Something to ponder as the storms are rolling in:
We received this in an email: Check these links out-sounds like Orangeville is potentially more screwed up than Vermilion County:
>
> illegal bid process in Orangeville:
> http://www.mywnynews.com/arcade_warsaw/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_16d0d574-2c36-11e3-a8da-0019bb2963f4.html
>
> they actually caught the town board allowing the Invenergy sales rep full access to their office/files/computers, and the board defended it and people were PO’d that Jensen wrote about it:
> http://thedailynewsonline.com/opinion/editorials/article_a5400788-5c1f-11e0-9909-001cc4c03286.html
>
> Invenergy siting/permitting process bait and switch:
> http://www.resitenow.org/component/content/article/36-articles-and-editorials/116-invenergys-bait-and-switch.html
>
> he’s the one who reported on the blade break:
> http://www.windaction.org/posts/39089-invenergy-in-new-york-blade-break#.U0i12k1OXIU
>
> http://quixoteslaststand.com/2013/11/17/today-debris-from-blade-break-in-new-york-flies-past-the-511-foot-safety-zone/
> Invenergy’s Orangeville Wind Farm (formerly known as the Stony Creek Wind project) experienced a catastrophic blade break. The project, which is still under construction includes 58 GE 1.6-100 wind turbines (94 megawatts). The turbines were scheduled for commission the second week of December 2013. Witnesses at the site told WindAction that blade debris flew past the 511-foot safety zone set by the town. This setback distance was requested by Eric Miller from Invenergy to get more turbines in a smaller area. General Electric said 1.5 times hub height plus rotor diameter or 885’ would be necessary.
>
> https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/08/02/salesmen-still-cant-make-pigs-fly/
>
> Orangeville/Invenergyville/Vermilion county’s lost twin sister?
> https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/04/14/orangeville-the-new-invenergyville/
>
> https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/09/19/bait-and-switch-in-orangeville-ii/
>
> Invenergy lost a lawsuit filed by a man who had a cabin near where they wanted to site one of the Orangeville turbines, when all else failed, Invenergy tried to argue that the cabin was not a dwelling and set backs shouldn’t apply
> http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_f5933ab4-3c18-11e1-93a7-0019bb2963f4.html
