Articles filed under Legal from USA
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The Denver Federal Appeals court, in a unanimous decision overturned a lower court ruling and said Enel Green, the owner of Osage Wind, had to obtain a mining permit in the construction of its wind farm in western Osage County, land controlled by the Osage Nation.
Commission lawyer Kristin Edwards said the docket is a matter of "first impression" for wind farms regarding such requirements as setback distances and noise levels. She said it could set precedent for future wind permits anywhere in South Dakota.
In December, the county commissioner overturned a recommendation by the Sumner County Planning Commission to deny a permit. The commission denied the permit by a 5-3 vote two weeks earlier ...However, Mott cited in a 20-page ruling issued on Sept. 21, that the Commissioners lacked the jurisdiction to approve such a permit and overturn the Planning Commision.