Skip to main content

Some Fascinating Reading...



There is some amazing information contained in the post-hearing brief filed by County attorneys Jane Napier and Nick Selvaggio. If you are interested in the facts about how Everpower's application (the "Applicant" in the following excerpt) was vetted by the State of Ohio, read below. Follow the link for the entire brief that was filed.

"Apart from client concerns, the undersigned lack confidence in the recommendation process utilized by Staff to evaluate the Application. Specifically, the undersigned question whether the Staffs evaluation of the Application content was sufficiently thorough in order for the Staff to conclude that the criteria for certification as set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 4906.10(A) has been met.
The rationale for such position is set forth below.

During the adjudicatory hearing, the Applicant used a corporate executive to "sponsor" the Application. Through the sponsor's testimony, the Applicant sought to establish the foundational basis for the admissibility of the Application. Upon this sponsor's testimony, the Application was subsequently admitted into evidence. Multiple Staff subsequentiy testified that they relied on the information presented in the Application to form the basis for the recommendations submitted to
the Ohio Power Siting Board.

As the first large scale wind-powered electric generation facility being considered in the State of Ohio, the issues presented to the Ohio Power Siting Board are substantially unique and controversial. However, Staff testimony underscored (1) the Staffs lack of resources to independently evaluate the merits of the Application, (2) the Staffs resolve to overlook the issues raised by other intervenors, (3) the limited effort of Staff to review other information, and (4) the lack of rationale for divergence from (a) Applicant-proposed turbine manufacturer's setback recommendations, (b) in-state entity recommendations, and (c) foreign local and state entity financial assurance recommendations
."

Link to the post-hearing brief submitted by interveners Champaign County and Goshen, Rush, Salem, Union, Urbana and Wayne Townships filed by N. Selvaggio and J. Napier., attorneys for Champaign County.

Popular posts from this blog

Wind Companies as Environmentalists?

Big Wind likes to claim that they are installing massive turbines because of their interest in pro-environmental causes. But the AWEA, Big Wind's biggest lobby, tells a different story. Wind industry group opposes federal guidelines to protect birds The American Wind Energy Association Industry said it will oppose plans by a federal agency to adopt voluntary regulations on wind developers to protect birds and other wildlife. AWEA said in a release that more than 34,000 MW of potential wind power development, $68 billion in investment and 27,000 jobs are at risk due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies on golden eagles. "Those numbers are expected to grow exponentially with analysis of the full scope of the proposed guidelines," AWEA said. Two Fish and Wildlife Service documents offer guidelines for utility-scale and community-scale wind energy facilities to, according to the agency, "avoid and minimize" negative impacts to fish, wildlife, plants and their ...

In Honor of Earth Day: A Guide to Refuting Pro-Turbine Arguments

Below, you'll find an excerpt from a great blog post that deals with everything pro-turbine folks like to claim as a valid argument in favor of industrializing residential communities (as in Champaign County) with a network of 500-foot towers that will send energy (when it is produced at all) out of our county. The whole post is well worth reading. Click HERE  to go to the source and read the entire post. Blight for Naught: Wind Turbines and the Rationalized Desecration of Nature “To those devoid of imagination a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part.” – Aldo Leopold  * This mountaintop removal is praised by wind geeks who claim to hate coal mines. Wind projects don’t remove as much material but they prominently industrialize ridges. Early explorers would have seen this as an enemy gauntlet, and modern gut reactions are similar. There should be a penalty for ruining unbroken vistas. Unsettling numbers of e...

EverPower Rebuttal

A FACTUAL RESPONSE TO EVERPOWER ’S FALSE CLAIMS Julia F. Johnson – February 15, 2012 This paper responds to published claims by Everpower that local opposition to wind energy is not based on fact. When someone is trying to sell you something, the old saying “Buyer Beware” should be remembered. In the case of wind energy, this caution is important and appropriate. Because the proposed Buckeye Wind project area is so densely populated, one of the most important areas of concern is loss of property value. Jason Dagger claims there is no impact on property value and he cites a property value study from the Lawrence Berkley Lab as proof. In truth, even the author of the study, Ben Hoen, himself , criticizes the way the wind industry uses the study to mislead landowners. In Hoen’s own words: “You know we are very cautious about what happens close to the turbines. We really don’t know what’s going on there... It’s a dicey situation and complicated, but I think homes t...