Going Against the Wind: Mason Co. Neighbors vs. Consumer's Energy

[XLFD]

51st Circuit Court, Round Two

 

It was no joking matter when 17 southern Mason County neighbors of the local 'wind farm' banded together in a lawsuit against Consumer's Energy on April 1, 2013.  Among these neighbors are a few that have contested the zoning permits issued by the county amounting to what they claim as safe setbacks from the early inception of the project known as the Lake Winds Energy Park made known back in 2010.  Notable among the plaintiffs are County Commissioner Mary Nichols and recently elected Zoning Board of Appeals official, Cary Shineldecker and their spouses.  The 56 wind turbines with heights of 496 ft. high are interspersed throughout Riverton and Summit Townships in Mason County. 

 

The plaintiffs are seeking three remedies: to receive a monetary fee in excess of $25,000 plus relevant fees, to have the defendant cease and desist the operations of the turbines, and grant punitive or other special relief as the court deems appropriate.  The 50 point Complaint covering twelve pages was submitted to the Mason County Circuit Court by the plaintiffs' attorney Craig W. Horn of Saginaw.  It is unknown at this time whether Richard I Cooper, the sitting Mason County Circuit Court Judge who oversaw much of the earlier court battles between these two entities will preside over this dispute. 

Here is the lawsuit in full:  Riverton Twp. Residents v. Consumer's Energy.pdf

 

The energy 'park' was made operational in November of 2012, and the neighbors of the operation have had their share of 'intrusions' involving a wide range of topics, including flicker, glare, vibrations, noise, and bothersome blinking night lights.  The neighbors of the project have complained of various physiological effects such as persistent headaches, inability to sleep, dizziness, earaches, tension, fatigue nausea, etc. which they say are directly attributive to the effects of the nearby turbines.  A recent county board presentation by Cary Shineldecker is in our videos here, and another made in Grand Rapids is presented below.

Consumer's Energy at this point has not yet produced a formal answer to the complaint, but they released the following statement yesterday:

 

• We recently received a copy of the lawsuit. While in general we do not specifically comment on pending litigation, we make the following observations:

• We have worked closely with the Mason County Planning Commission and Zoning Director to try to reasonably address permit and ordinance concerns of residents living within the Lake Winds project area to the fullest practicable extent. We will continue to do so.

• While we are meeting our permit requirements, we have already taken steps to address some of these concerns. This includes expansion of the shadow flicker model to account for potential shadow flicker occurrences at a greater distance between the wind turbine and resident. As a result, we are in process of reprogramming our shadow flicker detection system to account for this new model. We expect to have all affected turbines reprogrammed by April 15, 2013.

• We have said from the beginning of this process that we will meet or exceed all zoning provisions and other requirements under local, state and federal laws. We believe we are doing so today, and are planning to implement additional measures which we will announce in the near future to further help with working with all residents living within the Lake Winds project area.

(statement courtesy of:  mlive)

[Willy]

Sadly, I don't believe this lawsuit will have a chance. Consumers is not the responsible party here. The responsible party is Mason County, specifically the Mason County Board of Commissioners and the Mason county Zoning Board. None of this would have transpired if the Commissioners and Zoning Board had followed the Zoning Code. Consumer's did everything the County asked of them but we all know the County was bribed by Consumers and who knows what other under the table payoffs were given to individual Commissioners and Board members. I'm surprised the lawsuit is not directed at the County as well because Consumers has deep pockets and will be able to legally hold off any challenges to the turbines for years and any legal costs will of course be written off and will be added on to everyone's utility bills.

[XLFD]

Ironically, both Mason County boards have their own representatives in the plaintiffs.  Frankly, I do have to mostly agree with you Willy, it will probably go no where based on its legal claims, but it could be a stepping stone for further action.  There may be some interesting things to come out of the discovery process, and Commissioner Nichols participation may be a sign of some other shoe that may drop. 

[XLFD]

Consumer's Energy has filed it's response to the lawsuit this last Friday (coincidentally, the same day they go down for 'planned maintenance scheduled for a few days').  The reply is fairly unremarkable stating the usual affirmative defenses.  The Ludington Torch will be seeking this document shortly.  In today's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) it states: 

The utility denies the claims made by the attorney representing the Riverton and Summit township residents and asks that the suit be thrown out and Consumers Energy be reimbursed for its legal expenses. The plaintiffs claimed physical and financial harm from the wind turbines in their initial filing.

In its filing, the utility asks Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again, to enter a judgment in favor of Consumers Energy and against the plaintiffs, to award Consumers Energy reimbursement for its legal costs thus far and to award any other relief to the utility that the court deems appropriate.

Consumers claims in the  document that the plaintiffs have failed to “state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

Consumers replies that the claim is barred by one or more statutes of limitations, which are not specified, that the plaintiffs failed to allege applicable legal duty that is owed to them, that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to Consumers Energy and that the plaintiffs’ attorneys have not presented a legal case for the plaintiffs’ damages.