“The New Jersey and Maryland programs tie guaranteed payments under state law to the wholesale rate under the PJM auction and to the generators’ participating in and clearing the PJM auction,” the brief stated. “State-selected generators can then bid into the auction market at a price that does not accurately reflect their costs, thereby disrupting the auction’s price signals that are designed to incentivize new generation.” ...The cases are Hughes et al. v. PPL EnergyPlus LLC et al., case number 14-614 and CPV Maryland LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus LLC et al., case number 14-623, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Library filed under Legal from New Jersey
While Fishermen’s Energy has one more chance to appeal – to the U.S. Supreme Court — company officials said they do not plan to take that route. Instead, they have changed some of the details of their project to address the BPU’s concerns, including a change in the manufacturer of the turbines that will be used from XEMC to Siemens.
The Cape May-based company has been at odds for years with the state Board of Public Utilities over its plan to build a $200 million demonstration-scale wind farm off the coast of Atlantic City. The state Supreme Court this week declined to hear the company’s appeal of the BPU’s latest rejection of the project.
Pro-solar New Jersey environmental groups have been sharply critical of the plan. They contend that green energy shouldn't come at the expense of a rich forest ecosystem, and point to the theme park's nearly 100-acre parking area as a better location for the facility.
Union Beach will ask the state Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that restrains the borough from enforcing an ordinance regulating the construction of wind turbines.
A New Jersey company is appealing the state's rejection of its plan to build a wind farm off the coast of Atlantic City. Fishermen's Energy filed an appeal Monday with the state Board of Public Utilities, saying the agency erred when it rejected the plan last month.
Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel, sought the restraining order in a broader Chancery Court lawsuit. He filed the suit last year challenging construction of the wind turbine on land that had been set aside for open space and the process in which it was approved and funded.
This case, before the New Jersey Superior Court, represents one of the first instances of a nuisance case brought against an operating wind turbine due to noise. The court found that the defendants' wind turbine constituted an "actionable nuisance".