| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Lightship application can’t ‘proceed’
Credit: Letter: Lightship application can't 'proceed' | Berkshire Eagle | 03/06/2014 www.berkshireeagle.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Does it make sense to anyone that the industrial wind project is “proceeding” in Peru?
The application was submitted in September 2013 by Lightship Energy LLC, a company that was dissolved and thus not legally operating in Massachusetts. Their involuntary dissolution dating back to June 2013 is and was public information. For months citizens called the Secretary of the Commonwealth (SOC), only to find out that the SOC doesn’t “get involved” without a lawsuit. Why should the public have to spend money exposing publicly documented scofflaws?
Lightship Energy LLC has no track record; during the five years since it formed an LLC (February 2009) all it has done is receive state grants and public assistance for this project even though it was not in good standing with the state. Lightship Energy LLC never even filed a basic annual report until notice of its dissolution was published in a letter to The Berkshire Eagle on Feb. 19, 2014 (which was well after reporters started investigating this). Is this incompetence, or simply a disregard for basic rules? Lightship Energy LLC suddenly produced its reports all in one day, coincidentally later in the day on Feb. 19.
So what’s next? Unfortunately town officials and citizens have spent a lot of time on this, and they can never get that back. But should public money be repaid to the commonwealth? What about thousands of dollars citizens spent hiring experts to review this project? Is there any recourse? Not surprisingly, there are also many inaccuracies and insufficiencies with its application, and some of these have been published in the Peru Free Press, available at www.garnethillwind.com. The entire application, and all the requested waivers and variances, can be seen here as well.
The only reasonable and ethical way forward is that this application submitted in September should be withdrawn, or if not, rejected by the town as is. A new submission of an accurate and complete application by a legally operating company would seem to be a basic prerequisite for “proceeding.”
SUSAN MASINO
Peru
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 |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=62014 ]
