close connection to the situation in Falmouth -- that there is
no way to “mitigate” the noise from industrial wind turbines – other than to shut them down.

Under the heading of “Shadow Flicker” – a reference to the intense strobe-like effect produced
by the huge blades and the 300 foot rotor width of industrial wind turbines -- you say only that
the developer “must demonstrate there are no adverse Shadow Flicker impacts to neighboring or
adjacent residential uses.” But surely you must realize, if you have even a modest knowledge of
industrial wind turbines, that, as sure as the sun rises and sets, there WILL be unsettling strobe-
like effects over a very broad area. And I’m sure that you must also know that effects that
appear “inconsequential” to developers are often deeply disturbing, and even intolerable, to
residents. So what is the practical effect of stipulating that there be “no adverse impacts” – a
term which whose definition is once again fluid and subjective? And how does this qualify as a
“standard”?

But by far the most alarming of the proposed “Minimum Performance Standards” that you have
recommended -- and which the Members have now approved upon your recommendation and
with the full endorsement of Mr. Niedzwiecki – is the revised “setback” provision for wind
turbines under the heading of “Safety.”

The new language relating to minimum setbacks was offered as a replacement to the former
language that was previously accepted by two committees of the Cape Cod Commission, the
Regulatory Committee and the Planning Committee.

Here is the former language which will be replaced if the Assembly of Delegates agrees to your
request:

Minimum Performance Standard 2 – Noise

All WECF’s equal to or greater than 1 MW shall maintain a setback of 3,000 feet from
the nearest residential structure, unless the applicant can demonstrate through a noise
study there are no adverse impacts to its residents. Guidance on noise study
components can be found in Technical Bulletin #10-002 [note: to be adopted].”

Many researchers have argued strenuously that a setback provision of 3000 feet is less than half
of what is required to avoid adverse health impacts to residents.

This new language reads as follows:

E1.7 Safety

All Wind Energy Conversion Facilities (WECFs) shall maintain a clear area of 1.5
times the tip height from the base of the WECF to any structure outside the applicant’s
development site. Applicants may negotiate a reduced setback with the abutting
property owner(s) provided that the reduction would not pose a threat to life or
property and provided a waiver is obtained in a form that is recordable in the
Barnstable County Registry of Deeds if the DRI is approved. Any waiver shall reserve
rights to tort and nuisance claims. A schedule of operation, maintenance and
decommissioning procedures shall be provided with the application and shall be made
part of any decision. Guidance can be found in Technical Bulletin 10-002.

To translate this into real terms, this “Standard” would allow a 400 foot wind turbine to be
installed within 600 feet of the nearest structure – potentially right on the boundary line of an
abutter’s property – and would allow a 500 foot wind turbine (of the type proposed for Bourne,
where New Generation Wind wants to install SIX of them) to be within a mere 750 feet of the
nearest structure. In other words, for a large wind turbine – a 500 foot behemoth – the new
setback provision is less than one-fourth of the old one, and less than one-eighth of the setback
provision that is consistent with “mitigating” serious harm from wind turbine noise.
Once again, the emphasis seems to be on making this provision “minimal” – virtually to the
vanishing point – rather than on prescribing a credible “standard.”

Such a “standard” is so grossly negligent, and so irresponsible, that it is extremely disconcerting

to contemplate the reasons why the professional Planners and the Executive Director of the Cape
Cod Commission can have possibly proposed it. Their endorsement raises some very serious
questions for Commission Members, for Delegates and for Cape Cod residents who rely on the
impartial and professional judgment of the CCC and its leadership.

Are they really so uninformed that they think that installing these huge mechanical devices in
such dangerously close proximity to residences can ever be justified?

Or, perhaps worse, do they actually understand the magnitude of the harm -- but feel that the
industrialization of Cape Cod through wind energy is such a high social priority that they have
no compunction about sacrificing any unfortunate innocents who happen to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time (which is to say, living near a wind turbine)?

Neither answer is very comforting.

When we heard the news that the Cape Cod Commission had recommended a minimum setback
for industrial wind turbines of only 1.5x tip height – perhaps the most lenient setback provision
in the country or the world – we were astonished. What reasons could the CCC possibly have
for adopting such a radical provision – especially in light of the volumes of technical, scientific
and painful anecdotal information on this topic that had been systematically provided to the
Executive Director over the course of the past year?

Perhaps the official Minutes of the August 19th Meeting of the CCC, where the management
proposed the new “Standards” can shed some light on this.

In introducing the topic, according to the minutes, Ms. Christenberry notes that “the standards
are intended to balance the desire for wind development in our communities while protecting the
sensitive resources in our region.”

As we have seen above, however, it is not clear precisely what portion of the proposed
“standards” actually provides any protection, whatsoever, for residents.

Similarly, one might search in vain for any provisions intended to “preserve the unique character
of Cape Cod,” its “historical character,” its “unique charm” and its “special sense of place.” And
many of us remain at a loss to understand how the installation of dozens of 500-foot industrial
wind turbines, with blades spinning at over 180 mph, emitting noise of over 105 dB at their hubs,
towering over the landscape, can be consistent with the official Development Guidelines of the
Commission which stipulate that new development should be “sensitive to the local
environment,” neither “out-of-character” nor “out-of-scale” with the rural surroundings of the
Cape.

If the overriding concern of the Cape Cod Commission is truly “to balance” these elements,
something already seems seriously out-of-whack.

Are they not 500 feet tall? Are they not industrial? Are they not mechanical? Are they not
noisy and unnatural? Yes.

Are they historical? Or rural? Or compatible in any way with their surroundings? No.
So where does “the balance” enter into the equation? Or, somewhere along the line, did the
desire for virtually unrestrained industrialization supersede the charter of the Cape Cod
Commission, whose express purpose was to create a vehicle to restrain such irresponsible and
incompatible development?

The comments of the various participants in the meeting of August 19th – particularly the
comments of the wind turbine proponents, including the management of the Cape Cod
Commission – are revealing. Here are some highlights:

• In response to a question as to why CCC planners were recommending that the proposed
setback provision be sharply reduced from 3000 to “1.5 times the tip height from the
nearest structure,” Ms. Christenberry replied that “it was felt that projects couldn’t make
that threshold.”
• Executive Director Paul Niedzweicki said that “people were skittish about the 3000-foot
setback so the number was removed.” He then offered the startling opinion that reducing
this setback provision (to a mere 600 feet for a 400 foot wind turbine), and inserting
broad language on noise and flicker, “actually puts more of a burden on the developer.”
He said that “the Commission is satisfied to get these suggested standards on the books”
-- and work out the details later.
• Mr. John Harris called attention to the fact that a recent UMass study shows that adverse
noise impacts “go farther than it appears.” Mr. Harris than asked who adjudicates such
complaints because “we may never get out of the loop if people keep posing noise
complaints.”
• Mr. Niedzwiecki replied that “the fastest way to get renewable energy going is in a
regulated environment and he hopes that that is where this will take us.” He says that
“the Commission will fill in the blanks as we move along.”
• Roger Putnam, the Member from Wellfleet – and a man of some experience with
industrial wind turbines since his own Board of Selectmen initially voted unanimously in
favor of installing them, and then, after doing their homework, voted unanimously to
abandon them – gamely stated that “he doesn’t believe [the Commission Members] have
enough information to make an intelligent decision.”
• Mr. Niedzwiecki replied that “these standards will help towns [move forward with these
projects] and he sees that as the most useful thing with these standards.”
• Richard Elrick -- an energy coordinator from Bourne who is working with New
Generation Wind to install SEVEN 500-foot wind turbines there -- said that “regarding
noise, it’s getting more and more challenging to site wind turbines. He said to have a
3000 foot setback would mean that we wouldn’t be able to site wind turbines on the
Cape. He said every turbine is different and every location is different….He said that
being more specific about noise would make it easier for developers He said the
language for Shadow Flicker is limited and he would recommend adding ‘significant’ to
no adverse shadow flicker. He said it would give it more clarity. He said we are not
going to get renewable energy projects if we make it harder for developers to get there.”
• Liz Argo, a renewable energy consultant allied with CVEC, the co-founder of the
unabashedly pro-wind energy Cape and Islands Wind Energy Network, said she “would
be happy to help with the development of the Technical Bulletin.” The Chair asked Ms.
Argo if she had attended Planning Committee meetings and she said, yes, she had.
• Mr. Niedzwiecki “referred to Mr. Elrick’s comment regarding adverse impacts and said
he would suggest that the language say “no adverse impacts” or “no significant impacts.”
He said “the Commission does not support a 3000 foot setback and that the Commission
decided to remove it.” He said this “does put more of a burden on the developer.”
 • Ms. Christenberry referred to the new setback provision of 1.5x tip height and said “that
is an industry standard.”
• Chair Roy Richardson asked if there was “any reason to believe that they shouldn’t feel
comfortable with the decision made by the Planning Committee.” No such doubts were
voiced by CCC management.
• Ms. Christenberry said that “having these standards would help bring transparency to the
process.”
• There being no any issues of significant concern worthy of further discussion, in the
opinion of senior management, a motion to adopt the changes proposed by them was
moved, seconded and passed.

Can there be any doubt from reading the transcript of this meeting that the overriding motivation
for reducing the setback provision – as was repeatedly and explicitly stated by numerous parties
-- that this provision was getting in the way of development – that it was preventing the
installation of the massive towers, and thwarting the ambitions of the developers, for the simple
reason that it is impossible to find any sites that do not have residences located within such a
perimeter?

The management and the planners of the Commission, the developers, their representatives and
the vested interests, all expressed the need to water down or remove the restrictions to
development that “made them skittish” or “we wouldn’t be able to site wind turbines on the
Cape.”

Did ONE person on the Commission mention the possibility that such development might not be
consistent with the preservationist principles of the Cape Cod Commission, or in the best
interests of the Cape as a region – a place that has thrived by zealously guarding its “unique
character” against such onslaughts?

Did ONE person mention any concern for the health and well-being of Cape Cod’s residents?
(And, to be clear, citing “noise complaints” – another niggling impediment to development –
doesn’t count as it is not even remotely the same thing).

