Saturday, November 26 2022 Sign In   |    Register
 

News Quick Search


 

News


Front Page
Power News
Today's News
Yesterday's News
Week of Nov 21
Week of Nov 14
Week of Nov 07
Week of Oct 31
Week of Oct 24
By Topic
By News Partner
Gas News
News Customization
Feedback

 

Pro Plus(+)


Add on products to your professional subscription.
  • Energy Archive News
  •  



    Home > News > Power News > News Article

    Share by Email E-mail Printer Friendly Print

    PUC asks for second sound study for wind farm in Codington, Grant, Deuel counties


    September 7, 2022 - Elisa Sand

     

      The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has asked for an additional sound testing for a wind farm development in Codington, Deuel and Grant counties.

      Xcel Energy was open to completing a follow-up study for its Crowned Ridge II development following a hearing with the commission on Aug. 30. During that hearing, landowner Greg Wall requested a second sound study. Both Wall and his sister live near turbines in the development.

      More: $1 billion zero-emissions hydrocarbon plant planned for Lake Preston will produce jet fuel

      One turbine is 1,840 feet from his sister's place and 2,600 feet from his home. A second wind turbine is 2,750 feet from Wall's home, according to testimony at the meeting.

      In his comments to the commission, Wall said the initial sound study was completed in June or July, which is when the turbines are at their quietest. The turbine sound wasn't studied when the humidity was higher, which is when Wall said they are noisier.

      "When it's foggy out, it's ridiculously loud," he said, describing both an alternator squeal and the "woof, woof" sound from the blades.

      Darren Kearney, one of the PUC staff analysts, said there were concerns raised about the sound study happening in the summer as opposed to the fall or winter. But, he said, no further analysis was requested by concerned individuals until Wall contacted the PUC office, which is why the request was back before the commission.

      Ryan Hawk, who spoke on behalf of RSG, the company that completed the sound study, said he disagrees that a study in a different season would make a difference, although he did note that local and regional weather make a difference. In explaining that further, he said, substantial wind from the south, for instance, would mean higher wind energy production and more sound from the turbines.

      More: Low bid to repair 60-plus miles of Codington County roads comes in at $8.1 million

      Asked about another study, Wall said, this summer would have been an optimal time as there were several high-humidity days. Those are the days where the turbines are the noisiest, he said, also questioning the results of a study from a company hired by Xcel.

      Kearney said the company completing the study is an expert in the field and its data is credible.

      Pat Flowers, manager of environmental services at Xcel Energy, agreed to a follow-up study, but asked if it would make sense to have someone evaluate the data that was collected for the first study.

      Kearney said that could be an option, but it wouldn't address Wall's concern about the seasonal nature of the sound and how it changes.

      PUC Commission Chairman Chris Nelson said any data collected in a follow-up study would be subject to review by a second company.

      "We just need to know if this project is in compliance or not," he said.

      Nelson directed Xcel to work with Wall and other concerned parties on the details of the second study.

      Wall also noted concerns about an increase in pickup traffic on his township road and said he'd prefer company employees use the county road instead as the added traffic creates more dust. Commissions said now that the project is complete, there aren't any restrictions on which road the company uses.

      More: Alan Guebert: Big Ethanol sees electric cars as a market maker, not a market taker

      The PUC also heard concerns about the sound study completed for Crowned Ridge I. But since the docket on that issue is closed, those raising the concerns were told a complaint docket must be filed.

    TOP

    Other Articles - Utility Business / General


    TOP

       Home  -  Feedback  -  Contact Us  -  Safe Sender  -  About Energy Central   
    Copyright © 1996-2022 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Energy Central® and Energy Central Professional® are registered trademarks of CyberTech, Incorporated. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central. Other terms of use may apply. Membership information is confidential and subject to our privacy agreement.