Articles filed under Legal
TORONTO — The Ontario NDP believes there is blood in the water after the cancellation of the Nation Rise Wind Farm, and it could become the Ford Government’s version of the gas plant scandal that scarred the former Liberal government.
In its trial brief, NexGen sets out nine points that it will try to prove. Beyond the manufacturing issues and the hydraulic power issue, NexGen claims that the three turbines the company purchased from Elecon Engineering and Reflecting Blue Technologies are not fit to produce electricity, that they do not have a 20-year lifespan, and that the turbines were not certified with India’s Centre for Wind Energy Technology, which regulates wind turbines in India, where the turbine installed at CMS was built.
“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.”
Public Utilities Commission Chairman Gary Hanson wasn’t impressed with NextEra’s management of the project and failure to explain certain aspects of the project during previous hearings. “The compliance with the permit is foundation. A name plate, sound and flicker — these are not new to the process,” Hanson said. "At the very least this needs to be deferred until we get some answers.” Hanson said if the decisions isn’t deferred, his other option would be to deny the waiver.
I want to compliment Bob Mercer on fully adopting Internet journalism. His December 20 report on Crowned Ridge Wind’s interesting urgent request to the Public Utilities Commission for a waiver of operating conditions demonstrates perfectly how to integrate hyperlinks into good reporting.
The complaint argues, in part, that the county zoning ordinance presently allows wind turbines as a permitted use in the I-C (industrial/commercial) and C-M (conservation/mining) districts. As such, the county commissioners “cannot declare the zoning ordinance substantively invalid regarding wind turbines,” because their use is provided for in the county zoning ordinance, according to the complaint.
My advice: Do not sign an easement that would affect the legacy of your land and never sign anything without an attorney present. Many Iowa attorneys are held on retainer by an energy company; be sure yours is not. Easement law is not common knowledge in Iowa as it is in the West, where landowners have dealt with water or mineral rights for generations. Get an attorney who understands easement law.
The request for judicial review is asking the court to find that Big Blue River Wind Farm “has been prejudiced” and send the case back to the BZA “to take official action on the Application and make findings of fact tied to the evidence and testimony presented at the Hearing and/or to grant Big Blue River’s Application.”
After concluding its turbines would harm local bat populations, Environment Minister Jeff Yurek revoked the Nation Rise Wind Farm’s permit on Dec. 4. That was just three months before they were to begin generating electricity: 16 of the planned 29 turbines were fully or partially built.
The court ruling appeared to give the energy company the right to use eminent domain to purchase land from property owners even though it's a private, for-profit company. Something Missouri Representative Sheila Solon (R-District 9) said is an overreach of government.
A state appeals court Tuesday backed state utility regulators over rural landowners and the Missouri Farm Bureau in a long-running case over a wind power transmission line running across the northern part of the state.
EDP Renewables Canada Inc. is the company responsible for building the wind farms and according to a release from the company the decision comes as a surprise and the company is assessing all avenues of legal action.
The county moved to kill a wind farm project years after agreeing to support it by “fast-tracking” a zoning ordinance and changing the rules for building permits and tax incentives, the project’s developers claim in a federal lawsuit.
On Friday, Mr Justice Simons said the developer was precluded by law from re-agitating the argument that the as built turbines are authorised by a 2011 planning permission. The developer had a full opportunity to make its case before the board and it did not challenge the decision they were not exempt under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, he said. The developer could not, therefore, reopen the board’s findings in the High Court proceedings.
Critics of the rule change worry that granting older projects the credits -- certificates known as CELs -- will reduce their value and undermine clean energy investment. While the appeals court decision technically only guarantees the value of the credits for the company that requested the initial injunction, Zuma Energia subsidiary Santa Maria 1, lower courts are likely to follow suit.
The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling that a district council acted unlawfully when, in granting planning permission for a wind turbine, it took into account a proposed donation to a local community fund. ..."they were proffered as a general inducement to the Council to grant planning permission and constituted a method of seeking to buy the permission sought, in breach of the principle that planning permission cannot be bought or sold."
Keep the North Shore Country announced it gave a 40-day notice to the wind farm, Na Pua Makani, and its owner, the AES Corp. The group alleges the project failed to obtain an environmental review after it added five additional parcels of land to its plans. Those parcels were not part of the project’s 2016 environmental impact statement, the group said in a news release.
The petition claims that the Wheatland Township Planning Commission’s vote on Ordinance 16.25 took place after the meeting had been adjourned, in violation of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. It also alleges a conflict of interest among several Board members, who did not recuse themselves during a later, July 12, 2018 vote to adopt the ordinance.
The wind farm was regarded as one of the largest in the EU when a landslide occurred during its construction in October 2003 by an ESB subsidiary, Hibernian Wind Power. At the time, large areas of forest and peat up to a depth of 5.5 metres on the top of the Cashlaundrumlahan mountain had been removed, causing the 2km-long “environmentally devastating” slide. Fish were killed and waterways polluted when half a million tonnes of peat and debris was displaced.
The lawsuit is the second one filed over the project. In July, a Massachusetts woman who owns property near the proposed wind farm filed suit against the county and EDF Renewables over the granting of right of way for the company to run underground electrical cables on her land. Saline County residents also have alleged a number of improprieties in the extension of the conditional use permit, including open-meetings violations and conflicts of interest.