New South Wales Parliament's General Purpose Standing Committee No 5 released this report detailing recommendations for additional standards on siting of rural wind facilities, including 2 kilometre setbacks and improved noise modeling in order to protect neighboring properties. A statement by the Chairman of the Committee, as it appears in the report, is posted below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the link(s) at the bottom of this page.

Federal district court Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a comprehensive ruling that an industrial wind energy facility in Greenbrier County, West Virginia will kill and injure endangered Indiana bats, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court concluded that “the development of wind energy can and should be encouraged, but wind turbines must be good neighbors.” This is the first federal court ruling in the country finding a wind power project in violation of federal environmental law. Judge Titus' opinion and order on this matter can be downloaded by clicking the links at the bottom of this page.

After consulting with the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service regarding the documented boundary of Camp Allegheny Battlefield, Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), drafted a letter to John Flora, attorney for Highland New Wind Development (HNWD), on November 17.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wet Virginia field office, issued these comments regarding the Pinnacle wind power project proposed for ridgelines in Mineral County, WV. The comments pertain to the Habitat Characterization and Assessment of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species for the Pinnacle Wind Farm (BHE Environmental 2009a); the Avian Risk Assessment for the Pinnacle Wind Power Project (Kerlinger 2009); and the Bat Risk Assessment: Pinnacle Wind Farm (BHE Environmental 2009b). Excerpts of the letter are provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of the page.

This impacting order by New York's Public Service Commission requires renewable energy developers to quantify and qualify whether their proposed project, if built, will displace other renewable energy and in what amounts. (Case Number 09-E-0497)

This Windaction.org presentation was given at the Indiana State Bar Association's 2009 Fall Utility Law seminar held in Michigan City, Indiana on Oct 16-17, 2009.

The Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and others submitted this pretrial brief and supporting reply briefs in their law suit opposing the Beech Ridge wind energy facility to be located in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. These briefs show that the developer, Beech Ridge Energy LLC, discovered the presence of the federally endangered Indiana Bat at the project site but withheld this information from federal and state authorities. With this information hidden from public inspection, the project was granted a siting certificate from the West Virginia Public Service Commission to construct up to 124 wind turbines, each 390 feet tall, along a twenty-three mile stretch of land on forested Allegheny Mountain ridgelines. Construction commence in early 2009 but a subsequent injunction request was filed by the plaintiffs and granted pending the outcome of this law suit. The pre-trial brief and reply briefs by renown bat experts Drs. Lynn Robbins, Michael Gannon and Thomas Kunz can be accessed by clicking on the links below. The introduction to the reply brief is also posted below. The trial is scheduled from October 21 before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

This appeal was filed by the Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury ("CCSR") in response to the August 20, 2009 final order issued by Maine's Department of Environmental Protection granting approval for Record Hill Wind LLC to construct a 22-turbine wind energy facility in Roxbury, Maine. The aggrieved parties further request a public hearing on its appeal on the grounds that credible, conflicting medical and technical information regarding the licensing criterion and it is likely that a public hearing will assist the State in understanding the evidence.