Articles filed under Legal from Indiana
It’s hard saying whether the West Fork Wind project is still a go. One thing’s for certain: the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has wiped a request from West Fork Wind off of its agenda.
“The commencement of construction is prohibited without a [wind energy conversion system] permit, constitutes illegal work, and amounts to a material breach of the parties’ agreements,” the county stated. “[Sugar Creek Wind] actively concealed this work from the Commissioners.”
The request for judicial review is asking the court to find that Big Blue River Wind Farm “has been prejudiced” and send the case back to the BZA “to take official action on the Application and make findings of fact tied to the evidence and testimony presented at the Hearing and/or to grant Big Blue River’s Application.”
The county moved to kill a wind farm project years after agreeing to support it by “fast-tracking” a zoning ordinance and changing the rules for building permits and tax incentives, the project’s developers claim in a federal lawsuit.
Basically, EDP is challenging the validity of Murdock Township's zoning, arguing that the Douglas County wind regulations that have been in place for some time should supersede those of the township. Murdock Township responded to the lawsuit with motions asking the court to dismiss the EDP complaints, and Thursday, Judge Gary A. Webber denied some of the motions, but not all of them.
On Aug. 16, West Fork and the Consumer Counselor office jointly asked the IURC to delay the hearing again, until April 30, 2019. West Fork said it will not have all of the requested data until after the end of this year.
A lawsuit alleging Miami County’s wind-energy ordinance is unconstitutional is set to be decided by a special judge after all the county’s judges recused themselves from the suit. ...The suit argues the wind ordinance violates both the U.S. and Indiana constitutions by restricting land rights.
The company planning to build a wind farm in part of Fayette County is asking the state not to regulate it as an electric utility. Since 2006, at least eight other wind farms have received the treatment as West Fork Wind wants.
The county wind-farm statute requires a minimum setback of 1,000 feet from residential properties and bars property owners from building a residential structure within the setback area. That means even landowners who aren’t participating in the project could not build a residential building, or add onto their current home, if it’s within 1,000 feet of a wind turbine.
The complaint refers to Cass County's wind energy conversion systems ordinance, which requires wind turbines to be at least 1,000 feet from homes. That means no homes can be constructed within 1,000 feet of wind turbines, which the complaint states "authorizes the taking of private property without compensation being paid."
Big Blue River Wind Farm, LLC has volleyed the ball back to Henry County residents who claim there is no legal right for wind turbines to be set up around these parts.
Franklin Circuit Court II Judge Clay Kellerman was selected last week as special judge in the civil case involving West Fork Wind LLC and the Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, in which West Fork Wind – better known as NextEra Energy Resources – is challenging the Rush County BZA’s decision on their special exception permit applications back in December 2016.
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana should not regulate statewide zoning requirements for wind turbine development, those in the industry said Thursday, despite requests from Hoosiers who favor state controls to assure consistency.
As of this writing, local wind turbine projects seem to have run their course with local decision-makers. A lawsuit is still working its way through the system to clarify whether or not those boards ever had authority to give a green light to the power producers in the first place.
The state’s highest court ruled May 25 to deny a request from Flat Rock Wind, LLC. – also known as Apex Clean Energy – to hear the case of the company’s appeal of the decision, made earlier this year by the Indiana Court of Appeals, upholding a Rush County judge’s decision that the Rush County Area Board of Zoning Appeals was within its right to enact a 2,300-foot setback distance for industrial wind turbines in the proposed Flat Rock Wind Farm.
“After review of the documentation received, the appearance of procedural errors is present, while the question of good governance is also raised,” Elmore said. “The public deserves to be aware of a some questionable emails, concerning appointed or elected officials using the Planning Commission as a liaison for their personal business.”
West Fork Wind LLC, also known as NextEra Energy Resources, last month filed a civil action in Rush Superior Court requesting a judicial review of the Rush County BZA’s decision, in December 2016, regarding NextEra’s special exception permit application for the construction of 22 industrial wind turbines within the county, as part of the West Fork Wind Energy Center project. The project is slated to span Rush, Fayette and Henry counties.
The Indiana Court of Appeals Tuesday morning issued its opinion on the case involving Flat Rock Wind, LLC. – also known as Apex Clean Energy – and the Rush County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, with that opinion upholding the decision back in July 2015 to enact a 2,300-foot setback distance, from non-participating property lines, on Apex’s special exception permits for construction of industrial wind turbines as part of the proposed wind project which is slated to span both Rush and Henry counties.
The fate of two proposed wind projects, at least in Rush County – the Flat Rock Wind Project led by Apex Clean Energy, and the West Fork Wind Energy Center, led by NextEra Energy Resources – could very well be determined in the next month, beginning this very week.
The parties’ contract anticipated who is liable when transmission facilities are not available. “Duke is to pay for power not taken,” Easterbrook wrote. “Duke could build its own transmission lines or buy extra capacity from NIPSCO [a grid owner] or some other firm.”