Documents filed under Legal
This lawsuit filed against Consumers Energy Company, owner of the Lake Winds Energy Park consisting of fifty-six Vestas V100 1.8 megawatt turbines with a total installed capacity of 100.8 megawatts. An excerpt of the complaint is provided below. The full complaint can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
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.
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.
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.
This important paper explains the legal challenges to implementing State-level renewable energy policies that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Background: One month after the plaintiffs purchased defendants' 133-acre Otsego County property, they learned that plans were in the works for the construction of large wind turbines on the adjacent parcel. They thereafter commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract and money damages stemming from alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of defendants in conjunction with the sale. At issue was an order of the Supreme Court denying summary judgment to the defendants. Summary judgment is when the court rules against a party without a trial) to defendants. The court upheld the denial of summary judgment. The ruling can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
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".