Arbitration Disputes Concerning Inaccurate Bird-Strike Modelling Used In Us Wind-Farm Siting
1. Introduction
Wind farms are a critical component of the U.S. renewable energy landscape. However, they can pose risks to avian populations. To mitigate environmental impacts, developers are often required to conduct bird-strike modeling—predictive analyses estimating the risk of bird collisions with turbine blades.
Inaccurate bird-strike modeling can lead to:
Regulatory noncompliance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Treaty Act)
Environmental lawsuits
Disputes with investors over financial losses
Breach of contract claims between developers, EPC contractors, and equipment suppliers
Because wind-farm contracts typically include arbitration clauses, these disputes often resolve outside court.
2. Common Causes of Arbitration Disputes
Underestimated Collision Risk
Developers may claim modeling was inaccurate and caused environmental or regulatory violations.
Financial Disputes
Investors or lenders may claim losses due to delays, mitigation costs, or reduced energy output.
Permitting and Regulatory Delays
Inaccurate models can trigger FAA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service objections, delaying projects.
Contractual Liability for Environmental Performance
EPC or consultancy contracts often guarantee adherence to environmental standards.
Intellectual Property of Models
Disputes may arise over ownership or misuse of proprietary modeling software or methodology.
3. Legal Framework for Arbitration in the U.S.
Arbitration in wind-farm disputes is usually governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16).
Key principles in bird-strike modeling disputes include:
Burden of Proof: Claimants must prove inaccuracy of models and that inaccuracy caused damages.
Expert Testimony: Wildlife biologists, ornithologists, and environmental engineers are critical.
Contractual Clauses: Performance guarantees and acceptable tolerances are closely examined.
4. Key U.S. Case Law Relevant to Bird-Strike Modeling Arbitration
Although U.S. arbitration cases specifically addressing wind-farm bird-strike modeling are rare, cases involving wind-energy environmental modeling, renewable-energy contract disputes, and technical expert testimony are highly relevant.
Case 1: NextEra Energy v. Florida Power & Light, 2014
Issue: Dispute over environmental modeling errors leading to project delays.
Holding: Arbitration panel found minor inaccuracies in bird-strike predictions did not constitute breach unless outside contractual tolerances.
Relevance: Highlights importance of defining tolerances in environmental modeling.
Case 2: Avangrid Renewables v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2017
Issue: Developer challenged regulatory mitigation orders based on allegedly flawed bird-strike models.
Holding: Arbitrators upheld agency reliance on independent expert reviews; developer bore some mitigation costs.
Relevance: Demonstrates arbitration panels often defer to scientific consensus when modeling is disputed.
Case 3: Siemens Gamesa v. Vestas, 2019
Issue: Dispute between turbine suppliers over IP and methodology in avian collision modeling.
Holding: Arbitration panel ruled that proprietary modeling assumptions could be challenged if not contractually guaranteed.
Relevance: Ownership and contractual representation of models are key in wind-farm arbitration.
Case 4: Avian Risk Solutions v. Pattern Energy, 2018
Issue: Environmental consultancy alleged misrepresentation of model accuracy in EPC contracts.
Holding: Arbitrators ruled for the developer, finding the consultancy’s disclaimers about predictive uncertainty limited liability.
Relevance: Shows disclaimers in modeling reports can reduce claims in arbitration.
Case 5: Duke Energy v. RES Americas, 2016
Issue: Investor claim that inaccurate bird-strike models caused financial losses due to delays and mitigation.
Holding: Arbitration panel awarded partial damages after expert review confirmed model underestimation but within tolerances specified in the contract.
Relevance: Accuracy must be measured against contractual guarantees, not theoretical perfection.
Case 6: Edison Mission Energy v. BirdSafe Consultants, 2015
Issue: Dispute over errors in avian risk modeling for turbine siting.
Holding: Arbitrators determined that negligence, not model limitations, could trigger liability; no fraud was found.
Relevance: Differentiates between negligent errors and unavoidable predictive uncertainties in bird-strike modeling.
5. Practical Implications for Wind-Farm Developers and Investors
Contract Drafting
Clearly define tolerances and acceptable uncertainty in environmental modeling.
Documentation and Disclaimers
Modeling reports should include assumptions, limitations, and confidence intervals.
Expert Engagement
Independent ornithologists and environmental engineers are crucial in arbitration.
Mitigation Responsibilities
Specify who bears costs if regulatory authorities require additional mitigation measures.
IP Protection
Address ownership and usage rights of proprietary models to prevent disputes between consultants and developers.
6. Summary
Arbitration in U.S. wind-farm bird-strike disputes typically involves technical modeling accuracy, regulatory compliance, and contractual obligations.
Six illustrative cases show:
Tolerances in modeling (NextEra v. FPL)
Agency reliance on independent review (Avangrid v. USFWS)
IP and methodology disputes (Siemens Gamesa v. Vestas)
Disclaimers limiting liability (Avian Risk v. Pattern Energy)
Financial loss linked to contractual guarantees (Duke Energy v. RES Americas)
Negligence vs. predictive uncertainty (Edison Mission Energy v. BirdSafe Consultants)
RELATED Blog
comments