Letter: Invenergy vs. Worth County Part 2 – Albert Lea Tribune

The judge’s ruling states that Worth County acted in bad faith by implementing a moratorium on additional wind turbine construction and possibly a wind ordinance. It then granted Invenergy construction rights. Hanlon’s Razor “never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by folly.” The Deer Creek project was completed without a contract specifying what would be built (nonsense). Worth County passed a moratorium after Invenergy dbas presented Worth County residents and the board of supervisors with about 1,600 feet of setbacks, but some of the setbacks were changed at the last minute to about 1,000 feet. Worth County had a public hearing with Invenergy before the moratorium on new construction. At the public meeting,

Worth County Supervisor AJ Stone asked the Invenergy dba representative, “who made the change?” The only answer I ever got was “it wasn’t me”. Since this question was not answered, the supervisors were forced to adopt the moratorium on new construction (due diligence). The Invenergy dba representative was brought back six months later for another public hearing.

AJ Stone once again asked why the setbacks had changed – again with no response, so the ordinance followed. Invenergy purchased a contract with Freeborn County for the Deer Creek sister project that listed turbine locations and setbacks. In Freeborn County’s Invenergy contract, item no. 2. states “this contract belongs to the project”. Invenergy never acquired a contract with Worth County to vest (evil).

A strong reason for an appeal of the judge’s decision. During the trial, why Worth County implemented the ordinance and moratorium were not addressed. The judge exercised her due diligence by assuming bad faith without asking why a moratorium and injunction were implemented. Did Worth County receive adequate representation from a legal team that did not address the reasons for implementing the moratorium and ordinance?

Alan Reese
Northwood