As you read the points below, consider yourself being an individual who is currently suffering at the hands of BigWind. It is truly unbelievable that a governmental board is permitted to do what is stated below. Union Neighbors United has filed its appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court and there are ten highlight points contested. The ten points are:
1. The Boards acts unreasonably by finding a wind power facility serves the public interest, convenience and necessity, where the only basis for its finding is an unconstitutional statute;
2. The OPSB’s Revocations of Subpoenas for evidence pertinent to safety threats from a wind utility abuse the Board’s discretion and violate the subpoenaing Party’s discovery rights;
3. The OPSB abuses its discretion when it denies a party the opportunity to cross-examine a witness about facts that the Board’s Order and witnesses for both sides reveal to be relevant;
4. Although hearsay evidence is permitted in Administrative hearings, the discretion to admit and consider hearsay about blade throw threats may not be exercised in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner;
5. A wind utility certificate that allows wind turbines to be sited too close to neighboring homes, land, and public roads that citizens, their property, and passing motorists are at risk of death. Physical injury, or property damage from propelled blades or fires is unreasonable and does not represent the minimum adverse environmental impact;
a. Today’s technology has been proven insufficient to prevent the manufacturing defects, lightning strikes, poor maintenance, wind shear, and operator error that detach and hurl blades from turbine towers;
b. The wind industry’s blade safety record is far worse than the accident rate allowed by government standards for its competitors in energy production, so setbacks are essential to isolate the public from flying blade parts;
c. The available data about blade throw demonstrate the need for 1640 foot setbacks to protect neighbor’s homes and lands and 1,000 foot setbacks to protect motorists on public roads from death, physical injury or property damage from blade throw and fires;
6. The OPSB decision to issue a certificate to a wind energy utility authorizing noise that will cause discomfort, annoyance, sleep deprivation and health damage among the utility’s neighbors is unreasonable and violates the Board’s duty to approve only utilities that cause the minimum adverse impact;
a. The 44 dBA in the night time limit for Buckeye II will expose nonparticipating homes to noise levels louder than the 40 dBA ceiling the Board adopted in Buckeye I;
b. A new sound source should not be allowed to raise the neighborhood’s night time or daytime noise levels by more than 5 dBA above the L90 background level;
c. Because turbines noise levels above 35 dBA cause sleep disturbance and serious annoyance, and because night time noise above 40 dBA causes health damage, the Board acted unreasonable by agreeing to Champaign Wind’s request for night time noise limits of 44dBA;
d. Board’s 44dBA night time limit is inconsistent with a wind turbine siting guide prepared by Champaign Wind’s consultant for the state of Minnesota;
7. Wind utility certificates issued by the OPSB must contain noise limits that protect a neighbor’s use of their entire property not just their homes;
8. The OPSB acts unlawfully and unreasonably where it quashes a party’s subpoena seeking evidence about noise problems at other approved wind projects, even while relying on the staff’s representation that no such noise problems exist as support for its decision to issue a certificate;
9. The OPSB abuses its discretion by denying a party’s motion to reopen the hearing record to admit new evidence that is not cumulative and that addresses facts central the Board’s decision.
10. The OPSB’s failure to allow discovery or cross examination about drafts of a wind utility application and related records violates R.C. 4903.082 and abuses its discretion….
An opponent of the proposed Buckeye Wind farm in Champaign County says in a new Ohio Supreme Court filing that it should not be built because the provision that justified it in Ohio’s renewable energy law is unconstitutional….