Articles from South Dakota
In the eyes of a lawyer, which is not very romantic, when a wind farm contains steel, wires, underground cabling, electrical components and concrete we have potential legal liability. Wind farm infrastructure is not owned by the landowner. It is owned by the wind farm operator. A landowner has no right to control or interfere with a wind farm. Who may be liable and to what extent is always an interesting legal question. A court calls this the allocation of liability. It is best not to become involved in a question on the allocation of liability. General liability insurance coverage is one way in which liability risks are reduced.
State commission member Chris Nelson said escrow arrangements provide financial protection in case a wind farm's owner goes bankrupt. The money would be returned to companies if it isn't needed. "It's a good bill for landowners and a good bill for developers," Nelson said.
Financial decommissioning safeguards, if in place, would have a considerable effect on the interest of local landowners, farmers, ranchers and neighbors in proposed wind farms. It is a common response to a proposed wind farm for a landowner to say, 'Oh yes they will be here today – but gone tomorrow.' If 'tomorrow' comes don't landowners, farmers, ranchers and the neighbors of a wind farm have a right to the proper and complete process of decommissioning?
That no vote came from Senator Jim Bolin (R-Canton). “Wind power is a sensitive subject in southern Lincoln County,” Bolin said. “The subject has many concerns. ...I am not against wind energy, but it is a very intense, localized issue in my district.”
Special thanks to Attorney David Ganje for contributing this informative essay on wind energy leases.
A public meeting was held on Monday, December 10, 2018, at the Martin Activity Center to discuss plans for Pass Creek Wind, a utility-scale wind energy project planned for Bennett County north of Martin. Approximately 35 people attended the meeting including Bennett County Commissioners, local ranchers and members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
James Madson, the project development manager, said there still isn't a purchaser for the electricity. ...The commission Thursday also approved a transmission line of 230-kilovolt capacity that would cross 34 miles of Grant and Codington counties and connect two 300-megawatt projects to Otter Tail Power's Big Stone South sub-station.
Both the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Department of Health are playing Russian Roulette with the health of their constituents if projects permitted in 2018 use ten year old data for guidelines on safety and quality of life. Inadequate protection by policy makers will result in jeopardized public health and exorbitant legal expenses to defend inadequate guidelines based on outdated data.
The state Public Utilities Commission ruled Friday that opponents could subpoena information from county governments and witnesses could testify by telephone or videoconference when a wind-farm project comes up for a permit hearing next month.
We pay for these projects through taxes and increased utility rates for power we don’t need or use. People won’t know what hit them until the towers are built. That’s too late. These sacrifice quality of life, health, safety and residential property values for the greed of a few.
The most powerful wind turbines ever seen in the state could soon be built in southwest Minnesota. The state needs to approve the proposed wind farm. The industry is ramping up turbine size in the name of efficiency, but the skyscraper-sized machines are also attracting more public opposition.
Dakota Range Wind I and II will initially place towers in Codington and Grant Counties. A followup project would place more towers into Grant and also into Roberts County. Attorney for the interveners is John Wiles of the Watertown firm Wiles & Rylance.
The commissioners’ approval of the three motions Tuesday didn’t mean they were approving the wind farm at this time. Instead, they decided the project was in compliance with the county zoning ordinance, which takes the process to the next level. The commissioners were split in their votes.
The knotty issue of a haul road agreement between Apex Energy and Codington County got a bit untangled at Tuesday’s county commission meeting. The tentative agreement is designed to allow work to proceed on the Dakota Range I and II Wind Project and protect the county against potential road degradation during the expected 30-year lifespan of the project.
Ordinances governing wind energy systems, which are to be developed within a county, have a wide ranging effect on the local geography and economy. Local participation in ordinance drafting is a great advantage of county lawmaking. This leaves an opportunity for county commissioners to make the public, its local residents, “partners” in this lawmaking. There should be little uncertainty in ordinance language, it should be transparent, and the end product should favor open public participation in wind farm applications.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) held a public hearing on the wind farm last month in Avon, attended by about 200 people. The four-hour meeting generated testimony from both sides for the controversial project. ...The PUC expects to make a final decision on Prevailing Wind by October.
Minor damage to a Codington County road has one citizen concerned about what will happen when construction on wind towers begins in full.
The attempt by a London, England, company to build a wind farm in Yellow Medicine County is meeting resistance from a small community just across the South Dakota border ...The request is that RES and the MPUC respect and honor the ordinance that requires wind tower setbacks to be at least 3 miles away from the water.
A proposed wind farm expansion in Campbell County has prompted local officials to consider adopting temporary planning and zoning controls. A “large delegation” of residents voiced their concerns over the proposed 39-turbine expansion of the existing 55-turbine wind farm owned by ConEdison, according to the July 6 Campbell County Commission meeting minutes.
State Rep. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, was at the meeting to explain the options the county has. ..."There was a substantial amount of residents from Campbell County who were there because they were concerned about what little information they had about what was going on" Gosch said.