BP Wind Energy

700 Louisiana, Floor 33 Houston, Texas 77002 713-354-2100 May 29, 2012

VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12212-1350 Re: Case 12-F-0036 - In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

Dear Secretary Brilling: Enclosed for filing are the comments of the BP Wind Energy North America Inc. on the proposed regulations to implement provisions of Article 10 of the Public Service Law. Sincerely,

Richard F. Chandler Director, Development BP Wind Energy North America Inc.

Enclosure
Comments of BP Wind Energy North America Inc. 1

New York State Public Service Commission Case 12-F-0036

In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

COMMENTS OF BP WIND ENERGY NORTH AMERICA INC. ON THE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR ARTICLE 10 I. INTRODUCTION

In April 2012, the New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Siting Board”) issued proposed regulations to implement provisions of Article 10 of the Public Service Law. In response to these proposed regulations, BP Wind Energy North America Inc. (“BP Wind Energy”) respectfully submits the comments below for consideration by the Siting Board. BP Wind Energy, which entered the U.S. renewable energy market in late 2005, is a business Unit within BP which is one of the world's largest energy companies. In the U.S., BP has approximately $52 billion in assets and employs some 23,000 staff. The company's main businesses are exploration and production of oil and gas, refining, manufacturing and marketing of oil products and petrochemicals, and the transportation and marketing of natural gas. With a growing business in wind power and advanced biofuels, BP has invested approximately $7 billion in alternative energy development. BP Wind Energy is a principal owner and operator of wind power facilities with interests in 13 wind farms. Today, BP Wind Energy has a gross generating capacity of 1,955 MW – enough electricity to power over 586,000 average American homes. By the end of this year, BP Wind Energy expects to have completed development of three more wind farms that will generate over 600 additional MW of electricity, which will secure BP Wind Energy’s position as being among the top five U.S. wind developers. By the end of 2012, BP Wind Energy will have built and will be operating approximately $5 billion worth of wind farms in the United States. In New York, Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP Wind Energy, is developing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project in Jefferson County. With the acquisition of the neighboring St. Lawrence Wind Farm project in February 2012, the Cape Vincent Wind Farm now can reach upwards of approximately 285 MW in size. Given its long-standing and substantial investment in this project, BP Wind Energy is seeking an Article 10 process that will facilitate its development and construction. Toward this end, below we offer comments that we hope the Siting Board will consider in finalizing the implementing regulations for Article 10.

2

II.

COMMENTS

A. Design changes Wind turbines, as well as collection systems, access roads, transmission lines, project substations, and other ancillary, related, and interconnection equipment, should have the ability to move to a new location (at least as much as 500 feet) without such change being considered a modification or revision, so long as such changes do not have a significant adverse impact on sensitive resources and regardless of the impetus for the change (Siting Board decision, compromise with transmission operator, etc.). B. Local laws Any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process. Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements are appropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally, to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets community standards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than having the Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant. C. Study Area A Study Area extending five miles from all project components is overly burdensome, and may result in work unrelated to the project. The Study Area should be restricted to the project footprint, except for individual requirements where extending beyond the project boundaries would be customary and reasonable, as determined during the stipulation process. D. Duration of steps in process The review of the public involvement plan should proceed in parallel, rather than sequentially, with the preliminary scoping statement process. BP Wind Energy has already been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project and such work should not be ignored, discounted, or required to be reproduced. The draft regulations provide the opportunity, for good cause, to eliminate or reduce the number of days between the public involvement plan and the preliminary scoping statement. The same “reduction for good cause” approach should be made available for the preliminary scoping statement vis a vis filing an application; this change would have the effect of reducing the required number of days between the filing of these two documents. E. Business sensitive and confidential information Applicants should not be required to submit detailed cost and meteorological data, as such information is proprietary and confidential and will not assist the Siting Board in its work. F. Public comment period The timeframe for allowing public comment on a proposed stipulation should be defined rather than using the current language (“a reasonable opportunity to submit comments”). We should suggest using 5 days.
Comments of BP Wind Energy North America Inc. 3

G. Intervenor funds Timeframes for applying for and awarding pre-application intervenor funds needs to be substantially reduced. We would suggest condensing this process to 30 days. H. Alternate locations For Section 1000.5(l)(2)(viii), and elsewhere in the document where this issue appears, the word “affiliates” should be deleted when looking at alternate locations. Merely being an affiliate does not give the applicant unfettered access to land holdings held by an affiliate. I. Locations of facilities Rather than scanning the entire Study Area, only existing utilities and infrastructure used or impacted by the project should be delineated by the applicant. J. Design specifications The interconnection engineering detail requested is not needed to support the evaluation of an Article 10 application and instead should be required only during the compliance period. Similarly, rather than provide manufacturer’s specifications on proposed equipment to be used, it would be more helpful to instead describe parameters of the equipment. This approach would allow flexibility to maintain flexibility during project evolution. We would suggest deleting Section 1001.6 (c) of the proposed regulations, as it is not clear what information is sought here regarding turbines nor what such information would be used for by the Siting Board. K. Electric System Effects Section 1001.5 should be deleted and instead, any studies and reports for the project stemming from the NYISO interconnection application process for the project should be used to satisfy any statutory requirements for information on the project’s projected impact on the grid. L. Noise and Vibration The current language is unclear on how ambient sound data is collected and reported for wind energy facilities. An unduly large emphasis is placed on the assessment of low frequency and tonal noise. The current language proposes assessing compliance at property lines of noise sensitive receptors, which introduces uncertainty from a modeling perspective for a wind farm. We would propose that the Siting Board adopt the language changes proposed by ACENY (attached herein for ease of reference). Respectfully submitted,

Richard F. Chandler Director, Development May 29, 2012

Comments of BP Wind Energy North America Inc.

4

1001.19 Exhibit 19: Noise and Vibration

Exhibit 19 shall contain: A study of the noise impacts of the construction and operation of the facility, related facilities and ancillary equipment. The name and qualifications to perform such analyses of the preparer of the study shall be stated. If the results of the study are certified in any manner by a member of a relevant professional society, the details of such certification shall be stated. If any noise assessment methodology standards are applied in the preparation of the study, an identification and description of such standards shall be stated. The study shall include: (a) A map of the study area showing the location of sensitive sound receptors in relation to the facility, related facilities and ancillary equipment (including any related substations). The sensitive sound receptors shown shall include residences, outdoor public facilities and areas, hospitals, schools and other noise-sensitive receptors. (b) An evaluation of ambient pre-construction baseline noise conditions, including A-weighted/dBA sound levels, prominent discrete (pure) tones, at representative potentially impacted noise receptors, using actual measurement data recorded in winter (and, if necessary, summer) during day and night as a function of time and frequency using a suitable and suitably calibrated sound level meter (SLM) and octave band frequency spectrum analyzer, or similar equipment. The ambient pre-construction baseline sound level should be filtered to exclude seasonal and intermittent noise. (c) An evaluation of future noise levels during construction of the facility and related facilities including predicted A-weighted/dBA sound levels at potentially impacted and representative noise receptors, using computer noise modeling. (d) An estimate of the noise level to be produced by operation of the facility, related facilities and ancillary equipment g accounting for wind-induced background noise and stable atmospheric conditions, as appropriate. The analysis shall not include transient sound attenuation factors, such as those that may result from variations in weather or temperature. (e) An evaluation of future noise levels during operation of the facility, related facilities and ancillary equipment including predicted A-weighted/dBA sound levels, prominent discrete (pure) tones, and amplitude modulated sound, at potentially impacted and representative noise receptors, using computer noise modeling, and an analysis of whether the facility will produce significant levels of low frequency noise or infrasound. (f) An assessment in tabular or graphical form of the A-weighted/dBA sound levels indicated by measurements and/or appropriate noise modeling at the representative external property boundary lines of the facility (including related and ancillary equipment facilities) and at

Valerie Strauss! 4/30/12 12:37 PM Deleted: ing

Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:05 PM Deleted: and Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:06 PM Deleted: , Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:06 PM Deleted: prominent discrete (pure) tones, and amplitude modulated sound Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:07 PM Deleted: assumin Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:07 PM Deleted: or Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:08 PM Deleted: , Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:08 PM Deleted: and not assuming any attenuation of Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:09 PM Deleted: transiently occurs due to Valerie Strauss! 4/30/12 12:37 PM Deleted: , Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:23 PM Deleted: statement Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:24 PM Deleted: computer Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:25 PM Deleted: and Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:25 PM Deleted: and ancillary equipment sites,

