1 1 2 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 3 SITE EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE 4 5 6 June 17, 2021 - 1:00 p.m. N.H. Department of Transportation 7 7 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH - Room 114 8 9 IN RE: SEC DOCKET NO. 2021-02 ANTRIM WIND ENERGY FACILITY 10 Subcommittee Investigation of Complaints 11 (Public Hearing) 12 13 PRESIDING OFFICER: Jonathan Evans, NH DOT 14 SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS: John Duclos, NH DES Thomas Eaton, Public Member 15 16 17 ALSO PRESENT: John-Mark Turner, Esq. (Sheehan...) Subcommittee-retained counsel 18 Michael Haley, Esq. (NH DOJ) SEC counsel 19 20 21 COURT REPORTER: Susan J. Robidas, LCR No. 44 22 23 24 {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 2 1 I N D E X 2 3 PAGE 4 MOTION: Approval of 4/20/21 5 and 5/21/21 minutes 5 SECONDED by Mr. Duclos 5 6 VOTE TAKEN - Motion passed 6 7 8 PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY: 9 Lori Lerner 10 10 Mr. Block 24 11 Ms. Linowes 29 12 Mr. Needleman 48 13 Mr. O'Neal 56 14 Mr. Edwards 78 15 Mr. Ward 83 16 Mr. Wilkas 91 17 Mr. Brooks 98 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 3 right. The time is 1:00, so I'd like to get 4 the meeting started. 5 All right. Before we begin, just a 6 few housekeeping items. First we'll do a 7 roll call. My name is Jon Evans. I'm the 8 presiding officer for the SEC Subcommittee in 9 Docket 2021-02. 10 Start this way. 11 MR. DUCLOS: My name's John Duclos. 12 I serve on the Subcommittee as a 13 representative of the Department of 14 Environmental Services. 15 MR. EATON: Tom Eaton, I serve as a 16 public member to the SEC. 17 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: To my 18 left. 19 MR. TURNER: John-Mark Turner, 20 counsel for the Subcommittee. 21 MR. HALEY: Michael Haley, 22 attorney, DOJ. I'm an advisor to the 23 Subcommittee. 24 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 4 1 right. Before we begin, also just take note 2 of the emergency exits. There's one there, 3 one there and one there. Restrooms are out 4 that door to either side, on the left or 5 right. 6 This meeting is being recorded both 7 electronically and by a court reporter. 8 Please speak clearly into the microphone so 9 that everyone can hear you. Before speaking, 10 please state your name and, if you wish, 11 provide any other information you believe to 12 be relevant, such as your address or 13 organizational affiliations. If you have a 14 written version of your comments, please 15 provide them to the court reporter prior to 16 leaving to assist in the preparation of the 17 meeting transcript. 18 All right. The next item is I do 19 want to -- we had draft meeting minutes from 20 both the April 20th and May 21st public 21 meetings. We did -- we weren't able to 22 finalize the meetings [sic] from the 23 April 20th meeting. So with that, I'd like 24 to finalize the minutes. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 5 1 I know that, Tom, you weren't at 2 the meeting. But John, I didn't know if you 3 had any concerns with finalizing the minutes 4 as they were written. 5 MR. DUCLOS: No, I don't have any 6 issues with those minutes. 7 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 8 MR. DUCLOS: Is this on? Yeah, I 9 have no issues with those minutes, Jon. 10 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 11 Perfect. Tom. 12 MR. EATON: I'm going to abstain 13 because I was not a member of the Committee 14 at that point. 15 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 16 Perfect. All right. 17 With that, I'd like to move that 18 the minutes from both of those meetings, 19 April 20th, 2021 and May 21st, 2021, the 20 meeting minutes be adopted. 21 MR. DUCLOS: Second it. 22 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 23 right. We don't need to do roll call, do we? 24 All right. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 6 1 Jon Evans, I vote yes. 2 MR. DUCLOS: John Duclos, I vote 3 yes. 4 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: And Tom. 5 MR. EATON: Tom Eaton, I'll 6 abstain. 7 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 8 right. With that, the motion is adopted. 9 All right. A few rules of the 10 meeting as we move forward. Each individual 11 who registered to provide public comment in 12 advance of the meeting will be allowed five 13 minutes to speak, followed by an opportunity 14 for the Subcommittee to ask questions of the 15 speaker. The question-and-answer period will 16 not count towards the speaker's five-minute 17 comment period. Public comments shall be 18 limited to discussion -- discussing the 19 Subcommittee's first charge, namely, the 20 appropriate methodologies for measurement and 21 analysis of sound and procedures for 22 validating noise complaints. As the 23 presiding officer, I will enforce the time 24 and discussion limits to ensure a fair, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 7 1 efficient and orderly meeting. 2 Written comments to the 3 Subcommittee's first charge will be accepted 4 for a period of two weeks and must be 5 submitted via the docket distribution list no 6 later than 5 p.m. on July 1st, 2021 for 7 consideration. 8 The Subcommittee did receive a 9 request from Attorney Thomas Getz to register 10 two speakers on behalf of Antrim Wind, as 11 well as we also do need to figure out the 12 order for which we're going to allow the 13 speakers to speak. My recommendation would 14 be to do the order of the speakers 15 alphabetically, just to keep it fair. 16 And then as far as the request from 17 Attorney Thomas Getz to allow two speakers 18 for Antrim Wind, on behalf of Antrim Wind, my 19 feeling is that they're members of the public 20 and we should allow both of those speakers. 21 But I'd like to hear if there's any concerns 22 with that approach for both of those items. 23 MR. DUCLOS: John Duclos. I don't 24 have a problem with having as many speakers {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 8 1 that want to speak as possible for a full 2 accounting of the issues that we have of 3 concern. 4 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: With 5 that, so I think -- do we need a roll call 6 or -- 7 MR. TURNER: No. 8 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 9 right. With that, I think we will allow both 10 of the speakers. And I do think what I would 11 like to do then is we'll do them 12 alphabetically. So it does look like we have 13 one question, but -- 14 MS. LINOWES: I do, Mr. Chairman. 15 I apologize. My name is Lisa Linowes. If 16 they're representing a single company, are 17 they going to get ten minutes or five minutes 18 total? 19 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Each 20 speaker will get five minutes. 21 MS. LINOWES: So that Antrim Wind 22 will get ten minutes to present. 23 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Again, 24 we're looking at that as two members of the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 9 1 public. There could be multiple members. 2 Anybody could have brought multiple members 3 to the -- and they could have had two 4 separate speakers to get additional time. 5 But that's what we're going to do here today, 6 so we'd like to keep it at that. 7 All right. So alphabetically, the 8 first registered speaker is Richard Block. 9 MR. BLOCK: Can I wait a couple and 10 go a couple -- I'm not quite prepared yet. 11 So if you let one or two people go ahead of 12 me, I'd appreciate that. 13 MR. WARD: Can I suggest that the 14 two people Attorney Getz is bringing in be 15 first, since we have never met any of them, 16 whereas we all pretty much, the rest of us, 17 know what's going on. And if they're 18 going to come in, we don't know much about 19 them, it would be well to let them speak 20 first. 21 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I would 22 prefer not to. Again, I'm trying to keep it 23 as equitable as possible. So I'm going to go 24 alphabetically. I understand Mr. Block has {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 10 1 a -- is working on just getting himself 2 ready, so we'll move to the next one. And 3 then I think after that next speaker, then I 4 would ask to be Mr. Block. 5 Would that be all right with you? 6 MR. BLOCK: I'm somewhat hard of 7 hearing, so I'm not catching everything in 8 the room. I'll do the best I can. 9 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: So it 10 would be -- the next one would be Lori 11 Lerner. And then after Lori, yourself. 12 MR. BLOCK: That will work, yes. 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 14 right. I think I'd like to just get started 15 with the actual testimony. So with that, 16 Lori Lerner. 17 (Ms. Lerner distributing handout to 18 Subcommittee members.) 19 MS. LERNER: Good afternoon. Can 20 you hear me okay? 21 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Bring 22 that a little bit closer to you. 23 (Pause in proceedings) 24 MS. LERNER: Can you hear me now? {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 11 1 How's that? I'll do my best. 2 Well, thank you, everybody, for the 3 opportunity to speak here today. My name is 4 Lori Lerner, and I'm a resident at 5 Bridgewater -- in Bridgewater, New Hampshire. 6 And for those of you who I may not have met 7 before, I have been very much involved in 8 this topic since 2012. I was working very 9 closely with the Legislature when we passed 10 Senate Bill 99, Senate Bill 245, and Senate 11 Bill 281. 12 For those of you -- that happened 13 around the 2013 time frame and on. For those 14 of you who may not be familiar with this, 15 it's been a long-going process, where we 16 started with a recognition, recognizing that 17 the Site Evaluation Committee did not have 18 very thorough rules and regulations to 19 provide the public the opportunity to 20 understand what these projects were being 21 judged based on, as well as what the 22 compliance standards were to be once they 23 were implemented or into an operational 24 status. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 12 1 I worked very closely through 2 getting the passing of the legislation. That 3 went on to a whole stakeholder group related 4 to SB 99, which incorporated SB 281. SB 281 5 was specific to industrial wind. 6 We had a stakeholder group process 7 that included meetings across the entire 8 state to get feedback from folks. From there 9 we went into a rulemaking process, where that 10 group was narrowed down into a number of 11 different subject topic areas, and one was 12 very specific to noise emissions related to 13 industrial wind turbines, as well as other 14 energy facilities. I participated in that 15 group. That group was being led by Lisa 16 Linowes. And it incorporated a number of 17 other members of the public, as well as four 18 noise experts. The result of that is the 19 rules that we have before us right now. 20 So we all met, we all agreed, and 21 we brought forward through the rulemaking 22 process, that went through JLCAR, to where we 23 are today, very specific rules. 24 The purpose of the rules in general {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 13 1 were to increase public participation, 2 provide transparency, to provide certainty to 3 folks what could be expected when these 4 facilities were being built. It was 5 industrial wind. It was transmission. It 6 went across the board. However, because of 7 SB 281, we had very specific additional 8 requirements which must be met for industrial 9 wind purposes. A big part of that was more 10 protective siting, as well as compliance 11 regulations. This is where we come in today. 12 Antrim Wind was the first 13 industrial wind facility to go into operation 14 following the adoption of these rules. 15 Antrim Wind went into operation on December 16 24th of 2019, and by December 28th there were 17 complaints about the noise being created by 18 this. 19 I do want to say, and some of you 20 may have learned, there's a robust record of 21 evidence regarding all of what will be 22 discussed today. However, unfortunately, 23 it's all over the place. So, for those of 24 you that may not be aware, it's somewhat of a {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 14 1 challenge to find information, as I've been 2 seeing. Some information is being put within 3 the new docket, some within the old docket. 4 Other information is just put in a general 5 SEC area. So good luck trying to really 6 understand and get your arms around the full 7 record of this. But what I'm going to 8 discuss today is within the record, and it 9 can be found in various places. 10 So going back to the rules and the 11 noise. So the plane language of the SEC rule 12 regarding noise is very straightforward. It 13 says, "it shall not exceed." "Shall not 14 exceed." The only time within the -- so 15 today what we're here -- this conversation 16 has been going on basically since the first 17 complaint. Since some initial review was 18 done, there was a suggested protocol put 19 together. Somehow, this noise threshold of 20 "shall not exceed" has devolved into a 21 one-hour averaging, which, in the plane 22 language of the rule -- I provided that in 23 the first attachment that I gave to you -- 24 you can read for yourself there's nothing {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 15 1 that says there's any one-hour averaging at 2 all. The standard is very clear. The 3 standard states, with respect to the sound 4 standard, the A-weighted equivalent -- 5 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 6 MS. LERNER: Sound levels produced 7 by the Applicant's energy facility shall not 8 exceed the greater of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above 9 background levels measured at the L90 sound 10 level between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 11 which would be the daytime hours, and the 12 greater of 40 [sic] dBA and 5 dBA -- 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 14 Unfortunately, you've hit your five minutes, 15 so... 16 MS. LERNER: That's fine. Okay. 17 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Finish 18 your one thought there -- 19 MS. LERNER: Sure. So if I could 20 take you very quickly to the attachment, the 21 TransAlta attachment, I have put my own 22 comment in. Hopefully the comments speak for 23 themselves. But they're identifying that the 24 rules are not properly defined. Those rules {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 16 1 went through a very extensive process and 2 also incorporate some of the prior 3 precedence. To now say that they are not 4 properly defined is incorrect, and it feels 5 they're using it to their advantage. Their 6 one-hour -- the reference to "at least one 7 nighttime hour," suggesting that that means 8 they should average over an hour, I have no 9 idea. What that rule is saying is during the 10 night, at one point -- at some one-hour time 11 frame you're to do a noise test. It does not 12 say anything about averaging. 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 14 MS. LERNER: I apologize. That 15 time went by very fast. 16 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: It's a 17 tight time. But like I said, we're trying to 18 keep things moving. 19 So I guess now the Subcommittee can 20 ask some questions, if we have any questions. 21 I know that I kind of do want to know one 22 question, anyway. The rules do say 23 "A-weighted equivalent sound." Do you have 24 any idea what the word "equivalent" means? {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 17 1 MS. LERNER: So A-weighted 2 equivalent -- so there's the A-weighting and 3 a C-weighting, which is identified within the 4 rules. The A-weighting is the ambient, the 5 normal type of noise. And the equivalent, I 6 can't speak to that particular word. But the 7 only equivalent identified in there is the 8 interval for the 1/8th of a second, which is 9 the .125-second interval. So if there's any 10 equivalent in terms of an interval being 11 suggested there, then it would be the 1/8th 12 of a second. 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: So if you 14 do it at 1/8th of a second, which is the 15 period that also the meter is measuring, 16 taking measurements, how would you -- how 17 would you take out certain -- say there's a 18 -- somebody slams a door or something like 19 that. Do you just disregard that? How -- 20 what's the process for that? 21 MS. LERNER: If it's an attended 22 monitoring, those noises should be removed 23 from that. 24 In response to that, as I see, and {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 18 1 as was the expectation with the rules, there 2 was never a discussion about any one-hour 3 averaging during any of our legislative 4 process or rulemaking process. As we all 5 understood this rule to be, it would be as 6 though you're a driver in a car going down 7 Route 93 and you're told that there's a 8 70-mile-an-hour speed limit. You get pulled 9 over for going 100 miles per hour. The 10 officer says, "Excuse me, you've exceeded the 11 speed." 12 Do you think it's reasonable to 13 say, "But if you looked at my speed over the 14 last hour, you will find that I average below 15 70?" No. This is a "shall not exceed." 16 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Would you 17 disagree that the rules say that you need to 18 measure the L90? 19 MS. LERNER: I do not disagree that 20 it says the L90. 21 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: L90 22 requires you to remove certain, again, 23 transient noise without -- if you're doing it 24 at 1/8th of a second, how do you do that if {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 19 1 you're measuring 1/8th of a second, and that 2 is your measurement, and L90 is essentially 3 requiring you to take it over a period of 4 time, and the L90 will essentially remove -- 5 or the LEQ, I should say -- LEQ or other 6 measurements, if it is an average? You can't 7 do that; correct? 8 MS. LERNER: If you're attending to 9 that and you hear that there's that, you can 10 note that that had occurred during that time. 11 If you're measuring this noise, and there's 12 outside noise to filter out, then it should 13 be the full -- use that 1/8th measurement 14 over the course of whatever period of time. 15 But there's nothing that says to average. So 16 if the sound should go from 40 dBA to 100 17 dBA, or to 60 dBA, there's -- you're going to 18 have peaks and valleys. So the difference 19 between industrial wind and most other 20 sources is that you're going to have peaks 21 and valleys. You've got that "whoop, whoop, 22 whoop." So depending on when you take that 23 is whether you're going to get that actual 24 sound or not. If you average that, you're {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 20 1 averaging the sounds in between the "whoops," 2 between the actual sound of the wind turbine. 3 You're never going to have a compliance 4 issue, but you're going to have a lot of 5 complaints because people are hearing the 6 "whoop" part of it. They're not hearing the 7 silent part. So if you've got somebody 8 that's attending this noise study, and 9 there's nothing interfering with it, then I 10 don't see why you would need to even be 11 concerned with that. 12 Any other question? Thank you. 13 MR. DUCLOS: You said you were 14 involved in the rulemaking process of this? 15 MS. LERNER: Yes. 16 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. Why didn't they 17 use an Lmax standard? 18 MS. LERNER: An Lmax? So an Lmax 19 is similar to what was used in all of the 20 others. The decision was made to go with 21 something that was more specific, which is 22 why we're using the 1/8th-of-a-second 23 standard within there. That's why the 1/8th 24 of a second, it has its own place in the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 21 1 rule, because that was to be the highlight of 2 this, to give people the knowledge that 3 they're being protected by 1/8th-of-a-second 4 sound study versus Lmax. 5 MR. DUCLOS: Isn't there usually a 6 time standard that's built in, like an Lmax 7 one second or Lmax .8 seconds? 8 MS. LERNER: So this should be 9 interpreted as the Lmax 1/8th second. If you 10 put the time interval which is identified in 11 the rules along with the Lmax, this is what 12 you would get. 13 MR. DUCLOS: Do you see that in the 14 rules someplace as actually stating that? 15 MS. LERNER: I do not see that 16 stated. I see -- what I see stated is the 17 interval for capturing the sound. And the 18 interval to capture the sound is that 1/8th 19 of a second. And from there, the sound shall 20 not exceed at any 1/8th of a second the 40 21 dBA during the nighttime hours and the 40 dBA 22 [sic] during the daytime. 23 MR. DUCLOS: It says shall not 24 exceed the greater of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 22 1 background -- 2 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 3 MR. DUCLOS: Or 5 dBA above 4 background noise measured at the L90 sound 5 level between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 6 instead. I don't see a time requirement 7 there at all. It doesn't say anything about, 8 you know, .125 seconds or anything about a 9 time standard. So I'm confused how that 10 could -- 11 MS. LERNER: So if you -- 12 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 13 MR. DUCLOS: -- how you believe 14 that the standard is set at 1/8th of a 15 second. 16 MS. LERNER: Okay. If you should 17 look to the second page, it would be (e)(6) 18 -- let's see. Second page. "All sound 19 measurements during post-construction 20 monitoring shall be taken at .125-second 21 intervals, measuring both fast response and 22 LEQ metrics." 23 So we're specifically calling 24 out -- that was the intent there, was to call {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 23 1 out 1/8th of a second. And so no sound at 2 1/8th-of-a-second interval should be 3 exceeding the 40 dBA or the 45 dBA. Do you 4 see that on the second page, bracketed in 5 six? So that would be Site 301.18(e)(6). 6 And to that point, as Antrim is arguing, I 7 don't see anywhere where it calls for 8 one-hour averaging. There's nowhere in this 9 rule that specifies one-hour averaging. The 10 only interval identified was .125 seconds. 11 Again, when we look at the intent 12 of all of the work that's gone for the past 13 nine years, we'll call it eight, nine years, 14 it was all to provide more protective 15 measures to these people that live in rural 16 areas that are now going to have this massive 17 energy facility in their back yard. 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 19 right. Tom, did you have any questions or 20 are you all set? You're good? Okay. 21 I think I'd like to move on to the 22 next speaker now. 23 MS. LERNER: Thank you very much 24 for this opportunity. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 24 1 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 2 you. 3 MS. LERNER: I appreciate it. 4 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 5 right. Mr. Block. 6 MR. BLOCK: Yes. My name is 7 Richard Block. I live on Loveren Mill Road 8 in Antrim, directly across from the wind 9 turbines. For the last how many years it's 10 been, I've served as a spokesperson for many 11 of the people in Antrim who are particularly 12 the non-abutting intervenors. So thank you 13 for this opportunity to speak. I just wanted 14 to make just a few remarks. Where am I 15 starting? Here, okay. 16 I myself am hard of hearing. I 17 have suffered quite a lot of hearing loss. 18 That's due to transient high levels of sound 19 experienced when I was young. It's the one 20 lesson that I wish I could give a lot of 21 young people now. I did -- I worked rock 22 concerts a lot when I was in my teens and 23 twenties. I'm suffering from that now and 24 need to wear hearing aids. It's transient {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 25 1 high-level sound that's dangerous. It can be 2 harmful. I know that personally. And at 3 minimum, it can be very annoying and 4 disruptive. 5 Turbine noise is not steady. If 6 you've ever gone to a wind facility and stood 7 there and listened, you know it's not a 8 steady hum. It's a "whomp, whomp, whoosh, 9 whoosh" sound. There are highs and lows. 10 The turbines in Antrim, I read the blades 11 average 15 revolutions per minute rotation. 12 With three blades, that means that those -- 13 what I've also read is that the "whomping" 14 and "whooshing" sound comes when the blades 15 pass in front of the towers. So with three 16 blades, 15 revolutions per minute, that means 17 45 blade passes per minute pass the towers. 18 That simple arithmetic shows that it's about 19 a one and a third seconds apart each one of 20 those intervals. So testing in any form that 21 uses a longer interval than that is going to 22 miss all those transient hums. So it's very 23 important to be able to test in some way that 24 you can hear the variations in there. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 26 1 An example is a shooting range. My 2 son is a firearms instructor, so I know a lot 3 about this. I've been to the range with him 4 many times. If you were to average sound at 5 a shooting range over an hour or two, it's 6 often -- probably would be very low because 7 there are long periods in between shots. The 8 individual shots, though, are the ones that 9 are dangerous. If you do not have very good 10 hearing protection, it's quite a dangerous 11 situation because those transient highs are 12 really very dangerous. I'm not saying that 13 wind turbine highs are that dangerous, but 14 there's definitely a difference between the 15 highs and lows, and that needs to be measured 16 and seen. 17 The human ear does not hear 18 averages. It responds to those transient 19 highs and hears them, and that's what we 20 react to. People who live near wind turbines 21 and hear these noises and "whomps," it's 22 those high levels that interrupt their sleep 23 or whatever they're doing. That's what 24 they're hearing. They're not hearing an {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 27 1 average on an hour. They're hearing -- if 2 I'm trying to talk and there's a loud noise 3 every now and then, that's the part we 4 respond to. 5 I don't think that it takes any 6 sophisticated equipment or technology for a 7 resident to know that turbine sounds nearby 8 might be excessive or disruptive. Either 9 they are or they're not. If the sound is low 10 enough that it doesn't disrupt life, fine. 11 If the sound is high enough that they -- it 12 wakes them up or they can't hear what they're 13 doing in their own house, then it's 14 disruptive. 15 The residents of Antrim and other 16 areas expect protection from noise, not from 17 numbers, okay. The people of Antrim, the 18 residents of Antrim, were promised by the 19 State of New Hampshire via the issuance of 20 the certificate of operation that the 21 residents would not have to endure disruption 22 to their lives from turbine noise. That's 23 what we took away from the certificate. By 24 you granting the certificate, we assumed that {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 28 1 meant that you were going to be watching out 2 for us. I believe that the SEC has always 3 intended to protect residents from disruption 4 of lives by turbines, whether it's the noise 5 or the lighting or whatever. And I think the 6 SEC specifications, the rules and regulations 7 that were set up, were established with that 8 goal in mind. So what I'm urging is that you 9 don't bypass, waive, or change procedures at 10 this point. It's there. It's fairly 11 thoroughly written out. I'm not a technician 12 in terms of sound, but even I can understand 13 when I look at the rules and procedures, I 14 can understand basically how it seems to go. 15 So more importantly, I think it's 16 important not to allow applicants to 17 challenge or ignore established procedures at 18 this point. 19 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 20 MR. BLOCK: I think what we've got 21 makes sense. Please stick by it. Look out 22 for the people who are living by the 23 turbines. 24 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 29 1 Thank you, Mr. Block. 2 MR. BLOCK: Any questions? 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I don't 4 think I have any questions. 5 Do you? 6 MR. BLOCK: Thank you for this 7 opportunity. 8 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. We 9 don't have any questions. 10 MR. BLOCK: Thank you again. 11 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 12 you. 13 All right. Next, Lisa Linows 14 [sic]. I hope I pronounced that right. 15 MS. LINOWES: It's Linowes. Thank 16 you, Mr. Chairman. I have some handouts that 17 I'll be referring to. 18 (Ms. Linowes distributing handouts to 19 Subcommittee members.) 20 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 21 right. Could you, just for the record, just 22 state your name, please. 23 MS. LINOWES: Yes. My name is Lisa 24 Linowes. I'm a resident of the state of New {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 30 1 Hampshire. I am executive director for the 2 Wind Action Group -- 3 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 4 MS. LINOWES: I have been around 5 this issue for 14, 15 years, particularly 6 with regard to noise, nationally, and I've 7 been an intervenor in the SEC on all of the 8 wind proceedings. 9 I am not going to read my testimony 10 because I'm going to jump right to the facts. 11 There are three points that I want to make 12 today. One, the SEC has always had a 13 standard. The idea that the SEC -- 14 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 15 MS. LINOWES: The idea that the 16 State of New Hampshire does not have a New 17 Hampshire sound standard for turbines is 18 inaccurate. And that seems to be the 19 perception out there. We have had an Lmax 20 standard up through till 2015 when the 21 turbine rules were adopted. I was involved 22 with the stakeholder process. I can tell you 23 why every word is in that standard. And I 24 would hope that you would ask me the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 31 1 questions that you asked Lori Lerner because 2 I'd like to clarify what was going on. 3 Second point I want to make: When 4 the rulemaking went through the process, 5 301.18 was largely the wording that came out 6 of the stakeholder process. It does not 7 change the concept of Lmax significantly. It 8 goes to an LEQ standard with a 1/8th-second 9 interval. That's what it does. And I'll 10 explain how that is when you ask me 11 questions. 12 And finally, I'm going to show you 13 the practical effect of when you go to a 14 one-hour averaging, LEQ one hour, versus an 15 LEQ 1/8th second or an LEQ one second, or one 16 minute. It's significant when you stop to 17 think that the purpose of the SEC rule is to 18 protect public health and safety. We do not 19 want wind turbines elevated -- erected in the 20 state of New Hampshire where it's going to 21 negatively affect or have an unreasonable 22 adverse effect on health and safety. That is 23 the point of the rule. And if I could just 24 comment that, if you look at the first slide, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 32 1 there you can see the four projects that 2 had -- the three projects, rather -- 3 Lempster, Groton, Granite Reliable and Antrim 4 Wind. Those all had sound standards. Antrim 5 Wind I. These all predated -- 6 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 7 MS. LINOWES: 2012-01. They all 8 had an Lmax standard that was consistent with 9 the state. 10 When you went to the SEC 11 deliberation -- if you looked at Antrim I, 12 2012-01, the Committee spent a considerable 13 amount of time deliberating over whether or 14 not it should trash the Lmax standard to go 15 to an LEQ standard, a long-term average. It 16 opted not to. Why? Two reasons. One, it 17 was concerned about its ability to enforce a 18 long-term average; two, it was concerned that 19 there would be enough quiet times, given the 20 variability of turbine noise, that it would 21 offset the loud times when people were 22 suffering through the loud times. And they 23 didn't want that to happen. So they said it 24 was safer to stick with an Lmax standard. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 33 1 That's why that was done. 2 I want you to turn now to Slide 3. 3 This is the direct effect of an LEQ standard. 4 This is changing when you expand the size of 5 the compliance interval. You each have this 6 slide here. This is from Falmouth, 7 Massachusetts, a 1.65-megawatt turbine. And 8 these were -- this was an on/off test that 9 happened. Turbines on were measured, 10 turbines turned off -- 11 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 12 MS. LINOWES: Turbines on and then 13 off. And you can see in that first image, 14 that is a 1/10th-second LEQ. That is 15 effectively what New Hampshire has. Ours now 16 reads a 1/8th second because it was written 17 in 2014. If it were written in 2000 -- 18 today, it would have done 1/10th because 19 that's what the meters were -- are today. 20 In any event, you can see that the 21 turbine noise is going up above 45. See 22 that? Then you go to an LEQ one second. 23 It's about the same, but it's flattened. You 24 don't see anything going over 45. You go to {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 34 1 ten seconds, flatter still. You go to one 2 minute, considerably flatter. You go to one 3 hour, it's very quiet. You're meeting 4 compliance with a one-hour LEQ. But people 5 are experiencing the 1/10th-second effect. 6 That is the point of a short interval. If 7 you don't believe my graphs, I would like you 8 to look at Epsilon Associates' co-authored 9 second graph that you're going to see there 10 if you go to this graph. 11 Epsilon Associates is the 12 gentleman, Mr. O'Neal, who's here today. 13 This is from Alma Township in Michigan. I 14 want you to see what happened was Alma 15 Township in Michigan has a -- had an Lmax 16 standard as part of the local ordinance. The 17 company came in and said, oh, Lmax standard, 18 we can't work with that. That doesn't work, 19 right. So they -- 20 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 21 MS. LINOWES: They said we want to 22 go to LEQ. That really means LEQ one hour. 23 So what you would look at, if you see the 24 turbines, they're situated in the T and then {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 35 1 a number associated with it -- 2 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: You got 3 your five minutes. 4 MS. LINOWES: Oh, my God. Come on. 5 There's so -- can I just finish -- 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: You can 7 finish your one thought, yes. 8 MS. LINOWES: The slide shows that 9 when you go to an LEQ one hour, you see the 10 contour is very close to the turbine. When 11 you go out to the 1/8th second or Lmax 12 standard, it goes significantly further. 13 That's the green line. And it's encompassing 14 homes. As a result, you have a project that 15 is not going to meet compliance. It's 16 denied. It's not going to meet the standard. 17 It was denied. They went to court. Lmax 18 standard -- they actually took the town to 19 court over that Lmax standard. 20 Last thing I want to show you is -- 21 five minutes is impossible to discuss this 22 point. I do want to show you the last two 23 slides, Antrim Wind. These are LEQ 1/8th 24 second and 1/10th second, actual sound levels {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 36 1 taken at Antrim Wind -- 2 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 3 MS. LINOWES: -- taken at Antrim 4 Wind at Location 4. 5 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 6 right. Thank you. 7 MS. LINOWES: Can I just say that 8 if you did an LEQ one hour on this, the 9 project would be in compliance. 10 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I do have 11 one question. How do you get -- I mean, 12 ultimately you need to figure out if the 13 facility is above a certain level. And if 14 they hit that level, you need to have a 15 single unit. And I get what you're saying 16 about the Lmax. But the unit that we have 17 here is that, one of them that's listed 18 anyway, is the L90. And how do you get that 19 L90 -- 20 MS. LINOWES: No, you're 21 misunderstanding what L90 means in this 22 context. L90 in the rule, under 23 post-construction sound monitoring, we asked 24 the developer to provide an L90 because we {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 37 1 want to know what the background noise is for 2 the area generally. L90 is not what's 3 subject to 1/8th second. LEQ is what's 4 subject to 1/8th second. The proper term -- 5 and Mr. O'Neal knows this. Mr. O'Neal has 6 read the standard on which our rules are 7 based, 12.9, Part 3. And it says when doing 8 a background sound study, you're generally 9 going to use ten minutes. But that's not 10 LEQ. If you read (e)(6), what does (e)(6) 11 say? Under 301.18, (e)(6) says -- sorry. 12 (e)(6) says all measurements -- 13 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 14 MS. LINOWES: Okay. That's a 15 confusion. But that's not intended to 16 reference L90. We're talking about the LEQ 17 with regard to the 1/8th second. 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Would you 19 agree that -- well, can you explain what 20 "equivalent" means -- 21 MS. LINOWES: Yes. 22 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: -- in the 23 rules? 24 MS. LINOWES: Yes. We're talking {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 38 1 about the sound power level that is basically 2 averaged over a period of time. That's what 3 we're talking about. And I agree that 4 (f)14) -- that 301.14 does not specify a time 5 frame. But I will tell you that the time 6 frame is in 301.18. And the reason I know 7 that, and the reason there was no confusion 8 with regard to the rulemaking, if you look on 9 my Slide 4, which is the one that says "SEC 10 Rulemaking," Chairman Honigberger [sic], who 11 was running the process under the rulemaking, 12 stated in the middle column, said -- he was 13 talking about the layout of the rules, okay. 14 And he said I get -- he understood the 15 reliance on NH 301.18 and 301 -- the common 16 -- connection between 301.14 and 301.18 and 17 said this, meaning he was referencing the 14, 18 is where the standard is set, and 18 is where 19 you explain how and where you test. Okay? 20 I know that Antrim Wind is 21 complaining that there's no time frame. 22 They're arguing that the meter speed -- 23 somehow we decided 1/8th second -- we're 24 going to specify the meter speed in the rule. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 39 1 We're going to waste our time in a rule 2 defining a meter speed. That's not what 3 we're doing. They may not like the way the 4 rule is written. They may not like the fact 5 that the time interval is in one location but 6 the standard is somewhere else. Fine. I 7 don't take responsibility for that. The rule 8 is written the way the rule is written. But 9 that is the effect of it, that there is no 10 other place in the entire rule where an LEQ 11 time frame is defined. 12 And I get that Lmax should have a 13 time frame. They went to court over the fact 14 that Lmax, in the Almer Township Project, 15 didn't have a time frame associated with it. 16 And the court said, yeah, they really should 17 have put a time frame in there. But they 18 still said Lmax, even without a time frame 19 specified, is a reasonable standard. Anytime 20 you have L, you have to have a time frame 21 associated with it, Lmax, Lmin, LEQ or 22 whatever. You should have a time frame 23 associated with it...(indecipherable). 24 But L90 and L10, those aren't the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 40 1 same things. Those are statistical -- to put 2 so much emphasis on L90, by the way, I just 3 want to make that point, the standard isn't 4 L90. The standard is LEQ. That's what New 5 Hampshire's standard is for noise limit. 6 L90, that's informational information so that 7 the person reading the documentation in the 8 rest of the report could understand what the 9 general acoustical environment was at the 10 time the post-construction sound monitoring 11 was done. 12 One other point. Since you're 13 tasked with figuring out complaint 14 validation, the L90 is not really even 15 relevant. And you'll notice that is not -- 16 that's not part of the complaint validation. 17 That is post-construction seasonal 18 monitoring. Different thing. 19 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I'd like 20 to -- do either of the other members have any 21 questions? 22 MR. DUCLOS: I'll just ask a 23 couple. Ms. Linoise? 24 MS. LINOWES: Linowes. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 41 1 MR. DUCLOS: Linowes. Thank you. 2 So one of the areas that you said 3 is that the standard that's in the 4 Certificate of Site and Facility is taken 5 right out of 301.14(f)(2); right? 6 MS. LINOWES: Hmm-hmm. Correct. 7 MR. DUCLOS: And that's determining 8 whether the proposed energy facility will 9 have an unreasonable adverse effect on public 10 health and safety and shall -- and that's 11 where we get into the same thing we said 12 before -- "shall not exceed the greater of 45 13 dBA or 5 dBA background levels." 14 I still don't see a time. The time 15 element you said was in 301.18(e)(6). 16 MS. LINOWES: (e)(6), correct. 17 MR. DUCLOS: That's the sound 18 measurements during post-construction 19 monitoring shall be taken at that 20 1/8th-of-a-second interval, measuring both 21 fast response, which is the fast response, 22 and LEQ metrics. 23 So you also talked a little bit 24 about the Lmax standard. So I'm confused. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 42 1 301.14 was a standard that the SEC used to 2 determine adverse effects. Why didn't they 3 use the term "Lmax" or even put in a LEQ with 4 a time limit or time period -- 5 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 6 MR. DUCLOS: With a time period. 7 To be clear, I said "limit," but I'll correct 8 it. 9 MS. LINOWES: I agree. If I were 10 writing this as a technical person, I would 11 have established -- and you would typically 12 see in ordinances that are written around the 13 country, it would have said not to exceed an 14 LEQ -- 45 decibel LEQ and then a time frame 15 associated with it. It could be that the 16 Committee was avoiding that. I don't know. 17 I don't know why they didn't write it that 18 way. 19 We were aware -- the reason -- to 20 your question, and maybe this will help 21 explain, the reason we went to an LEQ 22 standard over an Lmax standard was because 23 back in the 2014-2015 time frame, the wind 24 industry, people like Mr. O'Neal, were out {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 43 1 around the country telling people Lmax made 2 no sense; you cannot do a measurement based 3 on Lmax. And as I mentioned, they went to 4 court and cited in the record -- 5 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 6 MS. LINOWES: They went to court 7 over the fact that Lmax -- they argued Lmax 8 didn't make sense. So the State of New 9 Hampshire wanted to avoid that fight. That 10 actual court case actually came after. It 11 was 2016-2017, I believe, when that -- but 12 the point being, yes, you're right. It would 13 be better written if the language had been 14 coincident with the limit, 40 decibel, not to 15 exceed 40 decibel, LEQ 1/8th second. But 16 it's not written that way. And that's fine. 17 But that does not cancel the fact 18 that the only place in the rule where a time 19 frame is specified for LEQ is in 301.18. 20 Chairman Honigberg recognized the connection 21 between 301.14 and 301.18. It is written 22 that way. And right now, Antrim Wind is 23 reaching to try and find a one-hour standard 24 in there somewhere and can't. They're out {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 44 1 pointing to the ANSI standard. The ANSI 2 standard -- do you know the one hour they 3 keep referring to, this basic measuring 4 period? I have the definition. I put the 5 definition -- this second document that I 6 provided for you is a point-counterpoint. I 7 have all of their arguments that they made 8 and why their arguments do not stand up. If 9 I could -- if you would indulge me for a 10 moment -- 11 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Well, I 12 think in the interest of time, I think I 13 can -- we'll make sure that these get into 14 the docket, these slides -- 15 MS. LINOWES: Okay. 16 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: -- and 17 that would all be part of our consideration. 18 MS. LINOWES: Okay. But that basic 19 measuring period is simply the time frame 20 that you're going to go out. You're going to 21 plan to go out and do a measurement. 301, 22 Part 3 -- I'm sorry -- 12.9, Part 3 -- 23 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 24 MS. LINOWES: 12.9, Part 3, is a {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 45 1 standard based on an observer present. An 2 observer present. And you're generally not 3 out there more than an hour if you -- you can 4 get your job done in an hour if you pick the 5 right time. And that's what that one hour 6 is. And to try and introduce more meaning to 7 that, like Antrim is trying to do right now, 8 is just they're trying to confuse you. The 9 rule is what matters, not the standard, even 10 though the standard references the rule. 11 This rule is specific. 12 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 13 you. 14 One more follow-up for her? Okay. 15 MR. DUCLOS: I just have a 16 question. Why do you think the 1/8th of a 17 second is a reasonable period? 18 MS. LINOWES: Because it has 19 everything to do with the slide that I just 20 showed you. Let's go to their slide, the 21 Antrim -- the Almer Township slide, because 22 that says it all. 23 MR. DUCLOS: Well, I see it, .125 24 seconds, or 1/8th of a second, you have a lot {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 46 1 of noise. The longer you put a time period 2 in it, the more it flattens out. I agree 3 with that. But why is it reasonable in your 4 mind to do it at an eighth of a second versus 5 one second, ten seconds, a minute an hour? 6 MS. LINOWES: This map shows you. 7 People hear the noise whether -- okay. I'm 8 out there. I'm hearing this noise. This is 9 what I hear. But what I'm -- if I'm Antrim 10 Wind and I'm reporting what I measured to the 11 Site Evaluation Committee to try and prove 12 that I'm compliant with their 45 day, 40 at 13 night, I'm recording something closer to 14 this. 15 So Antrim Wind -- complaints are 16 coming in all over the place from the project 17 at Antrim. And the SEC is sitting there 18 saying they don't know what they're measuring 19 and they're telling me it's in compliance. I 20 don't know what your problem is. The 21 Committee is -- that's what you're trying to 22 figure out right now: Why are there 23 complaints when Antrim Wind is telling you 24 they're in compliance? {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 47 1 By the way, there are other issues. 2 We have raw data right now -- thank you, 3 Antrim Wind, for providing the raw data -- 4 that they collected, which was done in 5 1/10th-second intervals. And we're analyzing 6 that right now to see if we're going to find 7 exceedances. We're not going to analyze it 8 based on one-hour averaging. But we'll show 9 you the results of it, one-hour averaging and 10 1/8th seconds, so you can see the difference. 11 We know why. We know that there are 12 exceedances at that project. Did I answer 13 your question? 14 MR. DUCLOS: Good enough for me. 15 MS. LINOWES: Enough for you? 16 MR. DUCLOS: Good enough for me. 17 MS. LINOWES: Oh, okay. 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 19 you. 20 Tom? 21 MS. LINOWES: Wind energy is very, 22 very -- it's very, very low noise up to 11 23 decibels, unlike traffic noise, by the way, 24 which one hour is totally fine. A LEQ one {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 48 1 hour is totally fine with traffic noise. It 2 doesn't work for wind turbines. 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 4 right. Thank you. 5 MS. LINOWES: Thanks. 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 7 right. Next, Barry Needleman. 8 (Mr. Getz distributing handouts to 9 Subcommittee members.) 10 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 11 right. Go head. 12 MR. NEEDLEMAN: Thank you. My name 13 is Barry Needleman, from the law firm of 14 McLane Middleton. I represent Antrim Wind, 15 and I also represent Antrim Wind in the 16 underlying certificate proceeding. 17 What you're being asked to do here 18 today is to move the goal post, essentially, 19 and to declare that 1/8th of a second is the 20 new sound standard, and by doing so, 21 essentially render this facility, and most 22 likely other New Hampshire wind facilities, 23 not in compliance. If this were actually the 24 standard, this project never would have been {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 49 1 built. And that's what you'll hear from Mr. 2 O'Neal shortly. There's nothing in the 3 Antrim Wind decision, there's nothing in the 4 Certificate, there's nothing in the rules or 5 SEC precedent to justify this kind of extreme 6 interpretation of the rule. 7 Mr. Duclos, you've asked several 8 times about Site 301.18 and the 9 1/8th-of-a-second intervals. Those are 10 intervals, not compliance periods. The 11 1/8th-of-a-second interval is meant to be a 12 snapshot to collect data points. And I think 13 I can give you a simple example that 14 demonstrates the fallacy of the different 15 interpretation offered by Ms. Linowes. 16 When you look at the Winter 2020 17 sound report, there were 60 -- over 60 18 million 1/8th-of-a-second intervals included 19 in that sound report by Acentech. If every 20 one of those 1/8th-of-a-second intervals were 21 a compliance period, can you imagine what 22 that would look like? The report would be 23 over a million pages long. As a very 24 practical perspective, it just makes no sense {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 50 1 to interpret the rule that way. 2 Now, it's not lost on me or anybody 3 else that this is complicated stuff. And so 4 let me pull back for a minute and ask you to 5 think for a minute about what the actual 6 experts have said about this. 7 First of all, Acentech prepared 8 that 2020 report. They used the one-hour 9 averaging, and it was their expert opinion 10 that that was what was appropriate. The SEC 11 then hired its own expert to peer-review that 12 work, Mr. Tocci. And what did he say? He 13 concurred with what Acentech did. 14 Antrim Wind also engaged Rob 15 O'Neal, who you'll hear from shortly, and Ken 16 Kalisky of RSP to look at this issue. 17 There's probably no expert that knows more 18 about wind issues in New Hampshire than Mr. 19 O'Neal. He was involved in three of these 20 four dockets as an expert. He testified in 21 Antrim, and he testified in Groton on behalf 22 the Applicants. And he actually 23 peer-reviewed the reports in Lempster for 24 Counsel for the Public. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 51 1 You'll also have a report from Mr. 2 Kalisky here, who was involved in the working 3 group that Ms. Lerner referenced. And when 4 you look at that report, he's going to 5 provide you with a very different description 6 of what happened in that working group from 7 what you heard from Ms. Lerner. 8 In their technical assessments, 9 both Mr. O'Neal's and Mr. Kalisky's, they 10 confirmed what Acentech and what Tocci said, 11 that the way in which these measurements were 12 done was correct and that a 1/8th-second 13 approach to this is not only inconsistent 14 with the rules and the national standards 15 they derived from, it's functionally 16 unworkable. 17 So let me conclude by pointing out, 18 as far as I know, Ms. Linowes apparently has 19 no technical training and no experience with 20 actual sound monitoring. The one expert she 21 did rely on here is Mr. Rand, who produced a 22 report that Mr. O'Neal responded to in his 23 June 7th letter and discussed the fatal flaws 24 with that report. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 52 1 I'm tempted, as I conclude here, to 2 just state the obvious with what's going on. 3 This is an effort to shut this project down. 4 But don't take my word for it. Look at 5 Mr. Rand's report. He wrote it on May 11th. 6 And on Page 12 of the report, he used the 7 incorrect 1/8th-second compliance period. He 8 drew mistaken conclusions about Antrim Wind's 9 supposed exceedances. And then, in his 10 words, he said the only viable way to deal 11 with this was, quote, "shut down." That's 12 the goal here. 13 By contrast, you have in the record 14 four different experts, all of whom have a 15 vast amount of experience with these issues, 16 working for applicants, Counsel for the 17 Public, and the Committee. And every one of 18 these experts says that the 1/8th-of-a-second 19 approach is unworkable, it's internally 20 inconsistent with other aspects of the rules, 21 and it's just simply wrong. 22 Thank you for your time. 23 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 24 you. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 53 1 MS. LINOWES: Mr. Chairman, will 2 there be an opportunity for rebuttal at all? 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: No. 4 MS. LINOWES: Well, could I comment 5 on something that -- 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: No. I'd 7 like to allow Mr. -- I'd like to give Mr. 8 Needleman the same opportunity that you had. 9 So with that, I think I have the 10 same question that I consistently have been 11 having with what does "equivalent" mean to 12 you. 13 MR. NEEDLEMAN: I would love to 14 tell you. I'm not a sound engineer, and I'm 15 not going to wade into that. I'm sure Mr. 16 O'Neal could tell you all you want to know. 17 MR. DUCLOS: Hello, Mr. Needleman. 18 How are you today? 19 MR. NEEDLEMAN: Good. How are you, 20 Mr. Duclos? 21 MR. DUCLOS: Very good. I agree 22 that the sound study methodology goes on the 23 1/8th of a second, and I agree that that is a 24 standard for collecting data and you're going {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 54 1 to have a lot of data points. The compliance 2 period is different. What's in the 3 Certificate of Site and Facility is also 4 different. But it doesn't say an hour and it 5 doesn't say an eighth of a second is the 6 compliance monitoring standard to meet the 7 45 -- or shall not exceed the greater of 45. 8 So where do you get the hour from as a 9 legitimate compliance measuring period? 10 MR. NEEDLEMAN: Sure. I think 11 you're going to hear from O'Neal on that. I 12 think there are a couple of answers to that 13 question. I think the primary one is that in 14 this context, it's left to professional 15 judgment to determine that period. My 16 understanding is that, to some extent, the 17 one hour does derive from those ANSI 18 standards. But I know, for example, that 19 when Mr. O'Neal did the post-construction 20 sound monitoring for the Groton Wind project, 21 there was a ten-minute compliance interval. 22 So I do know that one hour is not necessarily 23 the only way to do it. Groton did predate 24 the particular rules at issue here, but I'm {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 55 1 not sure that there is a material difference 2 in the context. 3 MR. DUCLOS: And Groton obviously 4 wasn't -- didn't get their Certificate of 5 Site and Facility under this rule. This is 6 the first facility to be issued a certificate 7 under this rule. 8 MR. NEEDLEMAN: Correct. 9 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. I'm just 10 surprised that no time limit was put in 11 there, in all fairness. 12 And I don't have any further 13 questions. Thank you. 14 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Tom, did 15 you have any? 16 MR. EATON: I am all set. 17 To the people, I was appointed last 18 week, and I'm still drinking from the fire 19 hose to catch up. 20 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Well, I 21 am going to continue to just check with you 22 and make sure that you are -- that if you 23 have any questions that pop up, you get them 24 answered. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 56 1 MR. EATON: Thank you. 2 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I think 3 that's all I have for questions. 4 MR. NEEDLEMAN: Thank you for your 5 time. 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 7 you. 8 All right. Next, again keeping in 9 alphabetical order, would be Rob O'Neal. 10 MR. O'NEAL: Good afternoon, 11 members of the Subcommittee. My name is Rob 12 O'Neal from Epsilon Associates. I'll try to 13 speak slowly. Thank you for having me to 14 make some remarks today. 15 I've been measuring wind turbine 16 sound for 15-plus years, doing general sound 17 for 34 years. I've measured wind turbine 18 sound here in New Hampshire, as well as other 19 places in the country. I am board-certified 20 by the Institute of Noise Control Engineers. 21 So I just put that out there for background. 22 I'm going to start with my 23 conclusion and go right into the reasons why 24 I can offer this conclusion. The premise {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 57 1 that an operating wind turbine facility can 2 meet an instantaneous 1/8th-of-a-second 3 standard somehow is not true. No wind 4 turbine facility is going to meet that kind 5 of a standard. That's why there are no wind 6 turbine projects built in areas where the 7 jurisdiction that interprets "shall not 8 exceed" does that. So if you interpret that 9 "shall not exceed" as an eighth of a second, 10 there would be no wind farms. There are no 11 wind farms built in those places. 12 Averaging over time makes sense. 13 There's really two fundamental issues with 14 regard to the time element of sound 15 measurements. Number one we've already heard 16 and talked about; that's the speed that the 17 sound meter is set to record the data. 18 That's the one that's set in the SEC rules. 19 The second one is the actual 20 measurement period that's used to assess 21 compliance with whatever the standard is, in 22 this case the 45 day, 40 night LEQ. The SEC 23 rule requires that fast response of .125 24 seconds, that eighth of a second, for {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 58 1 post-construction sound testing. That's the 2 response of the meter. That's how fast it 3 collects the data. And we generally have two 4 settings on our meters we can use, either for 5 fast response of an eighth or a slow 6 response, which is one second. And very 7 often jurisdictions will put that in the 8 rules, that they'd like you to use one or the 9 other. Fast is probably the most commonly 10 used one we see. 11 However, the response speed of the 12 instrument, though, is not the same as the 13 time period used to evaluate compliance with 14 the standard. That's a really important 15 point. Generally you have a sound regulation 16 limit that follows four basic principles. 17 Number one is relevant impact on people. 18 Number two, it should be repeatable; in other 19 words, when we go out and take measurements 20 under similar conditions, we should get 21 similar results. Number three is it should 22 be predictable. You should be able to 23 predict what the sound levels are going to be 24 in the future based on the data we have from {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 59 1 wind turbines. And number four is it should 2 be easy to implement; in other words, we 3 should be able to test without a substantial 4 burden to the public, the regulators or the 5 operator of the wind farm. 6 Using a one-hour time period, for 7 example, checks all four of those boxes. 8 Trying to use a 1/8th-of-a-second time frame 9 as a compliance period does not. I'll give 10 you a quick example. You know, if you think 11 about New Hampshire DOT or FHWA, their noise 12 abatement criteria, or NAC, are one-hour 13 LEQs. They've defined the time period as 14 one-hour LEQ. You know, the NAC for a 15 residential area is 67 decibels. Now, I 16 would suggest that the highway department's 17 not going to say we need to build a sound 18 barrier on this road if the NAC goes over 67 19 for 1/8th of a second and use a more robust 20 time period than that. 21 The second point I wanted to make 22 is about post-construction compliance 23 monitoring. In the rules, it does reference 24 the ANSI S12.9, Part 3 standard which you {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 60 1 heard about. A couple sections in that 2 standard describe the basic data collection 3 procedures which were part of measuring 4 continuous background for at least ten 5 minutes or more -- you've heard that 6 already -- and measurement with a sound in 7 operation for a basic measurement period. 8 Now, the ANSI standard doesn't define what 9 that is. It's left to jurisdictions to pick 10 that out. They use one hour as a typical 11 example. But just to be clear, the ANSI 12 standard doesn't say thou shall/must use one 13 hour. It's an example. And that basic 14 measurement period's broken up into smaller 15 chunks of time in the aggregate to understand 16 what's going on. And those blocks of time 17 can never be less than one second, according 18 to the ANSI standard. So, again, using an 19 eighth of a second would be improper. 20 The third point I want to make is 21 about post-construction compliance monitoring 22 here in New Hampshire. As you know, the 23 rules require in that post-construction 24 evaluation measuring L10 and L90, both {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 61 1 A-weighted and C-weighted. Those are 2 statistical sound levels. I'll be happy to 3 explain them once my five minutes are over if 4 you want. But they're derived, again, from a 5 basic measurement period such as the one-hour 6 example. Trying to calculate a L10 or L90 7 from 1/8th-of-a-second intervals is not 8 possible. That would be like looking at the 9 highest 1/80th of a second for your time 10 period. Just one more quick thought? 11 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Yeah, 12 finish your thought. 13 MR. O'NEAL: Okay. So I'm just 14 going to conclude with the SEC rule is 15 consistent with ANSI standards and other 16 jurisdictions. Exact time period is not 17 specified. Using professional judgment, we 18 would recommend and often use ten-minute or 19 hour periods as the basic measurement period. 20 And that's what has been used here in the SEC 21 compliance evaluation. 22 With that, I'll conclude and take 23 any questions you might have. 24 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: My first {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 62 1 question is do the ANSI standards have -- do 2 they list -- and particularly that Part 3 3 standard, is there any mention of an Lmax in 4 there that you're aware of? 5 MR. O'NEAL: Not that I'm aware of, 6 no. And that ANSI standard that we're 7 talking about, this 12.9, Part 3, is really 8 geared toward when an observer is present, in 9 terms of how do you collect the data; what 10 you do for the total sound, which is, you 11 know, your source running plus the 12 background; how do you shut it down; how do 13 you get background only, et cetera. And it 14 goes through all the procedures and -- 15 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 16 MR. O'NEAL: All the procedures and 17 the equipment that you would use. 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: But it 19 does -- the ANSI standard itself does define 20 how you would, say, calculate an L90 or an 21 LEQ or something to that effect; correct? 22 MR. O'NEAL: I don't believe that 23 standard actually tells you how to calculate 24 an L90. And L90 is defined as a statistical {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 63 1 period. So, for example, if you take a 2 measurement for an hour, the L90 is going to 3 be the quietest six minutes. So 6 divided by 4 60 is your quietest 10 percent of the hour. 5 So in other words, the L90 means that 90 6 percent of the time the sound level is higher 7 than whatever your L90 is. So that's not 8 defined in the ANSI standards. It's defined 9 in other standards, in terms of basic 10 terminology. 11 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: But does 12 it say -- how do I put this? You know, 13 essentially, how can you even calculate an 14 L10 or an L90 if you're only using a single, 15 essentially a single data point? Is that 16 possible at all? Like 1/8th of a second, 17 which is going to be, if I'm understanding 18 you correctly, it's going to be one data 19 point that you'll get out of that; correct? 20 MR. O'NEAL: Under I think the 21 claim that Ms. Linowes is making, yes, you 22 would have that 1/8th-second data. So trying 23 to calculate an L10 on that 1/8th-second data 24 point is meaningless. You don't do that. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 64 1 You calculate an L10 or an L90 over a broader 2 measuring period, ten minutes, an hour, 3 something like that. Doing it on 1/8th of a 4 second is non-sensical. I've never seen it 5 done. 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: 'Cause 7 it's essentially just going to be one data 8 point that it will give you. You don't have 9 to do a calculation. There is no 10 calculation; correct? 11 MR. O'NEAL: Correct. 12 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I know 13 you have some good questions. 14 MR. DUCLOS: Well, thank you, Mr. 15 O'Neal, for your testimony. It's nice to get 16 an expert on the other end of the microphone 17 who can explain some of this to me. I think 18 that will be helpful. 19 In the standard, 301.14 (f)(2), it 20 talks about the A-weighted equivalent sound 21 level. What does the "A-weighted" mean? 22 MR. O'NEAL: So A-weighted is just 23 a weighting scale that's defined by standard 24 again. So an A-weighting really {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 65 1 characterizes how we as people respond and 2 how our ears do. In other words, our ears 3 don't hear low frequencies very well, so the 4 A-weighted scale discounts those, if you 5 will. But we hear middle frequencies very 6 well. So the middle frequencies make up a 7 lot of the A-weighted energy. So the 8 A-weighted scale takes all the different 9 octave bands, different frequencies, and 10 weights them according to this A-weighted 11 scale, which, again, is defined by standard 12 and gives you one number. So it gives you 13 that 40 dBA or 45 dBA number that's in the 14 SEC rules. 15 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. And it says 16 "shall not exceed the greater of 45 dBA." 17 What does that mean to you? 18 MR. O'NEAL: So in other words, you 19 have a compliance period, whether it's ten 20 minutes or whether it's an hour. And if I'm 21 measuring sound from a wind turbine for, you 22 know, an entire week, that's 168 hours. So 23 those hours that I know the turbine is really 24 the dominant source of sound, during the day {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 66 1 it can't be over 45 during any of those 2 hours, and at night it can't be over 40. 3 That's what "shall not exceed" means. You 4 can't go over those limits. 5 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. We understand 6 we can't go over those limits. We understand 7 what the A-weighted equivalent means. 8 So, really, in your opinion, is 9 there a compliance period written into this 10 rule? 11 MR. O'NEAL: There is not, and that 12 is probably one of the reasons we're sitting 13 here today is because there is none. 14 If I may go back to the second part 15 of your question. You asked me about an 16 A-weighted equivalent. I only answered the 17 A-weighted part -- 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I was 19 about to ask that. What does "equivalent" 20 mean to you? 21 MR. O'NEAL: I think that's the 22 question I've heard a few times now, so I 23 want to make sure I give you an answer for 24 that. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 67 1 So equivalent sound is the LEQ. 2 That's the descriptor that you see. And it 3 can be LAEQ, which is an A-weighted 4 equivalent sound level, or LCEQ, which is 5 just a C-weighted equivalent sound level. 6 So equivalent sound level is 7 basically taking all the sound energy over a 8 defined period of time. Again, you got to 9 have some defined period of time. It can be 10 one minute, can be ten minutes, can be 11 whatever, eight hours. But over that time 12 period of time, the sound levels are going to 13 vary somewhat. Any source of sound will have 14 some variation in them. And the equivalent 15 sound level takes all that energy. And 16 thankfully, the sound level meters do this 17 now internally with computer code. You don't 18 have to go back to our calculus textbooks and 19 try to integrate the area under a curve. It 20 takes all that sound energy and gives you an 21 equivalent one number as if that sound was 22 steady the entire time. 23 And the thing about equivalent 24 sound level is it weights the higher sound {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 68 1 levels greater. That's what the LEQ does. 2 And I didn't sit in through the hearings on 3 the rule adoption, but my guess is that's 4 probably why the LEQ was chosen as a metric, 5 because it does weight those higher sound 6 levels. So like a 40 dBA LEQ at night, any 7 higher sound energy from the turbines is 8 going to get counted in that LEQ calculation. 9 It's not discounted. So even though it's -- 10 I know I've used the word "average." It's 11 really an integration of energy over the 12 entire time period. But it's a one-number 13 equivalent calculation, if you will, for that 14 time period. Does that make sense? 15 MR. DUCLOS: When the 16 1/8th-of-a-second meters pick up a data 17 point, is there a reason why 1/8th of a 18 second is used versus one second? 19 MR. O'NEAL: I'm just old enough to 20 remember having used the old analog sound 21 level meters when I started my career. And 22 the thinking back in the day was you use a 23 slow response so the needle wouldn't jump 24 around so much. It would slow it down. If {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 69 1 you used a fast response, there's a little 2 bit more wiggle because you're sampling 3 basically eight times a second, if you will, 4 a 1/8th-of-a-second sample rate. 5 So, again, now with digital 6 technology, pretty much the fast response is 7 what we see today for any kind of testing 8 programs. 9 MR. DUCLOS: Let me ask it a 10 different way. How quickly does a human ear 11 pick up sounds? 12 MR. O'NEAL: Again, it all depends 13 on the individual's hearing and how good it 14 is. I don't honestly know if I could tell an 15 eighth of a second, if you get any different 16 gave -- if you get different sounds over a 17 one-second period. I don't think I could 18 tell that. I've never been tested for that 19 kind of refined ability, so I don't have a 20 good answer for you on that one. But I think 21 we'd be hard-pressed to know how sound is 22 changing, you know, unless, of course, it 23 changed dramatically. And when I say 24 dramatically, you know, we're talking a very {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 70 1 large change, 10, 20 decibels over a very 2 short period of time. You know, a decibel or 3 two change, we're not going to really pick 4 that up. 5 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. So the eighth 6 of a second is based on the accuracy of 7 picking up data points because we have the 8 technology to do that now with digital 9 equipment; correct? 10 MR. O'NEAL: Correct. Correct. 11 MR. DUCLOS: So it's kind of a very 12 specific monitor to get as many data points 13 as possible; right? 14 MR. O'NEAL: That's fair, yes. 15 MR. DUCLOS: And to average that 16 for an LEQ, 'cause usually an LEQ has some 17 time period set to it. Is that the way the 18 standard works? 19 MR. O'NEAL: That's the way all the 20 regulations -- well, I shouldn't say all. 21 Most of the sound level regulations that are 22 written try to incorporate a time period in 23 them. Not all of them do. Some of them omit 24 it. Just for whatever reason they omit it. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 71 1 But most of them do a time period, yes. 2 MR. DUCLOS: And you said the LEQ 3 could be LAEQ of T, which would be .125, is 4 unreasonable; it doesn't make any sense 5 whatsoever because the data point then can't 6 be split. 7 MR. O'NEAL: Yes. Correct. 8 MR. DUCLOS: How would that be 9 different than an Lmax standard? Is Lmax 10 just a blip in time, or is it an average type 11 of a standard? 12 MR. O'NEAL: So an Lmax is not that 13 different than the 1/8th-of-a-second 14 measurement. Lmax is going to be what is the 15 highest sound level that you measured, again, 16 over some period of time. You know, the Lmax 17 over one hour might be different than Lmax 18 over an entire day. Could be different hours 19 during the day. But it would be Lmax over a 20 defined period of time, right. Again, it's a 21 very short, instantaneous sound level which, 22 again, goes against some of those four 23 criteria I gave you before, in terms of 24 trying to have a reasonable sound standard, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 72 1 because Lmax is a very -- it can be very 2 variable, whether it's a gust of wind, 3 whether it's a -- you know, any type of 4 source sounds that might intrude that are not 5 necessarily the source that you're trying to 6 measure specifically, that Lmax will pick it 7 up. And it just may obfuscate what you're 8 really trying to measure, which is another 9 reason the L10 and the L90 are very, very 10 useful statistical metrics in wind turbine 11 compliance testing. I've tested dozens and 12 dozens of wind farms post-construction. And 13 if I see the L10 and the LEQ and the L90, 14 those three numbers, I can know right away if 15 that sound is really wind turbine sound or 16 not. They should be very, very close 17 together. They should not be that much 18 different. 19 MR. DUCLOS: All right. So you 20 said the LAEQ .125, in your mind, were 21 equivalent to an Lmax standard, and that's an 22 unreasonable standard for a wind farm. 23 MR. O'NEAL: I'm agreeing with you, 24 yes. The Lmax and the 1/8th-of-a-second LEQ, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 73 1 they can be a little bit different, but 2 they're not wildly different. 3 MR. DUCLOS: And you also agree 4 that the compliance standard that's in the 5 rule and in the certificate don't have a 6 compliance period assigned to the "shall not 7 exceed the greater of 45 dBA." 8 MR. O'NEAL: They did not include a 9 time period in there. Correct. 10 MR. DUCLOS: What is a reasonable 11 time period that they should have considered 12 in the rule, from your wind farm experience? 13 MR. O'NEAL: Sure. I would say a 14 minimum of ten minutes would be the absolute 15 smallest time period that you would consider. 16 We see that a lot in other jurisdictions, ten 17 minutes. A lot of the jurisdictions make you 18 collect multiple ten-minute periods and then 19 take them and do some further calculations 20 with them. Most, or a lot of the 21 jurisdictions that do put a time period in 22 there put in the one-hour. 23 But if you're asking my opinion, 24 I'd say ten minutes would be the absolute {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 74 1 minimum time duration that I would say, based 2 on anything I've measured. 3 MR. DUCLOS: Would you then 4 extrapolate that out to an hourly, say? I 5 mean, I'm coming from the transportation 6 side. That's what we do. I can take 7 measurements at ten minutes or up to 30 8 minutes or whatever, but it gets extrapolated 9 out to an hour. So would you recommend -- is 10 that what you're saying here? Or would it be 11 at, say, an LEQ for ten minutes? 12 MR. O'NEAL: As a practical matter, 13 we're going to have six ten-minute periods 14 because we're going to measure, you know, for 15 many, many days. So you're going to end up 16 with six ten minutes in every hour. 17 And you could do it either way. 18 You could make the ten-minute period itself 19 the compliance period, or you could make them 20 aggregate and take those six ten-minute 21 periods -- because the LEQ, if you have six 22 ten-minute LEQs, for example, you could very 23 easily calculate a one-hour LEQ. The math is 24 very straightforward. It's fine. You can do {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 75 1 that. The beauty of that is, say, for 2 example, you had one of those ten-minute 3 periods contaminated for whatever reason, 4 bunch of trucks went by. You throw that time 5 period out. You could use the other five 6 ten-minute periods and come up with, as you 7 say, an extrapolated one-hour LEQ. 8 In general, the research has 9 shown -- this report came out right after the 10 standards were adopted. But the 11 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center sponsored a 12 wind turbine acoustic study. And the 13 research -- and I was involved in that, 14 actually. And the research showed that, you 15 know, the shorter the time period is, the 16 more unreliable any kind of standard or 17 metric is going to be to try and show 18 compliance with any type of source, wind 19 turbines or something else. They showed in 20 the research that a one-hour standard showed 21 good agreement with pre-construction 22 modeling, which is really what you're trying 23 to get here. You're trying to have somebody 24 who's proposing a project. They know the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 76 1 rules, and they know the rules about how they 2 have to meet the standard. Then having that 3 one-hour time period is going to give them a 4 lot of confidence that if my modeling shows 5 I'm in compliance, I would expect to go out 6 there post-construction and be very confident 7 that it will show compliance. 8 MR. DUCLOS: Thank you. I got a 9 few others, but I can hold them for now. 10 MR. O'NEAL: Okay. I could submit 11 some written comments to sort of expand on 12 this, and you'll have plenty to read. 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Sure. 14 That would be helpful. Thank you. 15 MR. O'NEAL: Thank you. Thank you 16 for your time. 17 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 18 right. Dr. Fred Ward. 19 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman -- 20 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Yes. 21 MR. EDWARDS: Point of order, if I 22 may. I'm not very good with the alphabet. 23 I'm Bob Edwards from the Town of Antrim, and 24 I had an acknowledgment that I could speak. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 77 1 And I'm just not good alphabet, but I 2 believe -- 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I am 4 sorry if -- 5 MR. EDWARDS: No, it's not your 6 fault, because I mistyped your e-mail 7 address. But I did get it from -- 8 MR. WARD: I'd be perfectly happy 9 to let E go before W. 10 MR. EDWARDS: And I can't go after 11 Dr. Ward. I don't have the time. I'm only 12 kidding. So if it pleases the Committee -- 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 14 right. We just had -- like I said, I 15 didn't -- because it didn't -- the e-mail 16 didn't come to me, so I didn't have you on 17 the list. So with that, we are -- I am 18 trying to wrap this up by 3:00. So with the 19 five-minute periods, no, we should be able to 20 do it. We'll just have to take -- 21 MR. EDWARDS: My comments are not 22 technical in nature, so I yield to whatever 23 you want. 24 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Well, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 78 1 since you alphabetically are -- it should 2 have already happened. So by all means, go 3 ahead. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Dr. Ward. 5 MR. WARD: You're very welcome. 6 I'll get it back out of you someday. 7 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 8 right. Since I don't have you on my list, if 9 you could state your name, that would be very 10 helpful. 11 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. My name is Bob 12 Edwards, and I'm one of the selectmen from 13 the Town of Antrim. And I'm not here to 14 define the word "equivalent" or anything 15 close to it. But my -- our comments are 16 general in nature. 17 When we first read the charges for 18 this Subcommittee, the first charge was a bit 19 alarming to us. And I apologize to the 20 Committee if we misunderstood the intent of 21 the language in that. But what we heard and 22 read, and what we heard on the Zoom meetings 23 that you conducted, it seemed to me that you 24 were going outside the scope of what we {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 79 1 thought was going to be included under the 2 first request. And when you started speaking 3 about best procedures in New York and Vermont 4 and so forth, we wanted to just make sure 5 that our interpretation was correct, and that 6 is that you're trying to ensure compliance 7 with the certificate as it relates to 8 measuring and analyzing sound. 9 So the board of selectmen have 10 relied on the SEC expertise when it developed 11 both the operational standards and compliance 12 monitoring procedures, that they were fair 13 and they were equitable to all interested 14 parties, to the Antrim Wind initiative that 15 originated in my time back in 2008, when it 16 all began. 17 And I hope, and I apologize if I 18 am, but I hope I am not oversimplifying this 19 matter. But the Town expected then and 20 continues to expect that the methods utilized 21 to collect and analyze sound data will adhere 22 to the requirements already defined in detail 23 in the terms and methods previously approved 24 and in place as an integral part of Antrim {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 80 1 Wind Energy's certificate. There must be no 2 effort on behalf of the Subcommittee or the 3 full Committee as part of its charge to 4 deviate from or seek alternative 5 methodologies for measurement standards for 6 analysis of sound procedures for this 7 particular wind farm. And should the full 8 Committee feel that such an exercise is 9 justified, we suggest that be a separate and 10 distinct initiative to be undertaken, that 11 may result in future rules standards changes. 12 But it is clearly outside the scope and 13 intent of the Subcommittee's first charge, in 14 our opinion. 15 We at the Town level feel that we 16 are spending too much time unnecessarily with 17 complaints from the public, phone calls at 18 night and so forth regarding violation 19 potentials. And so we also feel that the 20 matter may be -- I don't want oversimplify 21 it, but we just ask that the Committee follow 22 those approvals and guidelines that are 23 already in the certificate. 24 One of the things that I think was {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 81 1 troubling to the Committee was that we -- 2 some of the residents didn't allow 3 measurements on their property. And I think 4 our opinion is that if you're going to abide 5 by the initial rules of the SEC when they 6 approved that certificate, it will have a 7 hundred percent cooperation from the 8 landowners. And I understand the waiver is 9 perfectly legitimate, but I'd like to see it 10 done in the same fashion as it was approved. 11 And we asked for their cooperation, as long 12 as we're doing it the way it was approved. 13 So we ask that you let the results 14 be what they are. They will -- either Antrim 15 Wind is compliant or they are not. And if 16 not, we ask that a timely corrective action 17 be undertaken and bring any sound violations 18 compliant with the certificate. If they are 19 found to be compliant after collecting the 20 sound data, and analysis performed in 21 accordance with the certificate requirements, 22 then please let's move forward. Thank you. 23 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 24 you. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 82 1 MR. EDWARDS: Probably no questions 2 for me. 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Well, I 4 do have kind of one question. If you -- do 5 you have concerns with the measurement 6 period? Does the Town? 'Cause I mean 7 ultimately it's your agreement that is in the 8 certificate. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 10 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: So do you 11 have concerns with that agreement now at all? 12 MR. EDWARDS: We have concerns, 13 only that we see and hear feedback from 14 people. We don't have the technical 15 knowledge to interpret that properly. And 16 that's one of the prime reasons that we 17 forwarded it on initially and supported the 18 Committee to do the application. But we 19 understand that potentially if it isn't done 20 in the measurements as we understand it to 21 be, then it distorts it, and it can be 22 construed in people's minds as just trying to 23 circumvent the original measurement standards 24 so that it's compliant. But we have no -- {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 83 1 we're looking for you and your experts to 2 tell us whether that's in compliance. So I 3 don't know if it's right or wrong. It may be 4 21st Century standards will be such that you 5 redesign the different requirements on it. 6 But what we're trying to suggest is that we 7 spent a lot of time getting the application 8 discussed and approved, and a lot of detail 9 went in and analysis and expert testimony, 10 and we wonder why it isn't a simpler process 11 to merely go in with your experts and say is 12 it being done in accordance with the terms of 13 the certificate, yes or no. 14 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: That's 15 what we're trying to figure out. 16 MR. EDWARDS: And we thank you for 17 all you're doing, yeah. 18 MR. DUCLOS: No questions. 19 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 20 right. Thank you. 21 All right. I think now the next 22 one would be Dr. Fred Ward. 23 MR. WARD: I want to start off with 24 something that I've said to you in writing -- {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 84 1 meant to go to you, it went to the old SEC. 2 But this is on point, which you all seem to 3 worry about, which is the question of the 4 averaging interval or no of the sound. Now, 5 you heard all kinds of stories from everybody 6 as to what they might prefer or what these 7 things all mean. And I think you would agree 8 that it's a little bit confusing. Let me 9 just unconfuse it. 10 Neither the human brain nor the 11 human ear averages sound. Let me repeat 12 that. Neither the human brain nor the human 13 ear averages sound. Now, let me give you 14 three examples. It's pretty easy to 15 understand. 16 Let's say that you're somebody 17 who's coming in, they want to put in a rifle 18 range, a pistol range next to a church. Now, 19 you could say that, well, we want the average 20 to be over 40dB. Now, if you're sitting in 21 the church and the rifle range is operating, 22 you go over a 100 dB for a fraction of a 23 second and then it's zero. Maybe another 24 second or ten seconds later you get another {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 85 1 over 100 dB and then zeros. So if you 2 average out all those 100 dBs and zeros, it's 3 around 5 maybe, easily meeting the 40 dB 4 standard, but a total -- a portion of 5 misrepresentation, deliberate, whatever you 6 want to call it of what that 40 dB is 7 supposed to mean. We have the same thing 8 here. We have loud sounds and very little 9 sound, ups and downs. 10 Let me give you this one other 11 example. Supposing you'd like to listen to a 12 classical orchestra or maybe a jazz band. 13 Now, most of these have music that goes up, 14 down and sideways. It gets loud, it gets 15 soft. And most of these orchestras have a 16 drum. Well, the drum sound is a fraction of 17 a second. In between, it cannot beat the 18 damn drum fast enough to put in more than 19 maybe one or two beats in a second or less. 20 So if you average the sound of the drum, 21 there's no drum. The orchestra -- the violin 22 is coasting along and the horns are going 23 along, and the drummer is sitting there ready 24 to beat the damn drum again, kick it, {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 86 1 whatever he's going to do. They're short, 2 sharp things, but you damn well hear them. 3 The average is irrelevant. 4 Let me just make something that you 5 might understand even easier. Let's say 6 we're out on a country road and that country 7 road has cement trucks and great big trucks, 8 but they only go by once, oh, maybe every 9 minute or two minutes or hour, and loud as 10 hell, 100, 150 decibels. The average, what's 11 it going to be? A couple of hundred or 150 12 and a mess of zeros. What does a 40dB 13 average mean over more than a few seconds? 14 What the human ear hears and what the human 15 brain does is meant to be the peaks. It 16 doesn't hear the zeros. It's not set up for 17 that. 18 If you go on a trip, for example, 19 and you go rolling down, you'll see the waves 20 and the things or whatever you want to do. 21 You don't average that out and say, boy, that 22 was a nice average. The average is 23 irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what 24 the human ear is hearing. So all of the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 87 1 discussion about averaging out is what we 2 call in polite language "BS." 3 Now, I have one other point I want 4 to make, and I'm hoping I can get it in. I'm 5 a meteorologist. What you hear from the 6 Antrim Wind facility is totally dependent on 7 the meteorology. The wind speed determines 8 how loud the sound -- how fast things are 9 going and how loud the sound is going to be. 10 Slow-end speeds, low sounds. High-end 11 speeds, high sounds. 12 The second part of meteorology that 13 comes into it is everybody knows, even 14 Mr. O'Neal, that a temperature inversion at 15 night will make an enormous difference. Most 16 of the time, even if it's called an 17 inversion, it implies that there's some other 18 thing, which is the version. Well, that's 19 daytime. In daytime, all the sound goes up 20 and out. Doesn't affect anybody. At night, 21 the ground cools, and it cools the air near 22 the ground. And if you pool the cooler air 23 and it goes up to the level of Antrim Wind, 24 all the sound from the Antrim Wind is trapped {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 88 1 in that. So high winds on the thing, a 2 meteorological phenomenon. And inversion 3 from temperature, another meteorological 4 phenomenon. That's when you get your loud 5 sounds. So talking about anything of these 6 things and talking about, as somebody said, 7 65 million, well, nobody gives a damn about 8 the 65 million. There's only some times. 9 And that's where this should focus: High 10 winds to make louder sound, inversion to trap 11 it. That will always give you the most 12 sound. Thank you. 13 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 14 right. Thank you. I don't have any 15 questions. 16 Do you, John or Tom? 17 MR. EATON: No. 18 MR. DUCLOS: Dr. Ward, nice to know 19 that you're a meteorologist. That's one 20 thing we didn't bring up is the temperature 21 inversions and how that applies to sound. 22 None of that's in the compliance standard 23 either; right? So wind -- 24 MR. WARD: I didn't hear you. None {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 89 1 of that what? 2 MR. DUCLOS: None of that 3 temperature, meteorological information, is 4 in the compliance standard -- 5 MR. WARD: Everything 6 meteorological is in every compliance 7 standard because there's only sometimes when 8 the towns are going to be loud. Nobody's 9 sitting here saying that they're always loud. 10 They're loud at certain times. And when you 11 have those things, then you have to make your 12 measurements when the sound levels are the 13 loudest, meteorologically speaking. 14 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. I understand 15 your position. 16 MR. WARD: And that's the reason 17 there are two different standards, day and 18 night, too. 19 MR. DUCLOS: Right. The human ear 20 and the human brain, as you said, picks up, 21 you know, peaks. But we're not dealing with 22 the human ear here or what the brain 23 translates it to. It's what the compliance 24 standard is. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 90 1 MR. WARD: What do you mean we're 2 not here for the human ear? This all has to 3 do with the human ear. 4 MR. DUCLOS: You hear sounds. Do 5 you think of any fan or the wind farm or -- 6 MR. WARD: Say it again? Ask me -- 7 MR. DUCLOS: Would you think that 8 any fan that you have in your home or the 9 wind farm you wouldn't hear at all, ever? 10 MR. WARD: Oh, you could certainly 11 make enough noise in your house to cover 12 everything. Is that what you're asking? 13 MR. DUCLOS: No. I'm asking 14 whether when they sited this facility here, 15 did you think it would be silent, like a 16 Dyson fan versus an electric-generating wind 17 farm? 18 MR. WARD: Well, most of the time 19 the winds would be -- the sounds from the 20 wind farm would be below, well below 40 dB. 21 Most of the time. The winds are not strong 22 all the time. They're strong some nights, 23 some nights they're not. So maybe some 24 nights you'd hardly know they were there and {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 91 1 then other nights you damn well know it was 2 there. 3 MR. DUCLOS: Okay. No further 4 questions. 5 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 6 right. Tom, you all set? 7 MR. EATON: All set. Thank you. 8 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 9 right. The last speaker is Joe Wilkas. 10 MR. WILKAS: I have handouts that 11 I'm going to refer to... I'm not going to -- 12 the words I'm going to say are not in there. 13 (Mr. Wilkas distributing handouts to 14 the Subcommittee members.) 15 MR. WILKAS: Thank you for the 16 opportunity to speak to you today. I guess 17 just listening to all the other testimony -- 18 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Can you 19 pull the microphone just a little bit closer 20 to you? 21 MR. WILKAS: Okay. Yeah. I had a 22 question. Would Mr. O'Neal choose to live 23 near a wind turbine? 24 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Well, I {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 92 1 don't think -- I don't want to take questions 2 for other people. Questions will come from 3 here. 4 MR. WILKAS: I just brought it up. 5 Okay. We're supposed to be helping 6 with you folks learning sound regulations and 7 things. So what I've done here is I have a 8 list of links and information that are found 9 in those links that are all on the SEC site. 10 The first one is where the sound regulations 11 are, which is Site 301 on the SEC site, which 12 is the regulations. And I've highlighted in 13 little red marks some of the interesting 14 information that I've copied and pasted in 15 here. 16 The first one is for wind energy 17 systems, apply the following standards, and 18 it says that the sound shall not exceed the 19 greater of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above background 20 levels measured at the L90 sound level and -- 21 okay. The background -- above background 22 sound levels. 45 dBA or 5 dBA above 23 background levels measured at the L90 sound 24 level between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 93 1 each day and 40dB or 5 dB above at night. 2 You guys have all heard that. This is where 3 it's easy to find. But again, I'm 4 emphasizing "shall not exceed." 5 Now, the second page is just more 6 of a spec, but nothing highlighted. The 7 third page, all sound measurements during 8 post-construction monitoring shall be taken 9 at 0.125-second intervals, measuring both 10 fast response and LEQ metrics. We've all 11 discussed that, too, but there's the link to 12 finding that information when you want it. 13 The next page, on Page 4, is some 14 information from some of the sound reports 15 that are on your sites. It's including the 16 link to them. This one on Page 4 is the Rand 17 sound report. And included in there is a 18 graph showing, you know, ten minutes of sound 19 collection at the proper sampling rate. And 20 as you can see, much of it above the red line 21 exceeds the limit. And if you averaged that 22 sound level, which people have been proposing 23 to do, then you would not be exceeding the 24 sound levels; you'd be at the sound level. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 94 1 So measuring the peaks not to exceed is the 2 important, significant fact here. And 3 there's a visual indication of it. 4 On Page 5, from another sound 5 report on your site, Tocci's sound report on 6 September 2nd, it says that in this sound 7 report, Column 7 or 8 are measured 8 five-minute, 10th and 90th percent A-weighted 9 sound levels. In other words, the 10 information in this sound level, they're 11 taking five-minute average samples instead of 12 peaks. And that's, again, just for your 13 reference. 14 And there's another statement 15 there, many five-minute samples were noted to 16 be below the 40 dBA after the wind subsided. 17 So once again, they're saying, okay, we're 18 taking five-minute samples, not just -- I 19 mean they're sampling at the proper rate and 20 averaging five minutes, which of course will 21 lower the level that they're recording. 22 And then there's the Acentech 23 post-construction sound report, which I'm 24 highlighting again where they stated the {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 95 1 compliance in this study, the one-hour LEQ 2 metric, as compared to the appropriate 3 daytime and nighttime limits. Once again, 4 we're averaging over an hour, not taking the 5 peaks. 6 And then the final, on Page 6, is a 7 two-minute sample from, actually a posting 8 on our site by Lisa Linowes. And it's 9 showing, once again, that even over two 10 minutes, if you're following the peaks, you 11 can see it exceeding the limit. But if 12 you're averaging, you'd see that you would 13 not be exceeding the limit. 14 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: All 15 right. Thank you. 16 MR. DUCLOS: I have no questions. 17 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I think 18 I'll just ask my same question. Do you have 19 any idea what "equivalent" means? 20 MR. DUCLOS: You know, I'm an 21 engineer. And when I get into the acoustics 22 of all this stuff, every time this comes up I 23 have to go looking and researching, and then 24 I finally figure out what I'm looking it. Do {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 96 1 I remember it months later? Not necessarily. 2 I have to go through it again. 3 So you have my thanks for trying to 4 do what you're doing, and my sympathy for 5 trying to do what you're doing, too. 6 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: We 7 appreciate that. Thank you. 8 All right. That was -- that's the 9 end of our speakers. And I don't know if 10 anybody on the Committee had any additional 11 items or anything else that either of you two 12 want to discuss. I don't think I have 13 anything. 14 MR. EATON: No. 15 MR. DUCLOS: I'm good. 16 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I forget 17 where we left off when our next meeting will 18 be. 19 MR. TURNER: I think the 20 investigation plan is August, if you want to 21 highlight it. 22 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Yes. 23 Yes, I should do that. 24 So, again, we'll be allowing... {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 97 1 (Discussion off the record among 2 Committee members.) 3 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I don't 4 think we need to rehash that. At least my 5 opinion is that we've done that. We've 6 talked about the ADLS. It was just a -- 7 [Court Reporter interrupts.] 8 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: I'm 9 sorry. I misinterpreted you. So just go 10 ahead and say it. 11 MR. DUCLOS: I'll just ask. 12 I asked Jon, as the presiding 13 officer, whether he wanted to ask Allen 14 Brooks if he had anything to offer at this 15 public meeting or not, given that -- afford 16 him the opportunity while he's in the 17 audience, as he has represented the Counsel 18 for the Public in a letter on the ADLR 19 system. I would offer him a chance to speak 20 at this public meeting if he so chooses. 21 MR. BROOKS: May I, just very 22 briefly? 23 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Yeah, 24 absolutely. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 98 1 MR. BROOKS: Hi, my name is Allen 2 Brooks. I function as Counsel for the 3 Public. I work at the New Hampshire 4 Department of Justice. Thank you. 5 I have nothing further to add at 6 this time. I'm happy to answer any questions 7 that you have. I would like to consider 8 everything I've heard today, as well as all 9 the written material, and maybe provide my 10 own written comment. I don't want to be 11 disruptive by doing that. I think that 12 you're open to that type of thing happening, 13 but I just want to make sure that that is 14 something that's going to provide some 15 benefit to the Subcommittee and not disrupt 16 whatever process that you have. 17 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Correct. 18 Yeah. Absolutely. If there's any 19 comments -- and again, that's actually what I 20 was just looking up. I just needed to find 21 what I said so I didn't contradict what I 22 said earlier. 23 Any comments that anybody else 24 would like to submit, please just submit them {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 99 1 via the normal docket distribution list. 2 We're just looking for comments by 5 p.m. on 3 July 1st, just so that we can have enough 4 time to get to everything, you know, as we 5 start to make our decisions on the first 6 charge that this Subcommittee has been tasked 7 with. 8 MR. BROOKS: Well, thank you. any 9 questions for me? 10 MR. DUCLOS: I guess we can go to 11 Jon's question. 12 On the standard for measurement, 13 which is 301.14 (f)(2), do you have an 14 opinion what the equivalent sound level is? 15 MR. BROOKS: I've read that 16 standard. The word "equivalent" I'm not sure 17 is going to help you one way or the other to 18 figure out what the standard means. I think 19 you've gone over this very well, which is 20 that your task is to apply that standard. 21 And to do so, you have to figure out how an 22 L90 is going to be applied with the time 23 interval. And in my reading -- I have not 24 gone through this with my office, and I'd {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 100 1 like to. But in my reading so far and 2 listening to it, there is no time interval 3 either stated or implied in the rule. I 4 don't believe it's implied to be 1/8th of a 5 second. I don't believe it's implied to be 6 an hour. It's not stated. So that time 7 interval that's needed is missing from the 8 rule. And the next task would be to figure 9 out what are you going to do to fill in that 10 hole. I think you suspected as much as you 11 were asking some of these questions. 12 MR. DUCLOS: I have no further 13 questions of this person. 14 MR. BROOKS: Thank you. 15 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Thank 16 you, Mr. Brooks. 17 All right. It probably would be 18 helpful for us just to remind everybody of 19 some of the next deadlines. 20 Following the public meeting, the 21 Subcommittee will publish by July 15th a 22 draft recommendation for the appropriate 23 methodologies for measurement and analysis of 24 sound procedures for validating noise {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 101 1 complaints. And then the Subcommittee will 2 be accepting written comments, arguments and 3 testimony on the draft recommendation from 4 all parties, which must be filed by 5 July 29th. And then the Committee will hold 6 a public meeting on August 16th to decide 7 whether to adopt the draft recommendation as 8 written or as modified. 9 I will say that we do have to -- 10 when we wrote this dispersion of the work 11 plan, we had a different member of our 12 Subcommittee. So I do need to still confirm 13 some of those dates with him, particularly 14 the August 16th, just to make sure that that 15 works into your schedule. So it is possible 16 that that August 16th date may slide a little 17 bit, depending on the schedule of the 18 Subcommittee and whatnot. But that's the 19 rough time frame for likely when our next 20 public meeting would be. 21 So with that, I would like to -- I 22 think we can end the meeting, unless either 23 of you had any other points of discussion. 24 MR. EATON: No. {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 102 1 MR. DUCLOS: I'm good. 2 PRESIDING OFFICER EVANS: Okay. 3 All right. With that, thank you everybody 4 for coming today. And we'll keep doing our 5 investigation. Thank you. 6 (WHEREUPON the Public Hearing was 7 adjourned at 2:54 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21} 103 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Susan J. Robidas, a Licensed 4 Shorthand Court Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New Hampshire, do hereby 5 certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic 6 notes of these proceedings taken at the place and on the date hereinbefore set 7 forth, to the best of my skill and ability under the conditions present at the time. 8 I further certify that I am neither 9 attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the 10 action; and further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or 11 counsel employed in this case, nor am I financially interested in this action. 12 The foregoing certification of this 13 transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means 14 unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. 15 16 17 18 19 ____________________________________________ 20 Susan J. Robidas, LCR/RPR Licensed Shorthand Court Reporter 21 Registered Professional Reporter N.H. LCR No. 44 (RSA 310-A:173) 22 23 24 {SEC 2021-02} [PUBLIC HEARING] {06-17-21}