As renewable energy projects approach the end of their lifespan, companies may face various legal issues associated with the decommissioning or repowering processes, some of which may lead to litigation.
For example, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) recently referred a case against Global Fiberglass Solutions Inc. to the state attorney general for illegally storing hundreds of wind turbine blades in three Iowa towns. Global has a combined 1,300 turbines at sites in Newton, Atlantic, and Ellsworth, Iowa. Pursuant to Iowa law, the DNR determined that the blades are considered solid waste. None of the sites where Global has been storing the blades are approved as Sanitary Disposal Project sites, so DNR considers the blades to be solid waste that has been disposed of illegally.
According to the DNR, Global missed its deadlines to recycle the blades, to bury them in a landfill, or ship them out of state. However, this process is easier said than done, as blades are difficult to transport and recycle due to their size and durability. The owner of one of the sites located in Newton, claims Global has abandoned 868 blades on the property and is owed $1 million in rent.
The DNR issued an Administrative Consent Order in December 2020. The Order outlined the terms that the DNR and Global must adhere in order to resolve the dispute. Global was required to submit a proposed binding compliance schedule to the DNR for approval, which would include “milestone dates for obtaining bids for grinding and recycling equipment, the installation of such equipment, and for the beginning of blade processing.” Global was also required to provide a “proposed financial assurance mechanism” that would be sufficient to cover the entire cost of removal and proper disposal of the blades. The Order also limited Global’s ability to store additional blades in Iowa.
Iowa law authorizes civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for solid waste violations and up to $10,000 in administrative penalties in these situations. No civil penalties were issued in this case. As reference, the Administrative Consent Order can be found here.
As this case demonstrates, the decommissioning process can lead to disputes between the renewable energy company, land owners, and state agencies, creating complex litigation for those involved. These disputes can also lead to strict enforcement requirements and potentially high financial penalties. Anticipating these issues can prevent costly litigation and ensure a smooth repowering or decommissioning process. The attorneys at Lewis Roca have a wide array of litigation expertise, allowing our firm to effectively represent clients in the renewable energy space working through the end-of-life challenges. For more information, contact Tom Dougherty at tdougherty@lewisroca.com or Lance Collins at lcollins@lewisroca.com.
Tags: Renewable Energy End-of-Life Planning- Partner
Tom brings the unique combination of linear and creative thinking to solve his clients' most important issues.
Tom Dougherty represents a broad range of commercial, utility, energy, government, and private clients in litigation, regulatory, legislative, and public policy matters. Tom ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam