Pu6Gic Service Commission O West Virginia f

202 Brooks Street, ( . 0. Box 812 1 Charleston, West Virginia 25323 Phone:

FAX:

(304) (304)

340-0300 340-0325

May 17,2012 Richard L. Braithwaite Rt. 4, Box 5 11A Keyser, WV 26726 Christopher L. Callas, Esq. Counsel, Pinnacle Wind, LLC Jackson Kelly PLLC PO Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322
RE:

Case No. 12-0251-E-C Richard L. Braithwaite

V.

Pinnacle Wind, LLC Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of the Staff memorandum in this matter. If you wish to respond to the enclosed Staff memorandum, you may do so in writing, within 10 days, unless directed otherwise, of this date. Your failure to respond in writing to the utilitys answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file, without further hearing or notice. If you have provided an email address, you will automatically receive notifications as documents are filed in this proceeding. The email notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the time the filing is processed. If you have not provided your email address, please send an email to caseinfo@,psc.state.wv.us and state the case number in the email subject field. You are encouraged to file an Electronic Mail Agreement which allows the Commission
to serve all orders issued in this matter via electronic notification.

You have the ability to view documents as they are filed in this case if you have email. Please visit our web site at www.psc,state.wv.us and register with our email subscription system to receive customized daily activity information in this case. The public will not be given access to your email address. If you have provided an email address you will automatically receive docket notifications as documents are filed.

SSltg Enclosure

Executive Secretary Division

FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SANDRA SQUIRE Executive Secretary JOHN AUVILLE Staff Attorney CASE NO. 12-0251-E-C RICHARD BRAITHWAITE
V.

DATE: May 17,2012

a?

201%PSI: EXEC g C I

RE:

PINNACLE WIND, LLC

In its latest filing, Pinnacle makes many arguments that Staff believes are largely irrelevant that Staff will not address in this memorandum. Staff will focus on what it believes to be the main thrust of this case, which is the fact the Pinnacle project is generating unpredicted and objectionable noise. The existence of this unpredicted and objectionable noise has been verified by the Staff Engineer in this case using the most appropriate scientific measuring methodology available, his own ears. The noise that has been verified by Staff Engineer Walker contradicts certain elements of the Commissions Order and needs to be addressed by Pinnacle before the case can be dismissed. Staff believes it is quite possible the installation of the louvers will eliminate the offending noise, but cannot b e sure until they are operational. The best way to ensure the louvers function as expected is for Pinnacle to conduct a pre and post installation noise study that verifies the impact of their installation in combination with a follow up visit from the Staff Engineer. It is standard procedure in a complaint case that once a problem is indentified, a case stays open until the utility proves it has remedied the problem. That same procedure is what Staff has recommended in this case and therefore stands by the recommendations made in the Further Joint Staff Memorandum filed on April 24,2012. One other issue Staff must address is Pinnacles argument this complaint is preventing its permanent financing from closing, thus costing Pinnacle money and adding uncertainty to the certificate process. Staff would posit that it is not this complaint that is preventing the financing fkom closing, but the unpredicted and objectionable noise generated by the project. As long as the project is producing this objectionable noise, it is highly subject to complaints both before this Commission and in Circuit Court and as long as there is still a possibility of further complaints, the future operational parameters of this project are in question and the financing will not close. Staff believes it would be a much better use of resources to allow this complaint to stay open until it is resolved.

cw
H:\ja
120251braithwaite\furthermemo.doc

If the Commissions schedule allows, the Commission itself may wish to revisit the area to listen to the noise generated by the project and to better understand the impact that noise is having on the surrounding areas.