Library filed under Legal
Britain's biggest onshore wind farm, in North Devon, could be operating well above permitted noise levels in every location where readings were taken, a new report claims.
A husband and wife seeking up to £2.5m ($4m) damages over turbine noise from a UK wind farm have ended their legal action after reaching a confidential settlement. Jane and Julian Davis had claimed an “unbearable hum” from the eight-turbine facility drove them out of their farmhouse in Lincolnshire, England, after turning their lives into a “nightmare”.
The Liberal government slapped a moratorium on all offshore projects in February, 2011 ...While dozens of projects were affected, Windstream says its Wolfe Island development is exceptional: Unlike most other projects, it holds a renewable power contract, called a feed-in tariff contract or FIT, from the Ontario Power Authority.
The Manitoulin Coalition for Safe Energy Alternatives (MCSEA) has announced it has filed an appeal against the Ministry of Environment's (MOE) Renewable Energy Approval that was granted last month to Northland Power's (NPI) McLean's Mountain wind farm project.
Not long after the five council members were sworn in by state, the members retreated into a 15-minute executive session. ...After returning, they voted unanimously to authorize Town Solicitor Peter Ruggerio to file an appeal of the Zoning Board of Review's decision last week allowing the [turbine] plan to go forward.
Corruption is defined as moral decay, and that is precisely what we are witnessing here. The fear that Denmark could lose jobs and the near religious obsession with wind power has made politicians deaf and blind to objections to wind as a source of energy, and led them to take part in the industry's fraud. The environmental and human impacts of what they are doing appear to have no effect on them.
On October 5, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice delivered its decision with respect to Trillium Power Wind Corporation v. Ontario (Natural Resources) by striking out the action brought by TPWC against the Ontario government seeking $2.5 billion in damages in relation to the province's February 2011 moratorium on offshore wind farms.
This complaint filed in the New York Supreme Court details the specific impacts claimed by each plaintiff in regard to Iberdrola's Hardscrabble wind enegry facility, a 74 megawatt power project that went on line in early 2011. The project is located in Herkimer County, NY. The complaint includes a loss of enjoyment of outside activities on their land, and inability to open windows due to noise; some include loss of income due to noise (including as a voice teacher), and some note behavior changes in domestic and wild animals (one notes that bear, deer, turkeys, and grouse no longer frequent his land). No specific damage amount is requested.
On October 5, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck out an action brought by Trillium Power Wind Corporation (Trillium) against the Ontario government seeking $2.5 billion in damages occasioned by Ontario's February 2011 moratorium on offshore wind farms.
This useful analysis examines many of the key issues raised before the Courts in the United Kingdom regarding wind turbine noise nuisance cases. An excerpt of the paper is provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
In his appeal, Mr. Melone referred to Cape Wind’s “well-documented and specific and substantial alteration of the direct viewscape from Melone’s property” and said the project would negatively impact the view on Nantucket Sound from his home and reduce the property’s value.
Contract signed between Cape Wind and NSTAR, a Massachusetts-based utility.
The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld an order issued by the state’s Power Siting Board approving the application of Buckeye Wind LLC to construct and operate a large-scale “wind farm” in Champaign County. The court’s 4-3 opinion authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger includes dissenting opinions by two justices. The dissenting opinions provide important insight into the problems with the State's approval of the project. Those opinions are provided below. The full order can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
State Supreme Court Justice Patrick NeMoyer ruled in favor of property owner Robert White, who said the planned wind turbine was too close to his hunting cabin off Bantam Road. The decision nullifies the special use permit and site plan approvals for tower T-28. Judge NeMoyer ruled the planned turbine was improperly sited within 1,320 feet of White’s cabin. He also dismissed Stony Creek LLC’s counterclaim that the cabin is not a dwelling. The decision issued by the judge can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
This 18-page opinion and order issued by a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel upheld county Judge Charles M. Miller's ruling that the zoning permit issued to Broad Mountain Development Co. LLC was correctly revoked by Butler Township. Broad Mountain sought permission to construct 20-28 wind turbines in the township. The panel found the developer did not have the right to the permit because wind turbines were not allowed in a Woodland-Conservation zoning district in the township. In addition, the panel ruled that the citizens who opposed the building of the windmills filed a timely appeal of Broad Mountain's original permit, and the company did not acquire a vested right to the permit, according to the opinion written by Judge P. Kevin Brobson.
The Appeal Court threw out a legal challenge mounted by Rebecca and Brian Barnes against the six-turbine Armistead farm at Old Hutton. The pair claimed it would blight the landscape, cause a noise nuisance and put their three children at risk.
This important paper explains the legal challenges to implementing State-level renewable energy policies that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
A French court has ordered one of the country's leading developers and owner-operators of wind power to remove four turbines from a 17.85MW facility in south-west France, because they cause "exceptional neighbourhood disturbance."
This important case before le tribunal de Montpellier has resulted in a decision ordering La Compagnie du Vent to dismantle 4 of the 21-turbines sited near Névian, France. The judge also awarded damages of €500,000 to the family which brought the case to compensate for the nuisance caused and the estimated loss in value of their property, which is situated 650 meters from the nearest turbine. A rough translation of the ruling is provided below. The full ruling, in French, can be accessed by clicking the link(s) on this page.
This useful paper examines the status of nuisance cases filed against wind energy projects through to the year 2009. Many more thousands of wind turbines have been sited since this paper was published and hundreds of lawsuits filed. This paper provides a helpful understanding of US nuisance law.