Library filed under Legal from Maryland
A local couple have remained busy in their effort to derail a plan to construct wind turbines on Dan’s Mountain. Harwood subdivision residents Darlene and William Park, with the support of numerous neighbors, have been engaged in a legal battle against Dan’s Mountain Wind Force LLC. Their efforts have led to the project being stalled as they battle it in two courts.
“Skipjack’s duty to reach out to stakeholders was not contingent on the stakeholders’ enthusiasm for the project,” according to the ruling. “Ocean City is an important stakeholder whose economy is vital to the state. Nor should Ocean City be punished for its lawful advocacy of a bill that would have required offshore wind turbines to be located at least 26 miles from shore.” As a result, the Public Service Commission ordered Ørsted to engage with its stakeholders more, including Ocean City, and provide updates every six months on the company's efforts.
ANCHOR has vowed to carry the fight against the wind turbines to Circuit Court, where it has already filed a case against the project. ANCHOR opposes the project, saying the wind turbines create noise pollution, obstruct views and have a negative impact on home values. “We are not giving up,” said Darlene Park, ANCHOR president.
The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) evidentiary hearing on the proposed change in the size of the turbines for one offshore wind farm began in earnest on Thursday with both sides firing salvos in their opening remarks.
On Saturday, hundreds of homeowners, residents, and Ocean City visitors packed into the Ocean City Convention Center to make their voices heard about 800-foot offshore wind turbines potentially being built along the resort town’s shoreline.
“The massive increase in the turbine size would profoundly change the Ocean City viewscape and create serious economic, natural and environmental harm to Ocean City and the surrounding environs,” the petition reads. “No other party in this matter can adequately represent Ocean City’s interests or express the impact that the use of supersized turbines will have on its viewscape and economy. Ocean City can provide relevant and material information concerning issues relative to the proceeding.”
Final ruling on the construction of 17 turbines on Dan's Mountain expected Oct. 16
A wind-power developer hoping to place 17 turbines atop Dan's Mountain is appealing an administrative judge's order that effectively killed the project.
In a draft order, a Public Utility Law Judge has recommended that the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) deny a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) permit for the construction of the Dan's Mountain Wind Farm.
On January 14, 2016, Dan's Mountain Wind Force LLC filed an application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the Maryland PSC to construct a 59.9 megawatt wind energy facility in Allegany County Maryland. The application to the PSC came after the company could not obtain a permit though the County's permitting process and after they asked for and received an exemption from the state for a CPCN back in 2008. Dan's Mountain returned to the PSC in an effort to go around the County's denials. Following an adjudicative hearing, this order was issued by the PSC denying the project. The Findings and Conclusions by Terry J. Romine, the Chief Public Utility Law Judge for the Maryland PSC, can be found below. The full order can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
Public Utility Law Judge Dennis H. Sober of the Maryland Public Service Commission, has denied a permit for Apex Clean Energy, Inc to construct the Mills Branch Solar project proposed for Kent County Maryland. The project was expected to have a nameplate capacity of 60 MW spread across 330 acres of Maryland farmland. The project was opposed by the Kent County board of Commissioners and residents in the area. Apex previously tried to site a wind energy facility in the same area on 5,000 acres but opposition to the turbines forced the company to change from wind to solar. A portion of Judge Sober's decision is provided below. The full decision can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
The project was blocked by land-use restrictions that the developer now aims to override by convincing regulators that the wind farm is a public necessity.
A judge with the Maryland Public Service Commission denied a motion by Allegany County on Tuesday that sought to dismiss an ongoing effort by Dan's Mountain Wind Force LLC to secure PSC support to build a wind farm on Dan's Mountain.
CUMBERLAND — Allegany County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Finan has upheld the county's denial of a 17-turbine wind farm project on Dan’s Mountain, according to The Associated Press.
Allegany County commissioners have filed a motion with the Maryland Public Service Commission to dismiss a Dan’s Mountain Wind Force request for a required certificate for a 17-turbine wind farm project on Dan’s Mountain.
“The New Jersey and Maryland programs tie guaranteed payments under state law to the wholesale rate under the PJM auction and to the generators’ participating in and clearing the PJM auction,” the brief stated. “State-selected generators can then bid into the auction market at a price that does not accurately reflect their costs, thereby disrupting the auction’s price signals that are designed to incentivize new generation.” ...The cases are Hughes et al. v. PPL EnergyPlus LLC et al., case number 14-614 and CPV Maryland LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus LLC et al., case number 14-623, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The 750-kilowatt wind turbine will be built at the end of Dixon Street next to the sewer plant, but the adjacent properties are necessary for its operation by creating a safety buffer around it, city officials have said.
The project was hinging on the decommissioning of the Grantsville VOR/DME system, which drew opposition from Ed Kelley, manager of the Garrett County Airport, and the Maryland Aviation Administration. The Grants-ville VOR/DME system will be decommissioned, according to Maisano.
The provision of the bill that was deemed unconstitutional deals with an adjoining property owner's consent to a variance for a wind turbine setback requirement, according to the letter. ...By requiring the consent of all adjoining property owners prior to applying for the variance, the bill has given neighboring property owners the power to determine whether or not a variance from setback requirements for wind turbines would be detrimental to the public health and welfare.