The project is 7.5 MW and while connected to two different plants (Whirlpool and Ball), both plants are served by the same transmission bus and an adjacent distribution bus, so the effect on the transmission system is the same as a 7.5 MW facility, while clearly the land use impacts are that of a 7.5 MW facility.
It can be argued the facility is one facility not two for numerous reasons:
– interconnected to the same transmission corridor/bus
– sharing construction services, equipment and probably contracts, and being constructed at same time
– turbines of same make and model ordered at same time by same developer who then used “two adjacent customers” as a ruse to subvert the OPSB jurisdiction nameplate capacity threshold of 5 MW.
– all five turbine locations have been coordinated as a single project and placed is an array to maximize the total project wind resource potential
The list could continue.
But of course who would be motivated to file such an injunction? The Ohio Consumers Council might have been the proper entity.
The farm is estimated to offset about 22 percent of the plant’s energy use. Ball Co. will construct three other wind turbines on the farm….