Library filed under Legal
“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.
Before the Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a construction contract for a wind farm in the northeast portion of the county on Oct. 24, a lawsuit was filed against the developer and owner of the project.
Last week, The Green Center and a dozen citizens filed the motion asking to be allowed to intervene, even though the trial is over and a ruling has already been issued. In documents, they argue taxpayer interests had not been adequately protected by the town.
Big Blue River Wind Farm, LLC has volleyed the ball back to Henry County residents who claim there is no legal right for wind turbines to be set up around these parts.
The motion argues that no evidence was presented during or after the trial regarding potential remedies available to mitigate the noise from the turbines. In addition, it states that no consideration was given to the “enormous costs associated with ceasing operation of the turbines.”
The King’s Highway issue has been raised in a legal case that is a shining example of the problems between developers and opponents of wind farms, writes Michael Clifford. Who owns the King’s Highway? The question might appear redundant in this Republic, but it is the latest to be asked in the perennial struggle around wind farms in rural Ireland.
In a unanimous decision issued in mid-September, a three-judge panel reversed and remanded a September 2015 summary judgment from the Northern District Court of Oklahoma that allowed Osage Wind to conduct excavation work in order to set up 84 wind turbines across 8,400 acres without a mining permit from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or approval from the Osage Minerals Council.
Ontario’s already lost a related case on very different legal grounds. Last year an international tribunal agreed the government violated the North American Free Trade Agreement with its moratorium on wind farms, which killed a project next to the one Trillium was working on run by an American-backed company. The people of Ontario are out $28 million in damages and legal costs for that.
Editor's note: Windaction has been informed by parties in Michigan that this mediation step was ordered and completed more than a month before this article was filed by the Associated Press. No agreement was reached in mediation. Almer Township contends that a permit was denied due to NextEra's failure to meet the requirements in law. A hearing before the court was held in September and the parties are awaiting a final decision by the judge.
Franklin Circuit Court II Judge Clay Kellerman was selected last week as special judge in the civil case involving West Fork Wind LLC and the Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, in which West Fork Wind – better known as NextEra Energy Resources – is challenging the Rush County BZA’s decision on their special exception permit applications back in December 2016.
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana should not regulate statewide zoning requirements for wind turbine development, those in the industry said Thursday, despite requests from Hoosiers who favor state controls to assure consistency.
German wind developer Wpd has filed a complaint to Germany’s constitutional court against the Wind Energy at Sea Act (WindSeeG) after its far-offshore project Kaikas in the North Sea was excluded from future offshore wind tenders without compensation to the developer.