Did ONE person ask for any of the proponents to EXPLAIN what societal benefit would accrue
to the residents of the Cape – since the sacrifices are so painfully obvious? After all, it is hard to
ignore a vast array of 500 foot wind turbines or the chronic noise that they emit. What is that
benefit? Could someone please articulate it?

Have ANY of the developers -- or the management of the Cape Cod Commission -- ever
calculated, quantified or publicly provided the amount of green house gas emissions that will
allegedly be reduced by allowing the intrusion of these monstrous structures in town, after town,
after town? The developers, and other vested interests, have participated in shaping the model
wind turbine bylaws in 2004 and have haunted the Commission like harpies, goading them
relentlessly into adopting more and more lenient, prescriptive provisions for the construction of
their developments – but have they ever had to actually MAKE THEIR CASE as to the benefits
of their program?

Do ALL of the Members – and the management of the Cape Cod Commission – really believe
that there will be NO significant consequences from erecting one enormous structure after
another – or one cluster after another – of 500 foot kinetic towers? Do they really believe this
even after citizens in Falmouth have experienced such agony and suffering?
Has ANY member of the CCC management ever acknowledged – ever – that the enormous scale
of these structures is even an issue? Or that caution ought to be exercised in performing a close
study of potential hazards from such a dramatic, wholesale industrialization up and down the
Cape?

Have ANY of the Members experienced even a MOMENT OF DOUBT as to whether this
whole program – which has been so uncritically embraced as an end unto itself – is truly in the
best interests of the region, the individual towns and the residents of the Cape?

Did ONE person – other than Mr. Putnam from Wellfleet – dare to suggest that the Members
might not want to give the Commission – and the developers it so ardently supports – a BLANK
CHECK to regulate – or fail to regulate – such development – particularly in view of their gross
incompetence on this issue to date?

Has it occurred to any of the Members – or to any member of the Commission management –
that the critics of these plans are the ones who are actually FREE from conflict of interest; who
have studied these issues closely; who, who have documented these concerns to the Cape Cod
Commission – only to be summarily rebuffed; and who, in fact, are struggling to ensure that the
long-term best interests of both the region, and their fellow citizens, are preserved.

Where is the evidence of the “balance,” Ms. Christenberry, to which the Cape Cod Commission
– particularly under its current leadership – so often pays lip service but so rarely seeks to do
anything to preserve?

Has the Cape Cod Commission become so corrupted by the mania for wind power that the
Executive Director, and the Planners, accompanied on the floor of a Commission meeting by a
bevy of developers and consultants, no longer feels any shame in declaring quite matter-of-factly
that the Commission needs to eliminate and/or weaken the modest handful of restrictions to
industrial wind energy – which already amounted to no more than a fig leaf of protection –
because if they don’t, no projects will get built.

Who are the real “constituents” of the Cape Cod Commission and the member towns? Aren’t
your constituents really the people who have joined those communities, who have purchased
homes there, or who visit habitually, year after year, because they had faith that this community
shared their interest in protecting and preserving the “unique character” and “special charm” of
this fragile, but resilient, and hauntingly beautiful, region?

Why are you so willing to abuse them, and all that they love about the Cape, to serve the
interests of a handful of rich developers, or unabashedly opportunistic towns, who seek nothing
more than to profit from the temporary gusher of state and federal subsidies driving the wind
energy mania.

Those towers are huge and they will be permanent. And they will profoundly alter life as you
know it on Cape Cod. They will disproportionately benefit a small handful of investors, and they
will create agony for thousands of innocents who did nothing to deserve such treatment – and
who had every right to expect that the Cape Cod Commission – the protector of the Cape --
would never allow such an outrage. What justification do you have for sacrificing these
sacrificial lambs on the alter of industrial wind energy? What will you say when you attempt to
explain why you allowed it?

Why are these points lost on you? Why do you not understand that your urgent priority of
installing industrial wind plants on Cape Cod can never be accomplished without incalculable
sacrifice? And that the return on our collective investment – both in terms of the amount of
energy produced and the reduction (if any) in green house gas emissions is truly pitiful.

The Cape Cod Commission has become so corrupted in its thinking that it now serves an entirely
different master than the one that was prescribed for it when it was invented. It no longer serves
the region’s interest, or the people’s interest, by advocating development that is sensitive to the
local environment and which keeps the soul of the place – its most precious asset – intact.
Instead, the Cape Cod Commission today is the unapologetic servant of a political agenda and
the chief enabler for a handful of opportunistic developers who are insensitive to the true needs
of the community and who seek to profit from the lavish subsidies that keep this misguided
industrial plan from collapsing under its own weight – at least for the time being.

That will be someone else’s problem, too – the problem of who actually comes back to pick up
the pieces when this bubble bursts. I imagine that this is another issue to be worked out in some
future Technical Bulletin, not to worry. The important thing for now is to make sure that they all
get built. There is plenty of time to worry about the rest later.

Sincerely,

Eric Bibler

President

Save Our Seashore

Wellfleet, MA

Cc: Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki

Cc: CCC Planners

Cc: All Members of the Assembly of Delegates

Cc; Members of All Boards and Committees in Bourne