- Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 USC §§ 1331–1356.
- See Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v Cape Wind Associates, LLC, 278 F Supp 2d 98 (D Mass 2003), aff'd 373 F 3d 183 (1st Cir 2004).
- See Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc v US Dept of the Army, 398 F 3d 105 (1 st Cir 2005). (argument by opponents of offshore wind project that Corps of Engineers could not grant a permit to project because owners of proposed project could not establish a property right in area).
- Nathanael D Harland, ‘The Wind and the Waves: Regulatory Uncertainty and Offshore Wind Power in the United States and United Kingdom’ (2003) 24 U Pa Int'l Econ L 691, 727.
- 45 USCA §§ 38, 45.
- The production tax credit was re-enacted after this article was submitted for publication (some footnotes have since been amended to reflect recent developments). Like its predecessors, its duration was limited to two years. Because of this time limitation, it poses the same problems for long-range planning as did the predecessor tax credits.
- See Christine Real de Azua, ‘The Future of Wind Energy’ (2001) 14 Tulane Envt'l LJ 485, 511–517.
- See www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html (last accessed 12 July 2004).
- Christine Real de Azua, n 7 above, at 492.
- Contra Costa Water District v Vaquero Farms, Inc, 68 Cal Rptr 2d 272 (Cal App 1997).
- Minn Stat § 50030. See also Mont Code Ann 70–17–703.
- See, eg, Mont Code Ann 70–17–703.
- S D Codified Laws §§ 43–13–17 and 43–13–18.
- See, eg, Ernest E Smith, ‘Wind Energy in Texas’, Advanced Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Course, Chap 3 (State Bar of Texas, 2001); Roderick E Wetsel and Lisa Chavarria, ‘Wind Leases in Texas’, CLE Course: Oil, Gas and Wind—Leases and Disputes (St Mary's University School of Law, 2004); Roderick E Wetsel, H Alan Carmichael and Lisa Chavarria, ‘Emerging Issues in Texas Wind Energy Law: Leases, Tax Abatements, and Ownership of Wind Rights’, Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Section Report (State Bar of Texas Oil, Gas & Energy Law Section) March 2004 at 3, 6–12, 23–36.
- See www.dsireusa.org (last accessed 12July 2004) for a quite helpful synopsis of the types of statutory and regulatory provisions in place in each state and the various US territories.
- Eg Calif Govt Code § 65892.13 (banning certain types of local anti-wind-turbine ordinances); Minn Stat § 41B.043 (low-interest loans); ND Cent Code 57–02 (sales tax and property tax exemptions).
- Hawaii Rev Stat § 235–12. See also Calif Revenue and Tax Code §§ 17053.84 and 23684.
- Id Stat 63–3022C. The maximum deduction in any one year is US$5,000, and a total maximum of US$20,000.
- Tex Tax Code § 11.27. See also Howell, Texas Practice—Property Taxes (4th edn, 2001), p 21.
- The wind farm may, however, qualify for a tax abatement under the Property Redevelopment and Tax Abatement Act, Tex Tax Code § 312.001 et seq or the Texas Economic Development Act, Tex Tax Code § 313.001 et seq. See Wetsel, Carmichael and Chavarria, n 14 above, at 12–17.
- ND Century Code 57–02.
- Utilities and local governments in some states have somewhat similar programmes; and an occasional programme is limited to solar or otherwise does not include wind power. See, eg, Miss Code § 57–39–39.
- Eg Conn Gen Stats 32–315–7.
- Tenn Code § 4–3–710 (businesses with fewer than 300 employees or less than f 3.5 million in annual gross revenue).
- Eg Ohio Rev Code §§ 5709.45–5709.53.
- Eg Alaska Stat 42.45.016; Mo Rev Stats §§ 640.651–640.686.
- Minn Stat § 41B.043.
- NC Gen Stat § 143–345.18.
- See www.dsireusa.org (last accessed 12 July 2004).
- See Iowa Code § 266.39C.
- See www.illinoisbiz.biz/com/energy/renewable.html (last accessed 7 September 2004).
- Eg Mont Code Ann § 69-8-603(4); Utah Code § 54-15-104(3).
- Nev Rev Stat § 704.7801.
- See wvvw.cc.state.az.us/utility/electric/environmental.html (last accessed 12 July 2004).
- 35-A Maine Rev Stat Ann § 3210.
- Eg Mass Regs Code tit 225, § 14.12.
- Tex Util Code Ann § 25.173(h).
- Minn Stat § 216B.2423.
- Ariz Admin Code § 14–2–1618.
- See Mont Code Ann § 69-8-210(4).
- Eg Rose v Chaikin, 453 A 2d 1378 (NJ Super Ch 1982) (enjoining use of wind turbine producing noise levels exceeding the 50 decibels permitted by the town's noise ordinance); Rassier v Houim, 488 NW 2d 635 (ND 1992) (denying injunction sought by landowner who had moved next to existing wind turbine). See David R Bliss, ‘Tilting at Wind Turbines: Noise Nuisance in the Neighborhood after Rassier v Houim’ (1993) 69 NDL Rev 535.
- Calif Govt Code § 65892.13.
- Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc v US Dept of the Army, 288 F Supp 2d 64 (D Mass 2003), affirmed 398 F3d 105 (1st Cir 2005). In a related case, Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v Cape Wind Assodates, LLC, 173 F 3d 183 (1st Cir 2004), the project was described slightly differendy as including ‘at least 130 industrial wind turbines, each 470 feet tall’ that ‘will spread across 28 square miles of Nantucket Sound’. An editorial in the Boston Globereien to ′417 foot towers spread over 24 square miles’: Boston Sunday Globe, 11 July 2004, at D10.
- See generally Ernest E Smith and Jacqueline L Weaver, Texas Law of CHI and Gas (1998 edn and 2004 update), Chap 8.
- 43 USC §§ 1301–1314. States bordering the Gulf of Mexico are entitled to a further extension based on historic claims. Because of prior sovereign claims by the Kingdom of Spain, Florida and Texas have established tide seaward within the Gulf to a distance of three marine leagues: United States v States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, 363 US 121 (1960).
- Houston Chronicle, Business Section, 8 April 2004.
- United States v Maine, 475 US 89 (1986).
- 16 USC §§ 1800 et seq.
- Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v Cape Wind, LLC, 373 F 3d 183 (1st Cir 2004).
- Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc v US Dept of the Army, 398 F 3d 105 (1st Cir 2005).
- Information concerning the AMC project, which is under the supervision of Dr David Publicover and Dr Kenneth Kimball of the AMC Research Department, is based on e-mail correspondence between the author and Susan Arnold, Director of Conservation, Appalachian Mountain Club. Any errors in the statement of the project are those of the author.
- See, eg, N D Admin Code § 43-02-03-14; Smith and Weaver, n 44 above, at Section 14.2.
- See ‘Wind Energy Projects Throughout the US,’ www.awea.org/projects/index.html (last accessed 12 July 2004).
- See Loni Kemp, Lola Schoenrich and Lori Lanphere, ‘Harvesting the Wind: An Assessment of Farmer Interest in Wind Energy for Economic Development’, www.me3.org/projects/seed/harvestwind.html (last accessed 12July 2004). Seewww.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html (last accessed 12 July 2004) for a description of the 20 states with the greatest wind-energy potential.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
Volume 23, 2005 - Issue 2: Renewables