Articles filed under General from South Dakota
That affidavit stated Prevailing Wind Park agreed to ensure wind turbines constructed in Charles Mix County met a number of criteria related to noise, lighting, shadow flicker and ice. Among the criteria specified were that noise levels from turbines were not to exceed 43 dBA without a waiver at residences of those who weren't participating in the project and that either control systems would automatically shut down turbines or Prevailing Wind Park would do so manually when ice conditions were identified. Powers and Petrik asserted in their affidavit that those noise and ice criteria are not being met,
Incredible photos have revealed the final resting place of massive wind turbine blades that cannot be recycled, and are instead heaped up in piles in landfills. The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the repository of at least 870 discarded blades, and one of the few locations in the country that accepts the massive fiberglass objects.
The hearing was about the condition that the PUC imposed on Crowned Ridge/Next Era in the permit. They were to install low noise trailing edge blades on all turbines. They didn’t, and they got caught. They also got caught erecting towers taller than permitted, generators bigger than permitted along with a host of allegations about noise and shadow flicker violations. ...Crowned Ridge’s excuse was it was too cold, they didn’t order them early enough, as Commissioner Hanson compared it to “the dog ate my homework” excuse.
The next section states that no public notice or public hearing is required through the board of adjustment in the case of special permitted use processes. That board—when considering a project—will only investigate if the specified special use criteria are met.
Commissioner John Claggett said he was “deluged” with calls, asking why the county would accept wind turbines when the commission has not allowed wind turbines to be built in the county. He said governing bodies aren’t doing enough to hold wind energy companies and supporters accountable. “I’m getting asked, ‘We don’t have active wind farms here, why do we bring that in?'" he said.
The wind energy industry isn't immune to cyclical replacement, with turbine blades needing to be replaced after a decade or two in use. That has wind energy producers looking for places to accept the blades on their turbines that need to be replaced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Developers received state government’s approval Tuesday to construct the Dakota Range wind project in Grant and Codington counties. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission agreed to issue a construction permit.
Commissioner Hanson offered a condition, which was agreed to by both parties that there be a liaison for everyone involved. “I feel strongly that folks in Clark County be given a clear path to communicate if they have concerns during the construction or operation of the facility,” he said.
The county’s commissioners, meeting as the Board of Adjustment Tuesday, unanimously voted in opposition to a conditional use permit application for a nine-turbine wind farm in Beulah Township from Davison County Wind, LLC and its parent company Con Edison Development. That decision was made by the five-person board at the Davison County North Offices in Mitchell.