Illegal Wind Turbine Fraud Case 02"Unscrupulous Operators Corrupt Green Energy, Energy Bureau Turns a Blind Eye as Illegal Operators Act with Impunity, Construction and Planning Agency: Should Order Work Halted
(Continued from previous article) Land within the Fangyuan aquaculture exclusive zone in Changhua was illegally used to build a wind power plant. Fishermen reported it as soon as construction began, but the Changhua County Government not only tolerated its completion but even helped legalize it on the spot. The operator, emboldened by government endorsement, issued "Wind Profit Coins" to raise funds and then passed the scheme on, leaving investors stranded, which developed into a "green energy fraud."
In response, the Economic and Green Energy Affairs Department of Changhua County stated that because the operator had already obtained the renewable energy power generation equipment consent filing issued by the Energy Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the county government had a responsibility to provide guidance for legalization. The Energy Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs claimed it "only learned about it afterward" to distance itself from responsibility, but it would not revoke the consent permit either.
Wang Bainian, head of Rubao Xingye, the operator that has now taken over the land and the non-compliant wind turbines, said, "The government should actively provide guidance, not crack down or suppress. At the beginning, everyone was unfamiliar with things, so mistakes were inevitable." Regarding the future legalization review process, Wang Bainian was full of confidence: "Several hundred million yuan has already been invested. No matter how long it drags on, we will strive to complete legalization." As for the fund-raising fraud, Wang said it was done by the previous company and had nothing to do with him.
Energy Bureau: Operator Took Opportunistic Shortcuts, Energy Bureau "Learned About It Afterward"
According to green energy development procedures, the operator must first obtain a "consent filing" from the Energy Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, then sign a Power Purchase Agreement with Taipower, and only after that can it apply to begin construction. However, the illegal wind power plant in Fangyuan, Changhua, began construction illegally in May 2017, was reported in August, and was fined by the county government in October. Yet the Energy Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Taipower issued consent approval and signed the contract respectively in December 2017. The procedure was completely reversed.
Chen Chongxian, section chief of the Energy Technology Division of the Energy Bureau, said in response, "Government departments go by official documents. When the Energy Bureau issued the consent filing, the county government did not notify us that the land had already been illegally developed." He also noted that the Consent Approval Letter specifically stated that "land use must comply with regulations." Chen Chongxian stressed that the Energy Bureau "only learned about it afterward."
In response to the operator dividing the entire 10-hectare plot into 72 parcels, each with a 660-meter area for wind power development, clearly exploiting a legal loophole, Chen stated that even if the 10 hectares were divided into 72 land numbers, it was still the same green energy development case. The operator had two possible paths for improvement: "First, if it wants to proceed under permitted use, within the 10 hectares at most 660 square meters may be used for wind power, and the rest must be demolished. Second, if it goes through 'whole-area rezoning,' it must also submit a development plan in accordance with legal regulations and change the use zoning."
"The Changhua County Government's guidance to the operator does not mean it recognizes these ten hectares as legal; rather, it provides the operator with information so it knows where the remedial path is." Chen Chongxian repeatedly stressed, "The operator has already applied for extension several times. The county government has required the operator to supplement documents, and approval will only be granted if it complies with land regulations. Otherwise, it would not have been delayed until now without being able to obtain a license to sell electricity."
Energy Bureau Turns a Blind Eye to Violations but Does Not Revoke "Consent Approval"; Operator Acts with Impunity
However, since the county government accepted the operator's application in January 2018, more than two years have passed as of now (2020), and the operator still has not completed the supplementary documents. The operator also acts with impunity, continuing to upgrade equipment and expand the facts of the violation. In response, Chen Chongxian believed that the county government and the central government had fulfilled their responsibilities: "The government's attitude is to provide guidance, but the operator must bear the investment risk itself. It is possible that this investment cannot be recovered."
