Library filed under Legal
With the proposed multi-state wind energy transmission line, Grain Belt Express, held up over controversial interpretations of Missouri law, prospective developers of the project have pushed for the case to go before the state Supreme Court.
A zoning administrator acted illegally when she granted applications to a company to build turbines on agricultural land north and east of Fairbank. That’s what the Iowa Court of Appeals said in a Feb. 21 ruling.
FAIRBANK — The Iowa Court of Appeals dealt a blow Wednesday to three wind turbines built just east of Fairbank.
LePage’s spokeswoman said her office cannot comment on pending litigation. But in announcing the executive order last month, the governor said steps were necessary to protect Maine’s scenic beauty from “out-of-state interests … eager to exploit our western mountains in order to serve their political agendas.”
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.
They are asking that the Court set aside the declaratory order issued by the Respondent (Iowa Utilities Board) on Feb. 2, and that the Court declare that a facility as defined in Iowa Code 476A.1(5), with regard to wind energy projects, is the entire project that is being developed as one project, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The turbines ran for three months before one blade fell to the ground 190 feet below. Then a second blade crashed through a nearby storage building's roof, falling into a conference room. No one was hurt. The city asked the builders to remove the contraption and rebuild it. That happened. Then another blade came loose.
Oral arguments for an appeal against the approval of a wind project in Antrim were heard in the state’s Supreme Court on Thursday morning.
A Notice of Application for Judicial Review was filed by DDOWT in the Divisional Court in Toronto on Tuesday against the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change alleging the ministry has allowed companies promoting at least five large-scale wind projects to ignore new government guidelines with respect to limiting the amount of noise any residence in the area should have to tolerate.
Chinese wind turbine maker Sinovel Wind Group Co was convicted on Wednesday of U.S. charges that it stole trade secrets from AMSC, causing the Massachusetts-based company to lose more than $800 million. A federal jury in Madison, Wisconsin, found Sinovel, once AMSC’s largest customer, guilty on all charges it faced, including conspiracy, trade-secret theft and wire fraud, the U.S. Justice Department said.
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."
“If someone got a judgment that windmills contributed to some adverse health effects people suffered, I would think that would be a pretty significant ruling,” said Ross Hammersley, a Traverse City attorney with Olson, Bzdok & Howard who specializes in environmental and real estate law. Hammersley, who is not involved in the case, reviewed some of the court filings for Midwest Energy News.
Judges from Mexico’s highest court unanimously decided to grant an amparo, or injunction, to members of the Zapotec community in Juchitán on the grounds that they hadn’t been consulted or given their permission or authorization for the project to go ahead on their land.
Federal prosecutors accuse Chinese wind-turbine maker Sinovel Wind Group Co. 601558 -4.29% Ltd. of stealing the source code for software that controls wind turbines from American Superconductor Corp. AMSC 2.42% , a Massachusetts-based engineering company that once counted Sinovel as its biggest customer.
This important letter by acoustician Stephen Ambrose explains how two separate court decisions, one in Massachusetts and the other in Michigan, together provide clarity on what the minimum protective noise limits should be when siting industrial wind energy facilities. Mr. Ambrose's letter includes links to the two decisions as well as supporting background information. The content of the letter is shown below. The original can be downloaded from this page.
Judge Cornelius Moriarty has denied a motion to intervene in the case filed recently by the Green Center, a nonprofit educational institute in Hatchville that supports ecological projects, and a group of Falmouth residents. They were looking for the judge to alter his ruling and come up with a more moderate solution to the problem. The motion filed by the Green Center and denied by Judge Moriarty can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
A Hatchville-based group, seeking reconsideration of a court judgment that permanently shut down two town-owned wind turbines, does not have the standing needed to file a motion to intervene and has made its move too late, according to an attorney representing a neighbor of one of the turbines.
A federal judge recently dealt a blow to big wind development in a Tuscola County township. A subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources sued Almer Township in U.S. District Court in February alleging that the township's Board of Trustees had systematically tried to prevent the development of a wind farm.
The go-ahead comes following a decision by the Supreme Court in London to reject the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in Scotland’s application for leave to appeal in its long-running challenge to a planning decision made by Scottish Ministers in 2014.
This important decision by US District Court Judge Thomas L. Ludington addresses two arguments proffered by the wind industry. The first relates to the industry's argument that noise standards for limiting turbine noise emissions that are based on Lmax are not reasonable. The second discusses the argument that restricitve ordinances, in this case an Lmax noise limit, are de facto exclusionay zoning. Judge Ludington takes both claims on and finds the wind company's arguments are without merit. A portion of the decision is provided below. The full decision can be downloaded from this page.