LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind farm litigants square off in Wyoming County 

Credit:  BY MICHAEL WINTERMUTE | The Scranton Times-Tribune | August 6, 2013 | thetimes-tribune.com ~~

A hearing was held Monday in a lawsuit over $56 million of contract work allegedly not paid for as the Mehoopany Wind Farm was completed in 2012.

Attorney Doug Kilday, representing RES Americas – the company responsible for getting 88 windmills in the ground – told Wyoming County President Judge Russell Shurtleff that his firm worked to get the wind farm completed by Dec. 31, 2013, when federal tax credits were due to expire.

RES Americas is suing Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC which owns the property on which the farm was built and its partner, BP Wind Energy.

The hearing was held to determine if the lawsuit falls under the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania or Texas, because of a coinciding suit filed by BP Wind Energy and MWE in Texas.

RES filed a summons on April 16 in the Wyoming County Court, according to a timeline presented by both sides. BP Wind Energy and MWE then filed a formal complaint in Texas against RES for more than $32 million in damages on May 3.

On May 8, RES filed its lawsuit in Wyoming County.

Judge Shurtleff said the next step in the hearings, which lasted about 90 minutes Monday, will be to determine which case will receive the benefit of first filing. That will then determine where the hearings will be conducted.

Judge Shurtleff notified all parties that they would have no more than 10 days to file a reply brief, which would reinstate the arguments of all parties while allowing any new evidence to be presented.

Furthermore, Judge Shurtleff said he would examine proof of filing for all parties to resolve the issue of who is responsible for first filing of the suit.

Source:  BY MICHAEL WINTERMUTE | The Scranton Times-Tribune | August 6, 2013 | thetimes-tribune.com

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 educational 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 via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky