Articles filed under Legal
Friends of the Columbia Gorge said in a statement that the ruling is likely to affect two projects: a wind farm along the Deschutes River and a natural gas-powered electrical generating plant in Umatilla County, both of which the group says benefited from the 2017 rule change the court now says was improper. "As a result of today's ruling, the permission to build two specific projects has now expired," Friends said.
A pre-trial hearing concerning a civil lawsuit against Saline County and seven wind farm entities was held Jan. 15 at the Gage County courthouse in Beatrice.
“The commencement of construction is prohibited without a [wind energy conversion system] permit, constitutes illegal work, and amounts to a material breach of the parties’ agreements,” the county stated. “[Sugar Creek Wind] actively concealed this work from the Commissioners.”
Nathan Baker, staff attorney for Friends of the Columbia Gorge, said that his group's primary concern was that the way the rules were adopted shut out the public and made it difficult for citizens to participate. "That's never a good thing," he said. "There needs to be transparency and an open public process."
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.
Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources dropped its lawsuit against the Clinton County Commission on Friday, one business day before trial. ...Meanwhile, the company asked a judge to immediately rule in a lawsuit the company filed in 2017 against Washington Township, one of nine small jurisdictions in DeKalb County, just north of Clinton County.
The dismissal of the case means the county ordinance will remain in effect and a wind farm cannot be constructed. Wright said the company had no comment on the dismissal. Shaw said that his clients, from the beginning of public hearings on the issue, laid out a legal framework for their case for the ordinance.
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.
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.