Headwinds to a clean energy future: Nuisance suits against wind energy projects in the United States

California Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1337-1375

  Butler, Stephen Harland ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73949098568     PISSN: 00081221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (277)

1. See Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 885 (W. Va. 2007).
2. See, e.g., Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378, 1384 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982) (enjoining the operation of a sixty-foot wind turbine constructed ten feet from one of the plaintiffs' property lines).
3. See, e.g., Rassier v. Houim, 488 N.W.2d 635, 639 (N.D. 1992) (refusing to grant relief against a wind generator that was built before plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lot).
4. See, e.g., Jad Mouawad, Oil Giants Loath to Follow Obama 's Green Lead, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 7, 2009, at B1.
5. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2007 [hereinafter ENERGY OUTLOOK 2007], http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ ieo07/highlights.html (last visited Apr. 15, 2008).
6. Bob Williams, Peak-Oil, Global Warming Concerns Opening New Window of Opportunity for New Alternative Energy Sources, OIL & GAS J., Aug. 18, 2003, at 7.
7. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY, ENDING THE ENERGY STALEMATE 62 (2004) [hereinafter STALEMATE], available at http://www.energycommission.org/ht/a/ GetDocumentAction/i/1088.
8. See ENERGY OUTLOOK 2007, supra note 5 (explaining that most hydroelectric resources in OECD nations have already been developed or lie too far from population centers).
9. See, e.g., WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS, DAMS & DEVELOPMENT: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION-MAKING 15 (2000), available at http://www.dams.org//docs/overview/wcd-overview.pdf (detailing ecological impacts of large dams, including forest and habitat loss, decreased aquatic biodiversity, and modified natural flooding patterns).
10. See, e.g., Prachi Patel, Hydrogen from Algae, TECH. REV., Sept. 27, 2007, http://www.technologyreview.com/ read-article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=19438&a=.
11. Cecilia M. Vega, Newsom Backs Turbine Power Despite Study, S.F. CHRON., Mar. 5, 2008, at B1.
12. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION BY SOURCE, SELECTED YEARS, 1949-2008 1, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/secl-7.pdf.
13. Clifford Krauss, Move Over, Oil, There's Money in Texas Wind, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 23, 2008, at A1.
14. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Wind Power Capacity Vaults to Top Spot due to Rapid Growth, Feb. 11, 2009, http://appsl.eere.energy.gov/news/news- detail.cfm/news-id=12237.
15. See, e.g., Lazaros Exarchakos, Matthew Leach, and Georgios Exarchakos, Modelling Electricity Storage Systems Under the Influence of Demand-Side Management Programs, 33 INT'L J. OF ENERGY RES. 62, 63 (2009) ("Investments in [energy storage systems] still face high capital costs even for the mature technologies").
16. See id.
17. See id.
18. Tom Fowler, Slow Wind Nearly Caused Blackouts, HOUS. CHRON., Feb. 29, 2008, at Bl.
19. PAUL ROBERTS, THE END OF OIL 190 (2004).
20. STALEMATE, supra note 7, at 63.
21. AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION, IO STEPS IN BUILDING A WIND FARM, available at http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/10stwf-fs.PDF.
22. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ANNUAL REPORT ON U.S. WIND POWER INSTALLATION, COST, AND PERFORMANCE TRENDS 2007, available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/43025.pdf.
23. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, ELECTRICITY MARKET MODULE 3, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaCaeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf.
24. U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Powering America, http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/.
25. U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Energy Resource Potential, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind-potential.html (last visited Apr. 11, 2009).
26. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 20% WIND ENERGY BY 2030, at 1 (2008), available at http://www.20percentwind.org/ 20percent-wind-energy-report-revOct08.pdf.
27. 26 U.S.C. § 45(d).
28. See, e.g., Anne C. Mulkern, Stimulus, Policy Shifts Seen Spurring U.S. Renewable Energy Boom - Someday, 10 GREENWIRE 9, Mar. 6, 2009.
29. See, e.g., MONT. CODE ANN. § 15-32-201 (granting income tax credit of up to five hundred dollars for the cost of a taxpayer's installation of a wind energy generator at his or her "principal dwelling");
30. see also IDAHO CODE ANN. § 63-3022C (granting deduction of up to twenty thousand dollars over four years for installation of "an alternative energy device" at taxpayer's residence);
31. see also Mona L. Hymel and Roberta F. Mann, Getting Into the Act: Enticing the Consumer to Become "Green" Through Tax Incentives, 18 ARIZ. LEGAL STUD., Discussion Paper No. 06-18 (2006), available at http://ssm.com/abstract=894131 (discussing policy incentives for consumers to purchase renewable energy generators).
32. AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION, WIND ENERGY AND WILDLIFE: THE THREE C's, available at http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629- ThreeC%27sFactSheet.pdf.
33. WENDY WILLIAMS & ROBERT WHITCOMB, CAPE WIND 77, 128 (2007).
34. JOSEPH P. TOMAIN & RICHARD D. CUDAHY, ENERGY LAW IN A NUTSHELL 361 (2004).
35. Id.
36. DANIEL J. ALBERTS, PRIMER FOR ADDRESSING WIND TURBINE NOISE 8 (2006), available at http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/pubs/pdf/ AddressingWindTurbineNoise.pdf.
37. Id. at 9 ("While writing this paper, I visited the Bowling Green Wind Farm Project, in Bowling Green, OH. At the base of 1.8 MW turbine, we measured the noise level at 58-60 dB(A). However, the turbines stand in a corn field, and depending on our position relative to the turbines, it was very difficult to distinguish the sound of the turbine from the rustling of the com stalks.").
38. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, WIND POWER IN THE UK 81 (2005), available at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Wind-Energy-NovRev2005. pdf.
39. WALLACE P. ERICKSON ET AL., AVIAN COLLISIONS WITH WIND TURBINES, A SUMMARY OF EXISTING STUDIES AND COMPARISONS TO OTHER SOURCES OF AVIAN COLLISION MORTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES 1 (2001), available at http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/avian-collisions.pdf.
40. See, e.g., Catherine Brahic, Wind Turbines Make Bat Lungs Explode, NEW SCIENTIST, Aug. 25, 2008, at 4.
41. See, e.g., AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY, AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY'S WIND ENERGY POLICY, http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/ wind/wind-policy.html (last visited Apr. 11, 2009). The conservancy states: While ABC supports alternative energy sources, including wind power, ABC emphasizes that before approval and construction of new wind energy projects proceeds, potential risks to birds and bats should be evaluated through site analyses, including assessments of bird and bat abundance, timing and magnitude of migration, and habitat use patterns.
42. Id.
43. See, e.g., Brit T. Brown & Benjamin A. Escobar, Wind Power: Generating Electricity and Lawsuits, 28 ENERGY L.J. 489, 490 (2007) ("[W]ind energy is the fastest growing source of electricity worldwide.").
44. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 885 (W. Va. 2007).
45. The following section draws extensively from JAMES GORDLEY & ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PRIVATE LAW (2006).
46. Id. at 167-68.
47. See, e.g., RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 822 (1979).
48. GORDLEY & VON MEHREN, supra note 42, at 31, 167-68.
49. Id. at 167-68.
50. Id. at 168.
51. Id. at 33.
52. Id. at 168.
53. Id. at 17.
54. *306).
55. Id. at 169.
56. Id.
57. Id.
58. Id.
59. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
60. Note, Aesthetic Nuisance: An Emerging Cause of Action, 45 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1075, 1077 (1970) [hereinafter Aesthetic Nuisance].
61. E.E. Woods, Annotation, Electric Generating Plant or Transformer Station as Nuisance, 4 A.L.R.3d 902 § 1[c] (1065) (discussing mechanics of nuisance lawsuits against electric plants and other power infrastructure).
62. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§§ 821D, 821F, 822 (1979).
63. JESSE DUKEMINIER ET AL., PROPERTY 642 (6th ed. 2006).
64. Id.
65. See id.
66. See GORDLEY & VON MEHREN, supra note 42, at 169.
67. See, e.g., Morgan v. High Penn Oil, 77 S.E.2d 682 (N.C. 1953).
68. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826(a) (1979). The following sections further state: In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) The extent of the harm involved; (b) the character of the harm involved; (c) the social value that the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded; (d) the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and (e) the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm.
69. Id. § 827. In determining the utility of conduct that causes an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct; (b) the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and (c) the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion.
70. Id. § 828.
71. See GORDLEY & VON MEHREN, supra note 42, at 178.
72. Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., 258 N.Y.S. 229, 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932).
73. Parkersburg Builders Material Co. v. Barrack, 191 S.E. 368, 371 (W. Va. 1937).
74. See, e.g., Bloch v. McCown, 123 So. 213, 214 (Ala. 1929) ("A business, lawful in its nature, as is the business proposed by the defendant in this cause, and not a nuisance per se in one locality, may become a nuisance when conducted and maintained in another which is residential in character.").
75. See, e.g., RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 828(b) (1979) (noting that "the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality" can be a factor indicating the utility of a particular activity, and thus weighing against finding it to be an unreasonable nuisance).
76. Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 871 (N.Y. 1970).
77. Id. at 872.
78. See id.
79. Id. at 873.
80. Id. at 871.
81. Id. at 875.
82. PROGRAM OF POLICY STUDIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, LEGAL-INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) 169 (1977) [hereinafter WECS] (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 822 (1979)).
83. Boomer, 257 N.E.2d at 871.
84. See Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 885 (W. Va. 2007).
85. See GORDLEY & VON MEHREN, supra note 42, at 169 ("if the owner of the lower premises wants to make a shop or inn where he is continually making a fire and a great deal of smoke, he is not allowed to do so").
86. See, e.g., Searcy v. Ky. Util. Co., 267 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Ky. 1954) ("[s]ince the [jury] instructions are based upon the pleadings and proof, the words, 'soot and smoke,' should have been included therein");
87. see also Parsons v. Uvalde Elec. Light Co., 163 S.W. 1 (Tex. 1914) (affirming nuisance liability for electric generating plant when it deposited smoke, dust, and cinders in and around plaintiff's home).
88. HENRY SEIFERT ET AL., RISK ANALYSIS OF ICE THROW FROM WIND TURBINES 1, 9 (2003), available at http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/icethrowseifertb.pdf (noting, however, that ice thrown by wind turbines can be a serious hazard and that "wind farm developers should be very careful at ice endangered sites in the planning phase and take ice throw into account as a safety issue").
89. Id.
90. The maximum throwing distance is calculated by multiplying 1.5 by the sum of the rotor diameter and the hub height in meters. According to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the tallest wind turbine in the United States in May 2005 had a hub height of eighty meters and a rotor diameter of eighty-two meters. NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW 7 (2005), available at http://www.powematurally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/9- windturbinetech.pdf.
91. See 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 139 (2009). The section states: Whether noise constitutes a nuisance is a relative question, requiring the weighing of the competing interest and rights of the parties in each case, and to constitute a nuisance and a disturbance of the peace, a noise must be an unreasonable one in the circumstances or cause material annoyance. A noise becomes an actionable nuisance only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker when considered against the needs of the listener.
92. Id.
93. See, e.g., Joel C. Dobris, Boomer Twenty Years Later: An Introduction, with Some Footnotes About "Theory," 54 ALB. L. REV. 171,181 (1990) ("The property scholars' love affair with the notion that damages are superior to the permanent injunction as a remedy for nuisance has its direct origins in the Boomer decision").
94. Woods, supra note 58, § 10.
95. Fendley v. Anaheim, 110 Cal.App. 731, 735 (Cal. App. 4th 1930). The court stated: [W]e cannot perceive how a residence could escape some appreciable damage from a vibration that would cause a bouquet of flowers on the dining-room table to reveal the vibrations, and liquid in small bottles to manifest the presence of vibrations; in fact, it appears by respondent's own evidence that they were of such a nature as to declare the presence of vibrations or shaking that would materially damage property.
96. Id.
97. Ky. & W. Va. Power Co. v. Anderson, 156 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Ky. App. 1941).
98. Miss. Power Co. v. Ballard, 153 So. 874, 877 (Miss. 1934).
99. Id. at 875.
100. Fendley, 110 Cal. App. at 734.
101. W. Va. Power, 156 S.W.2d at 858.
102. Miss. Power, 153 So. at 875.
103. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
104. Miss. Power, 153 So. at 875.
105. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
106. Id. §§ 826-27.
107. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 85 (2009) ("a thing is not a nuisance merely because it is unsightly, offends the aesthetic sense, makes the vicinity less attractive, or creates mental discomfort");
108. see, e.g., Mathewson v. Primeau, 395 P.2d 183, 184 (Wash. 1964) (citing past cases from California, Iowa, Maryland, Tennessee, and Vermont in support of this rule).
109. WECS, supra note 77, at 170.
110. But see Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App. 2008). In Rankin, the court stated: [R]ecognizing a new cause of action for aesthetical impact causing an emotional injury is beyond the purview of an intermediate appellate court. Alternatively, allowing Plaintiffs to include aesthetics as a condition in connection with other forms of interference is a distinction without a difference. Aesthetical impact either is or is not a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
111. Id.
112. Mathewson, 395 P.2d at 184 ("It is affirmed, on excellent authority, that 'Pigs is Pigs.'").
113. Id. at 188-89.
114. Id. at 189.
115. Id.
116. Id.
117. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 87 (2009).
118. Ness v. Albert, 665 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo. App. 1983) (refusing to enjoin a defendant from keeping "rusted objects," "broken concrete," and a "partially burned trailer" on his property in rural Missouri).
119. Id.
120. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357, 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959).
121. Id. at 359.
122. See, e.g., Kruger v. Shramek, 565 N.W.2d 742, 747 (Neb. App. 1997) ("The ancient lights doctrine as applied to claims involving views has been repudiated by every state considering it.").
123. Id.
124. Id.
125. Foley v. Harris, 286 S.E.2d 186, 188 (Va. 1982).
126. Id. at 190-91 (emphasis added).
127. Yaeger v. Traylor, 160 A. 108, 109 (Pa. 1932). The court stated: The proposed building in the case before us, if erected, must be inclosed entirely and conform in architectural design to the building to which it is attached. Ramps and other devices having a tendency to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood must be avoided, and all means for raising and lowering cars must be within the walls of the building. If it is proposed to supply parking space upon the proof and effective screen must be provided by means of a suitable balustrade or other device to hide the unsightly appearance which would be the result of such practice. No repairs of any character accompanied by noise should be carried on, and the sale of gasoline and oil should be limited strictly to tenants occupying the apartments and having cars stored in the garage.
128. Id.
129. Martin v. Williams, 93 S.E.2d 835, 845 (W. Va. 1956).
130. See id. at 843 ("Unsightly things are not to be banned solely on that account. Many of them are necessary in carrying on the proper activities of organized society. But such things should be properly placed, and not so located as to be unduly offensive to neighbors or to the public").
131. Parkersburg Builders Material Co. v. Barrack, 191 S.E. 368, 371 (W. Va. 1937). The court stated: [E]quity should not be aroused to action merely on the basis of the fastidiousness of taste of complainants. Equity should act only where there is presented a situation which is offensive to the view of average persons of the community. And, even where there is a situation which the average person would deem offensive to the sight, such fact alone will not justify interference by a court of equity. The surroundings must be considered.
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. See Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App. 2008).
135. Parkersburg Builders, 191 S.E. at 371.
136. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 87 (2009).
