| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Wind park developer says state court missed facts and wants case reheard
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
BEAR CREEK TWP. – Township Solicitor William Vinsko has already argued against the Energy Unlimited Inc. in Commonwealth Court regarding a proposed Bald Mountain wind park, but he might have to do it again.
Energy Unlimited filed an application for reargument to the Commonwealth Court, Vinsko said during the township supervisors meeting Monday.
Commonwealth Court sided with the township last month, in its case against the company’s plan to place 25 of a proposed 34 turbines on county-owned land. Vinsko argued that company’s plans were preliminary and didn’t follow zoning procedures.
In its application for reargument, Energy Unlimited is arguing that Commonwealth Court misinterpreted the law and missed some of the facts in the case.
“I think it is highly unlikely, highly unlikely, that the court would reverse its decision,” Vinsko said.
Attempts to reach Energy Unlimited’s attorneys Monday night were unsuccessful.
By Coulter Jones
The Citizens Voice
6 March 2007
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=3360 ]
