[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Ohio high court gets turbine dispute  

Credit:  By Matt Sanctis, Staff Writer, Springfield News-Sun, www.springfieldnewssun.com 21 September 2011 ~~

URBANA – Justices for the state’s highest court spent about an hour Wednesday sifting through details of a legal dispute over a plan to build more than 50 wind turbines in Champaign County.

The Buckeye Wind Project, approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board last year, would allow New York-based Everpower Wind Holdings to construct 53 turbines throughout the county. However, county officials, as well as Union Neighbors United, a group of residents opposed to the project, filed appeals to the OPSB’s decision.

Justices from the Ohio Supreme Court raised numerous questions about the project, including how much noise the turbines would produce and whether $5,000 set aside for each turbine was adequate to cover the costs of decommissioning once the project ends.

Although they have neither supported or opposed the project, attorneys for the county have argued that although the OPSB required Buckeye to provide $5,000 per turbine for decommissioning, no evidence was presented to show how the OPSB settled on that amount.

Justices also asked whether the noise produced by the turbines would be disruptive to nearby residents. Jack Van Kley, an attorney representing UNU, described noise from the turbines as about as loud as a normal conversation between two people. But he said it is disruptive, and can penetrate walls.

“The important thing about turbine noise in regard to its level is it’s very intrusive,” Van Kley said.

Van Kley argued that to entirely eliminate noise as a concern, the turbines would have to be set at least 1.25 miles from homes of residents not participating in the project.

But Howard Petricoff, an attorney representing Buckeye Wind, said the turbines are only viable in areas with adequate wind, and the standards suggested by UNU would make the project impossible.

“Where in Ohio are you going to make 2½ miles with no one living there?” Petricoff said.

Attorneys representing the project also said while some residents will hear the turbines, it will be softer than the sound of a typical conversation.

Jane Napier, an assistant Champaign County prosecutor, was unable to attend the hearing because she was delayed in traffic. However, Nick Selvaggio, Champaign County prosecutor, said he believed the county’s arguments were addressed during the hearing.

“Fortunately, the county and township position is well-articulated in documents filed with the court,” Selvaggio said. “Today’s hearing would have certainly provided a chance for us to emphasize certain points contained in our briefs, but we are encouraged that the justices addressed our arguments in questions to opposing counsel.”

The Buckeye Wind Project will be one of the earliest large-scale projects in Ohio, and future projects could be affected by the court’s decisions in the case.

Van Kley said it is not clear how long it will take the Supreme Court to reach a decision, but it will likely take several months.

The court has several options, including returning the case to PUCO, affirming the PUCO’s previous decisions, or asking PUCO to change or add specific recommendations to the project.

Source:  By Matt Sanctis, Staff Writer, Springfield News-Sun, www.springfieldnewssun.com 21 September 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.