[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

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

News Watch Home

SC19090, SC19091 – FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council 

Credit:  www.pullcom.com ~~

This decision upheld the Siting Council’s authorization to a Pullman & Comley client to install wind turbine electrical generation facilities in Colebrook, Connecticut. The approval was challenged by environmental intervenors. First, the intervenors challenged whether wind turbines qualified as electric generation facilities under the Grid Resources exemption from Certificates of Need and Environmental Compatibility. The Court agreed with the Council that the Legislature intended to include all types of electric generating facilities within that exemption, not just traditional power plants. Next, the intervenors challenged the conditions that the Council attached to the approval permit. These conditions required such things as buffers, a management plan, noise controls, etc. The Supreme Court held that environmental intervenors generally do not have standing to challenge conditions which themselves do not cause pollution. Intervenors do have standing, however, to raise the fact that attaching conditions might reflect that the administrative agency never fulfilled its role to insure the project complied with its regulations. Reviewing the record, however, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Council’s approval subject to environmental conditions. The facts in this case were distinguished from an earlier Inland/Wetlands decision where that agency simply ruled that a project was approved subject to complying with all Inland/Wetland Regulations. Such a simplistic approval suggests that the agency did not first reach a conclusion whether its own regulations were being satisfied. The Court added that if the intervenors in this case felt that the attached conditions were not being complied with, they had several remedies, including: bringing a declaratory ruling petition before the Council; bringing a nuisance claim; or bringing a CEPA claim.

– FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council

Source:  www.pullcom.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 Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

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


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