137. Ness v. Albert, 665 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo. App. 1983).
138. Little v. City of Madison, 42 Wis. 643, 643 (Wis. 1877).
139. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
140. Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982).
141. Id. at 1380.
142. Id.
143. Id. at 1381.
144. Id.
145. Id.
146. Id.
147. Id.
148. Id. at 1382.
149. Id.
150. Id.
151. See Rassier v. Houim, 488 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1992).
152. Id. at 636.
153. City of Mandan, North Dakota, http://www.mandannorthdakota.com (last visited Mar. 15, 2008).
154. Rassier, 488 N.W.2d at 636.
155. Id.
156. Id. at 638.
157. N.D. CENT. CODE §42-01-01.
158. Rassier, 488 N.W.2d at 638.
159. Id. at 637.
160. Id. at 638.
161. Id.
162. Id.
163. Id. at 639.
164. See, e.g., STALEMATE, supra note 7, at 63.
165. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 885 (W. Va. 2007).
166. Id.
167. See Public Service Commission of West Virginia, NedPower Mount Storm LLC, Commission Order, Case No. 02-1189-E-CN (April 2, 2003) [hereinafter Commission Order], available at http://www.psc.state.wv.us/ Scripts/FullTextOrderSearch/ViewArchiveDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID= 102728&Source=Archive.
168. Id. at 195.
169. Id. at 130.
170. Id. at 154.
171. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 885.
172. Id.
173. Id.
174. Id.
175. Id.
176. Id. at 886.
177. Id.
178. Id. at 891.
179. Id.
180. Id.
181. Id. at 892.
182. Id.
183. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 175 (3d ed. 1996).
184. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 892.
185. See id. at 894.
186. Id. at 893.
187. Id. at 893-94.
188. Id. at 894 (contrasting Seven v. Beckley Coals, Inc., 170 S.E.2d 577 (W. Va. 1969)).
189. Id. (arguing that "[c]onstant loud noise and unsightliness that interferes with the use and enjoyment of property simply are not susceptible to computation").
190. Id. at 895.
191. Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 513 (Tex. App. 2008).
192. Id. at 508.
193. See Doug Myers, Wind Farm Opponents Plan Appeal, ABILENE REP.-NEWS ONLINE, Aug. 25, 2008, http://www.reportemews.com/news/2008/aug/25/wind-farm-opponents-plan-appeal/.
194. Rankin, 266 S.W.3d at 508.
195. Id. at 508 n.3. The full text of the contested jury instructions read as follows: In determining whether the Defendant(s) have substantially interfered with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, you may not consider whether the Plaintiffs are offended, disturbed, or annoyed because of the way the wind turbine project has affected their landscape, scenery, or the beauty of the area. Under the laws of the State of Texas, a condition that causes aesthetic changes to the view, scenery, landscape, or beauty of an area is not a nuisance. The Plaintiffs' feelings and beliefs about the turbines' impact on the aesthetic character of the area, including any impact on the beauty, scenery, landscape, view, or appearance of the area may not be considered a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs' property. Therefore, any emotional or physical damage to Plaintiffs or any diminished market value caused by aesthetic or sight-based objections to the condition, if they exist, cannot be a basis for economic or non-economic damage.
196. Id.
197. Id. at 509.
198. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 822, 826 (1979).
199. Rankin, 266 S.W.3d at 509.
200. Id.
201. Id.
202. See, e.g., id. at 510 (quoting Jones v. Highland Mem'l Park, 242 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Tex. Civ. App. 1951)) ("However cheerless or disagreeable the view of the cemetery in question may be to appellees, and no matter what unpleasant or melancholy thoughts the same may awaken, no reason is thereby shown why appellants should be restrained from making such use of their property.").
203. Id.
204. Id.
205. Id. at 511.
206. Id.
207. Id. at 512.
208. Id.
209. Id.
210. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 892 (W. Va. 2007).
211. Rankin, 266 S.W.3d at 512.
212. Id.
213. Id.
214. Id. at 511.
215. Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 871 (N.Y. 1970).
216. See Texas Courts Online, http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ historical/2009/apr/041709.htm.
217. See Steven Baron, New Meets Old: Wind Turbines and the Common Law of Nuisance 2, The University of Texas at Austin, School of Law, Wind Energy Institute 2008 (Feb. 19-20, 2008).
218. Id.
219. Id.
220. Id.
221. TEX. R. CIV. P. 162 ("At any time before the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff may dismiss a case, or take a non-suit, which shall be entered in the minutes.").
222. See, e.g., Phil Ray, Couple Files Lawsuit Against Wind Company, ALTOONA MIRROR ONLINE, Dec. 8, 2008, http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/513950.html.
223. Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. App. 2008).
224. See Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 893 (W. Va. 2007).
225. Id. at 885.
226. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 154.
227. Id.
228. Miss. Power Co. v. Ballard, 153 So. 874, 875 (Miss. 1934).
229. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 886.
230. Id. at 891.
231. See, e.g., Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378, 1382 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982) ("Plaintiffs specifically chose the area because of these qualities and the proximity to the ocean. Sounds which are natural to this area - the sea, the shore birds, the ocean breeze - are soothing and welcome. The noise of the windmill, which would be unwelcome in most neighborhoods, is particularly alien here.").
232. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 891.
233. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 139 (2009).
234. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 891-92.
235. Id. at 884.
236. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 154.
237. Grant County Development Authority, Statistical Data, hrtp://www.grantcounty-wv.com/data.htm (last visited Apr. 11, 2009).
238. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 827 (1979).
239. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 154.
240. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 85 (2009).
241. Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App. 2008).
242. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 892 (W. Va. 2007).
243. Id.
244. Id.
245. Martin v. Williams, 93 S.E.2d 835, 843 (W. Va. 1956).
246. Id.
247. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 892.
248. Id.
249. Id.
250. Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App. 2008).
251. Id. at 513.
252. 58 AM. JUR. 2D Nuisances § 87 (2009).
253. See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357, 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959).
254. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 892 (W. Va. 2007).
255. Ness v. Albert, 665 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo. App. 1983).
256. Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378, 1380 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982).
257. Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 875 (N.Y. 1970).
258. See GORDLEY & VON MEHREN, supra note 42, at 169.
259. Grant County Development Authority, Statistical Data, http://www.grantcounty-wv.com/data.htm (last visited Apr. 11, 2009).
260. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 195.
261. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
262. Burch v. NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879, 889 (W. Va. 2007).
263. WECS, supra note 77, at 169.
264. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 195.
265. Id. at 154.
266. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 826 (1979).
267. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 895.
268. See, e.g., S.D. Gas & Elec. Co v. Super. Ct., 920 P.2d 669 (Cal. 1996) (dismissing suit for personal injury and injunctive relief due to alleged radiation from high-voltage power lines, where state PUC had adopted policy on electromagnetic fields and relief sought would interfere with state's regulatory powers).
269. NedPower, 647 S.E.2d at 895.
270. U.S. Census Bureau, State Rankings: Personal Income Per Capita (2007), http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank29.html (West Virginia is the second-poorest state in terms of per capita income).
271. Aesthetic Nuisance, supra note 57, at 1077.
272. Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378, 1382 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982).
273. See Commission Order, supra note 154, at 154.
274. Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 871 (N.Y. 1970).
275. See, e.g., James L. Jones, Energy: An Economic and National Security Challenge, POLITICO, Mar. 20, 2007, http://www.politico. com/news/stories/0307/3185.html (arguing that "energy is the physical resource underpinning America's economy, national security, global competitiveness and way of life").
276. See Baron, supra note 203, at 14 ("Unlike the Texas Public Utility Commission, West Virginia's commission issues siting certificates to wind farms and other electric generating facilities.").
277. See, e.g., Bob Keefe, Obama Pushes Wind Power on Coast Line, ATLANTA J.-CONST., Apr. 3, 2009, at 10A.