But what is puzzling is why the Energy Bureau would rather sit by while the violating operator applies for changes than revoke the "consent filing." Chen Chongxian said, "Before 2017, the legality of land use in green energy development procedures was only reviewed at the final 'equipment registration' stage. Therefore, before 2017, issuing a 'consent filing' did not require land legality as a condition."
However, the Energy Bureau's statements were contradictory. It first granted consent approval for the development case on the proviso that "the land use in this case must be legal," and then used "consent filing does not require land legality" as the reason why "the case cannot be revoked." So exactly how necessary is land legality to a green energy development case?
Chen Chongxian said that in the past it was only stipulated that "solar power development" must attach proof of legal land use when applying for consent filing, while "wind power development" did not require legal land documents. It was not until the 2019 revision of the Measures for the Administration of the Installation of Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment that wind power projects were also required to provide legal land use documents. Although the Energy Bureau belatedly tried to fix the problem, allowing the operator to violate the law in this case not only severely damaged the image of green energy, but also saw the central and local governments passing the buck to each other, with no one taking responsibility.
Construction and Planning Agency: According to law, the operator should be ordered to stop work and restore the site within a deadline; if necessary, the case should be referred to the district prosecutors office
According to land rezoning regulations, in subsidence areas where the development area is under 30 hectares, "solar power development" may be reviewed directly by county and city governments for rezoning. But this case involves "wind power generation," so the review authority lies with the central Construction and Planning Agency.
Zhu Weiting, section chief of the Second Section of the Comprehensive Planning Division of the Construction and Planning Agency, which is responsible for reviewing land rezoning matters, found the case unbelievable after learning about it: "The operator illegally built a wind power plant in an aquaculture zone. Under Article 21 of the Regional Plan Act, it should immediately be ordered to stop work and restore the original state within a deadline. Even if a development plan is to be submitted later, the operator should not be allowed to continue expanding the violation. Penalties may be imposed repeatedly, water and electricity supply may be cut off when necessary, and the case may be referred to the district prosecutors office when necessary."
Zhu Weiting said, "Aquaculture land is broadly considered agricultural land. To change it to another use, consent from the competent agricultural land authority is required. If it is sent to the Ministry of the Interior (Construction and Planning Agency) for review, the local competent agricultural land authority is the Agriculture Department, and the central one is the Council of Agriculture." Therefore, if this case enters review by the Construction and Planning Agency in the future, the opinion of the Council of Agriculture will play a key role.
Takeover Operator: No Matter How Long It Takes, the Wind Power Plant Will Definitely Be Made Legal
In this illegal wind turbine development case, after the original operator absconded with the raised funds, Rubao Xingye bought all rights from the first-hand operator Zhaobang Company. Rubao Xingye is a fairly large-scale automobile nut factory in Tainan. Its head, Wang Bainian, plans to upgrade the old nut factory into a wind turbine equipment manufacturer and in the future move into the developing Shalun Green Energy Industrial Park. The small wind turbine plant in the Fangyuan Wanggong aquaculture zone thus becomes the company's best advertisement.
Facing the land development dispute in this case, Wang said, "A small business is responding to policy by doing green energy. The government should actively provide guidance. We hope the government will give guidance, not crack down or suppress. At the beginning, everyone was unfamiliar, and there were no clear legal rules to follow, so mistakes were inevitable."
As for the investment dispute caused by the public fundraising in this case, Wang believed that "the previous party (Zhaobang) transferred the equipment rights in May of ROC year 106 but continued to publicize and solicit externally. That behavior was quite malicious." But he said, "The illegal fundraising issue has nothing to do with our company at all. We have already explained this to investors and entrusted a lawyer to handle it."
Speaking of the future legalization review process, Wang Bainian was clearly confident: "With so much invested, it is impossible to give up now. Several hundred million yuan has already been put in. No matter how long it drags on, we will strive to complete legalization." He raised his voice and appealed to the government, "If this one cannot be done, what other company would dare to respond and invest in the future?"