the representative nearest and average noise receptors, to assess the following: (1) Description of existing acoustical environment: (i) The range in existing sound levels shall be characterized for the following metrics: Leq, L10, L50 and L90 for daytime (7 am – 10 pm) and nighttime (10 pm – 7 am) periods. (a) The Leq, or equivalent sound pressure level, is the energy average sound pressure level over a specified time period. The Leq metric is the sound pressure level of a steady or continuous unvarying sound that has the same (equivalent) total energy as the time varying sound over the interval of interest. (b) The L10, L50 and L90, or Lxx are the sound levels that are exceeded “xx” percent of the sampling interval. The L90 sound pressure level represents the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the sampling interval (54 minutes of a 60 minute period, consequently the L90 represents the quietest 6 minutes of an hour interval) and therefore filters out loud, intermittent or transient sounds. The L90 is often referred to as the residual or background sound pressure level. The L50 is the sound pressure level exceeded 50 percent of the sampling interval and is the same as the median sound pressure level. The L10 is the sound pressure level exceeded 10 percent of the sampling interval and represents the louder events (the loudest 6 minutes of a 60 minute interval). The variation between the various metrics (Leq, L10, L50 and L90) provides an indication of the variability of the acoustical environment. All metrics will be identical if the sound level is steady and unvarying. (ii) Sound monitoring interval and study duration shall be sufficient to appropriately characterize the approximate range in existing levels in the study area. When continuous data logging sound level meters are utilized, interval duration shall not exceed 1 hour unless agreed to otherwise. In most instances, the sound survey duration at representative noise receptors would not be less than 24 hours. (iii) Sound monitoring shall be conducted during appropriate meteorological conditions consistent with the characteristic of the energy facility. Seasonal sources of ambient sound, such as insects, shall be assessed and filtered when necessary. For wind projects which assess how ambient sound levels vary with wind speed, the sound monitoring period shall address seasonal characteristics, such as winter or

Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:24 PM Deleted: for Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:24 PM Deleted: scenarios

leaf-off conditions, to ensure the existing conditions have been documented. (2) Description of project related sound emissions and potential changes to the existing acoustical environment: (i) Describe the potential sound emissions and how such sound emissions may vary under typical and “worst case” operating conditions. (ii) Evaluate future sound level resulting from operation of the project and discuss potential changes to existing acoustical environment described in (1) above.

Valerie Strauss! 4/28/12 8:29 PM Deleted: (1) Daytime ambient noise level - a single value of sound level equivalent to the level of sound exceeded for 90% of the time during the daytime hours (7 am - 10 pm) of a year (L90).
(2) Summer nightime ambient noise level - a single value of sound level equivalent to the level of sound exceeded for 90% of the time during the nightime hours (10 pm - 7 am) during the summer (L90). (3) Winter nightime ambient noise level - a single value of sound level equivalent to the level of sound exceeded for 90% of the time during the nightime hours (10 pm - 7 am) during the winter (L90). (4) Worst case future noise level during the daytime period - the daytime ambient noise level (L90), plus the noise level from the proposed new sources modeled as a single value of sound level equivalent to the level of sound exceeded for 10% of the time by such sources under normal operating conditions by such sources in a year (L10). (5) Worst case future noise level during the summer nightime period - the summer nightime ambient noise level (L90), plus the noise level from the proposed new sources modeled as a single value of sound level equivalent to the level of sound exceeded for 10% of the time by such sources under normal operating conditions by such sources in a year (L10). (6) Worst case future noise level during the winter nightime period - the winter nightime ambient noise level (L90), plus the noise level from the proposed new sources modeled as a single value of sound level equivalent to the [1] ... level of sound exceeded for 10% of the time by such sources under normal operating conditions by such sources in a year (L10).

(g) A description of the noise standards applicable to the facility, including any local requirements, and noise design goals for the facility at representative potentially impacted noise receptors, including residences, outdoor public facilities and areas, hospitals, schools, other noise-sensitive receptors, and at representative external property boundary lines of the facility and related facilities and ancillary equipment sites. (h) A tabular comparison of the noise standards applicable to the facility, including any local requirements, and noise design goals for the facility, and the degree of compliance indicated by computer noise modeling at the representative external property boundary lines of the facility and related facilities and ancillary equipment sites, and at the representative nearest and average noise receptors. (i) An identification and evaluation of reasonable noise abatement measures for construction activities, including a description of a complaint-handling procedure that shall be provided during the construction period. (j) An identification and evaluation of reasonable noise abatement measures for the final design and operation of the facility including the use of alternative technologies, alternative designs, and alternative facility arrangements. (k) An evaluation of the following potential community noise impacts: hearing damage (as addressed by applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards); indoor and outdoor speech interference; interference in the use of outdoor public facilities and areas; community complaint potential; the potential for structural damage; and the potential for interference with technological, industrial or medical activities that are sensitive to vibration or infrasound.

(l) A description of post-construction noise evaluation studies that shall be performed to establish conformance with operational noise design goals. (m) An identification of practicable post-construction operational controls and other mitigation measures that will be available to address reasonable complaints, including a description of a complainthandling procedure that shall be provided during periods of operation. (n) The computer noise modeling values used for the major noiseproducing components of the facility shall fairly match the unique operational noise characteristics of the particular equipment models and configurations proposed for the facility. The software input parameters, assumptions, and associated data used for the computer modeling shall be provided.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful