Dissenting Report by Senator John Madigan and Senator Nick Xenophon
Introduction
1.2
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind
Farms) Bill 2012 was introduced as a result of the disappointing response of
the Federal Government to the Community Affairs Committee’s report into the
Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms. The Community Affairs Committee
inquiry received over 1000 submissions and heard evidence from a wide variety
of witnesses, including rural residents, doctors, lawyers, community groups,
environmental groups and wind farm operators. In response to the evidence
received the committee made the following seven unanimous recommendations:
Recommendation 1
The Committee considers that the noise standards adopted by
the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms
should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency
noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the responsible authorities
should ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and that the
complaints processes should involve an independent arbitrator. State and local
government agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with planning
permissions should be adequately resourced for this activity.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that further consideration be given
to the development of policy on separation criteria between residences and wind
farm facilities.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government
initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological
and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health.
This research must engage across industry and community, and include an
advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the NHMRC review of research
should continue, with regular publication.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the National Acoustics
Laboratories conduct a study and assessment of noise impacts of wind farms,
including the impacts of infrasound.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the draft National Wind Farm
Development Guidelines be redrafted to include discussion of any adverse health
effects and comments made by NHMRC regarding the revision of its 2010 public
statement.
1.3
It should be noted that Recommendations 4 and 6, relating to
epidemiological studies of wind farms and human health and studies of the noise
impacts of wind farms are yet to be conducted, despite the passing of more than
a year since the committee reported. Furthermore, recommendations 1 and 2 are
yet to be acted on by any of the states or territories.
1.4
The NHMRC is currently undertaking a “systematic review of the
scientific literature to examine the possible impacts of wind farms on human
health including audible and inaudible noise”. Given the NHMRC’s “rapid
review” in 2009 could not reasonably be referred to as a thorough examination
of the evidence, we welcome this further examination of all available
literature. We understand the 2009 review did not include an examination of a report
by the United Kingdom’s Department of Food and Rural Affairs entitled ‘A Review
of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects’. Given the
relevance of such a study to the NHMRC review, we encourage the NHMRC to
include this report in their examination of the literature.
1.5
With respect to the current NHMRC review, there are concerns that the
bulk of anecdotal evidence (in the form of personal testimonies from affected
residents) will not be included in the review unless it is submitted in an
‘organised’ fashion with accompanying analysis. Such an examination of first
hand claims is precisely what the Community Affairs Committee recommended, but
no studies of this kind by independent researchers have taken place. Should
affected communities be able to collate their experiences in the required
format, any analysis they may perform could be labelled as ‘amateur’ or
‘non-scientific’ due to their lack of qualifications.
1.6
Therefore, appropriate weight may not be afforded to individual testimonies,
even where analysis has been attempted.
1.7
Over the past 12 months we have spoken to many residents who have
complained about the noise produced by nearby wind farms. Many of these
residents had requested the wind farm operators conduct noise monitoring at
their properties. To our knowledge, none of these residents has been given
access to a full range of noise monitoring results.
1.8
It should also be noted that AGL withdrew their development application
for the Hallett 3 wind farm only days before they were due to produce noise
monitoring data, including wind mast data, for their Hallett 2 wind farm, as
ordered by the Environmental, Resources and Development Court in South
Australia.
1.9
Wind farm operators claim their wind farms are compliant with noise guidelines.
For instance, Acciona have said their Waubra wind farm is operated in such a
way so as to ensure that all noise compliance guidelines are met. However,
noise monitoring by acousticians who are not employed by wind farm operators
have revealed that some wind farms are not. Relevantly, a study by acoustician
Dr Bob Thorne has found that the wind farm at Waubra is operating outside noise
regulations.
1.10
In June 2012 Senator Madigan submitted a copy of Dr Thorne’s report to
the Victorian Minister for Planning, the Hon Matthew Guy MLC, who had committed
to suspending the operation of any wind farms found to be non-compliant with
noise guidelines. No response has been received from the Minister’s office to
date.
1.11
We are also aware of concerns raised by acousticians independent of the
wind industry that the noise monitoring conducted by wind farm operators is not
performed using equipment sensitive enough to measure infrasound and low
frequency noise. Furthermore, we have been told that when noise monitoring
equipment is installed, it is not positioned inside homes.
1.12
Of further concern are doubts that the current noise guidelines – with
which wind farm operators purport to comply - do not protect the quality of
life which was enjoyed by nearby residents prior to the construction of the
wind farm.
1.13
If the Federal Government is to subsidise wind farms by way of Renewable
Energy Certificates (RECs) this must not be at the expense of the quality of
life of nearby residents. Therefore, RECs should only be issued where an
operator can show they are consistently operating within acceptable noise
standards.
1.14
We acknowledge the Economics Committee believes an examination of the
practical operation of the bill, its interaction with state and local
government laws and its impact on the Clean Energy Regulator falls outside of
the expertise of this committee. However, we believe that the property rights
of residents are affected by wind farm developments as many are being denied
the quiet enjoyment of their homes, and in some cases are being forced to
abandon their properties without compensation, just or otherwise.
1.15
It has been reported that over 20 homes have been abandoned at Waubra in
western Victoria. We are told a further 5 homes in Waterloo, South Australia,
have also been abandoned. Investment in the property markets in rural
communities may suffer as a result, particularly if populations begin to
dwindle. Declining rural populations and the associated reduction in economic
productivity are, in our view, economic issues worthy of further examination.
1.16
Therefore, whilst we disagree with the Economics Committee’s view (given
the quality and depth of the reports provided by the committee in relation to
other inquiries), we will seek for this matter to be referred to another
committee for inquiry which ought to involve public hearings and evidence
called by both sides of the wind farm debate. It is also worth nothing there is
an urgency that the empirical and scientific research necessary to thoroughly
examine the issue of noise standards for wind farms and human health take place
within a reasonable time frame.
Adequacy of current noise guidelines
1.17
Currently the South Australian Environment Protection Authority ‘Wind
Farm Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009’ (‘SA EPA Guidelines) and the New
Zealand Standard ‘NZS6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise’ are the primary
guidelines against which wind farm noise are assessed. These documents address
both audible and inaudible characteristics of noise.
1.18
However, these standards require the use of dB(A) sound meters, which do
not adequately take infrasound and low frequency noise into account. Infrasound
can only be measured using equipment that does not use an A-weighted scale.
1.19
Wind farm operators have also been known to compare their noise
emissions with the World Health Organisation’s ‘Guidelines on Community Noise’.
It should be noted the WHO Guidelines do not address the inaudible
characteristics of noise and were written in the context of issuing guidelines
for densely populated European cities rather than rural environments.
1.20
Concerns have been raised that the SA EPA Guidelines do not protect
nearby residents from “adverse noise impacts”, which is contrary to the aim of
the Guidelines. This is partly due to the belief that the background noise
level which has been set by the EPA is already too high for rural zones.
Another concern is the lack of attention paid to infrasound and low frequency
noise in these guidelines, other than describing them as “annoying characteristics”
of noise which are not “present at modern wind farm sites.”
1.21
Until such time as the recommended epidemiological study into the
possible effects of wind farms on human health and the National Acoustics
Laboratories study have been conducted, complaints from residents about the
possible effects of wind farms noise cannot continue to be dismissed as
“hysteria” or the results of a “nocebo” effect.
Difficulty faced by residents in
obtaining noise monitoring results
1.22
Given the confident assertions of wind farms operators that they are
operating within the current noise guidelines, their reluctance to release
noise monitoring data to residents must be viewed with suspicion. That
residents have been forced to initiate legal proceedings in order to access this
data serves to compound the suspicion surrounding wind farm operators’ claims.
1.23
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind
Farms) Bill 2012 sought to create transparency in the operation of wind farms
by requiring the publication on the internet information about noise, wind
speed and direction, weather conditions and power output. It is our belief that
the publication of such data would be of immense benefit to both communities
and wind farm operators alike.
1.24
Such data would make it clear when wind farms are non-compliant which
will enable their operators to take steps to adjust their operations in order
to achieve compliance. Developers spend large amounts of time and money
convincing communities around proposed developments that they take noise
concerns seriously. However these efforts are undermined by the lack of
transparency when it comes to releasing noise data from existing wind
farms.
Concerns about wind energy intermittency and RECs
1.25
The intermittent nature of wind energy raises concerns about wind’s
ability to cope with peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
anticipates the contribution of South Australian wind farms during future
summer and winter peak demand will be 5% and 3.5% respectively of installed
wind farm capacity. Furthermore, figures obtained by the AEMO demonstrated
that during the heatwave between 20 January 2011 to 2 February 2011 “as demand
(for electricity) increased, the contribution from wind generation fell”.
1.26
We hold reservations that this technology should be subsidised to the
extent that it is, given its shortcomings in replacing baseload power due to
its inherently intermittent nature. Further there is a concern that in economic
terms, given the nature of the structure of the REC scheme and the issue of
RECs in their current form, that investment in alternative renewable energy
sources is being compromised, particularly geothermal, solar thermal and tidal
power. Those forms of alternative energy have the real potential to replace
coal fired power stations.
1.27
Further to the previous paragraph, wind farm output can be bid into the
National Electricity Market at zero dollars because wind farm owners can access
RECs as an income stream once eligible energy has been generated. As the
lowest cost output is the first to be dispatched to the grid, wind energy –
with the assistance of RECs – has the ability to displace electricity from
sources that have higher marginal costs of generation. This leads to the
following questions:
- Is wind energy the most cost efficient form of renewable energy
to achieve greenhouse gas abatement? and;
- Are RECs driving out investment from other forms of renewable
energy technology that could provide baseload generation, such as geothermal
technology?
- It is time the energy production and efficiency of wind farms is
examined against the impact this technology is having on rural communities.
Wind farm operators cannot continue to be rewarded with RECs if wind farms are
not complying with acceptable noise standards.
1.28
It is hoped the Senate will support a resolution to refer this bill to
another Senate Committee in order to allow for public submissions and evidence
to be called from those who both support and oppose this bill.
Senator John
Madigan
Democratic Labor
Party Senator for Victoria
Senator Nick
Xenophon
Independent
Senator for South Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents