Investigate the records behind Swift Current Energy’s Black Cherry Wind proposal: withdrawn NYISO queue requests, development plans, township oversight, land leases, and public accountability. Documented facts first. Tough questions always.
A resource for McKean County residents to examine the proposal, explore publicly available information, question decisions, and participate in the process. Our communities deserve meaningful answers.
The latest filings, leadership changes and legal disputes surrounding Swift Current Energy. We link to the source, distinguish allegations from findings, and flag unanswered questions.
Three earlier NYISO entries (1647, 1648 and 1649) and three later entries (C24-298, C24-299 and C24-309) appear as withdrawn in the public queue tracker. Withdrawal of a grid request does not prove cancellation of the overall wind proposal.
Swift Current alleges that over 2.4 million panels supplied to separate solar projects failed to perform as promised. The allegations are contested claims in ongoing litigation, not judicial findings. This lawsuit is unrelated to the design or safety of Black Cherry wind turbines.
Michael Arndt succeeded Eric Lammers as CEO. Swift Current later announced five appointments and that four co-founders were departing.
Company announcement ↗Swift Current announced a $750 million facility, with an option to expand it by $250 million. That is corporate financing, not proof that Black Cherry Wind has secured construction funding.
Read financing announcement ↗Our existing timeline documents the township's denial of the MET Tower B application. Review the underlying record before drawing conclusions about any future turbine permit.
View Black Cherry timeline ↗Source policy: Items are selected for their relevance to oversight, disputed issues, project status, or community concerns—not as proof of misconduct. Dates indicate publication or our latest review; older context is identified.
The documents establish a withdrawn tower application and a separate terminated land easement. Neither means a turbine or MET tower was constructed.
The July 2025 MET A application included a site near a gas well described as abandoned in an environmental study. In an August letter, Black Cherry Wind Power acknowledged nearby well 083-53597 was active and had produced gas in 2024. After contacting the operator, the developer withdrew MET A's Norwich Township application on September 5, stating it would move the tower location.
Our assessment: The conflicting descriptions raise serious questions about early site due diligence. The developer said its inspection revealed no material safety concerns; withdrawal does not establish that any tower was installed or that a legal safety violation occurred.
A seven-page document recorded by the McKean County Recorder of Deeds shows Black Cherry Wind Power, LLC terminated a meteorological-tower easement agreement originally dated July 25, 2024 with Land Management Systems, Inc. The release was executed July 22, 2026.
The record describes land in Liberty Township, including tax parcel 26-009-113. This is documented relinquishment of rights under that specific easement—not proof the entire wind project was canceled or that any tower was physically removed.
Document standard: The red map marker identifies a proposed MET location from an application, not a constructed tower. The 2026 filing identifies a property easement, not exact tower coordinates. Sources are linked so readers can evaluate the underlying evidence and the developer's response.
Some project-related agreements and studies have not been broadly available to the public, and residents have questioned the use of non-disclosure terms. We believe Swift Current should identify the studies it relies upon, explain what can legally be disclosed, and publish a complete project description. Public confidence requires more than promises.
Questions also surround land deals and financing tied to this project. Lyme Timber obtained PennVEST financing that has been publicly debated in Pennsylvania as an unusual use of a program many residents associate with municipal water and wastewater projects. We believe these transactions deserve full public scrutiny and plain-English explanations.
For a detailed chronological breakdown of land deals, interconnection filings, and community response, see our History Timeline .
Residents criticized the notice and review process for proposed meteorological (MET) towers, including the application considered in Norwich Township. Aviation, low-level military training, tower marking and radar considerations deserve documented review. See the township decision in the history timeline and the applicable FAA and military correspondence before assuming any conflict has been established.
Black Cherry Wind filed multiple requests in the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) interconnection process. A public queue tracker now marks the listed requests withdrawn. They show a proposed New York wholesale-market connection, but they do not establish how any future project would be built, where every megawatt would physically flow, or who would ultimately purchase it.
We want a current answer: Is the project moving forward, changing transmission arrangements, paused or being reconsidered? An interconnection withdrawal is not the same as a canceled land lease or an official project termination.
Older requests 1647, 1648 and 1649 also appear withdrawn. Capacities are requested nameplate values, not confirmed operating output. Some tracker county fields differ between submissions.
Lease language can stack options and extensions approaching multi-decade terms, and can be assigned or sold to other entities. That’s long-term control of ridgelines while locals live with the consequences. If this is truly good for us, put every clause in daylight.
Swift Current Energy is a privately held energy developer with changing executive leadership and financing relationships. In an investment portfolio entry dated June 30, 2026, IFM Investors identifies a 12.5% fund ownership stake in Swift Current. That figure should not be confused with an independently verified breakdown of every shareholder or voting arrangement.
In August 2026, Swift Current announced a $750 million corporate credit facility. Residents deserve to know which legal entity is developing Black Cherry Wind, who would own and operate it, what financial security would cover decommissioning, and how the project would be financed.
Names and roles published by Swift Current Energy. Listing a person documents their company position—not personal involvement in, or responsibility for, an alleged violation. Project-specific decisions and contacts should be confirmed from the underlying filings.
Swift Current's August leadership announcement also names Chris Calitri (Investments & Capital Markets) and Caroline Mann (Commercial). The announced departing founders include Matt Birchby, Peter Mara, Will Havemeyer, and William Kelsey. Source ↗
This watch focuses on lawsuits, permit disputes, official filings, community opposition and other controversies where Swift Current Energy or Black Cherry Wind is specifically named. A headline is not a verdict. Read the full reporting before sharing.
Swift Current is the plaintiff in a dispute involving other solar projects. The case remains unresolved.
pv magazine USA ↗Public NYISO tracker statuses raise a critical question about the future development path.
Interconnection.fyi ↗The existing project timeline links the township record and explains what was decided.
Black Cherry public record ↗Deep foundations, blasting, and heavy construction can threaten wells and springs. Many draft terms do not guarantee potable water replacement if a source is impacted. That is unacceptable.
Decommissioning isn’t as rosy as advertised. In many places, foundations are removed only a few feet below grade, leaving massive concrete in the ground. We demand full-depth removal (or a genuine engineered equivalent), inflation-indexed bonding, and third-party cost review.
Explore the everyday quality-of-life, public-safety, and environmental questions that residents raise about industrial wind development.
“Whoosh” / “thump,” tonal hums, and low-frequency noise that carry at night. Residents report lost sleep and daily fatigue.
Strobe-like blade flicker in mornings/evenings and constant red lights that change dark rural skies.
Ridge-top turbines dominate viewsheds and alter community character and property enjoyment.
Bird and bat kills. Curtailment reduces totals but doesn’t eliminate ongoing possible impacts.
Icing and mechanical failures create hazards for roads, trails, and work areas. Real setbacks are required.
Oversize loads, cranes, concrete trucks, and escorts beat up township roads and drive dust into homes.
Noise, lighting, and altered viewsheds turn buyers away and chill local real-estate markets.
Gates/closures block familiar woods roads, hunting spots, and recreation areas residents used for decades.
Equipment failures, leaks, and fires require specialized response often far from rural resources.
Ownership flips and thin bonds risk sticking towns with removal costs decades later.
Some neighbors report ear pressure, headaches, or nausea correlated with certain wind directions.
Signal reflection and obstruction create weak or inconsistent reception near turbine strings.
Cut/fill on ridgelines sends sediment into ditches, culverts, springs, and trout streams after heavy rains.
Crews, pickups, and service cranes show up regularly. Noise and road wear don’t end after construction.
Night beacons and substation glow ruin stargazing and rural quiet that draw people here.
Construction seasons, blasting, and setbacks push patterns and limit traditional use.
When rural townships try to adopt stronger rules on height, setbacks, or noise, large wind developers often push back. Residents see legal threats and closed-door “benefits” discussions as tactics to weaken local protections.
Developers may claim townships could be sued if ordinances are “too strict.” That pressure belongs in public records, not back channels.
Residents argue “community benefit” offers should be published in full, in advance, and never tied to votes.
Submitting MET towers separately from turbine filings makes it harder for residents to see the full scope at once.
Residents want lease terms, decommissioning bonds, blasting studies, and water guarantees before approvals.
Bottom line: Townships have the legal right to set standards that protect health, safety, and property values. Developers are free to meet those standards. They are not entitled to rewrite them.
Learn more about common concerns, watch examples, and read responses to frequently asked questions.
Industrial wind turbines are not silent. Depending on wind direction, humidity, and terrain, neighbors report a constant “whoosh/thump,” low-frequency hum, and tonal noises that carry, especially at night. Many people describe sleep disruption and daytime fatigue from the repetitive character of the sound. Put on headphones or turn your volume up to hear the full range.
Tip: Noise often travels farther downwind and during stable nighttime conditions. That’s when families report the worst sleep impacts.
Yes. Turbine fires can be caused by gearbox failures, overheated brakes, lightning strikes, or electrical malfunctions in the nacelle. Once ignited, turbine fires are extremely difficult for rural crews to extinguish due to their height.
Once a turbine fire starts, local responders often can only secure the area and let it burn. Debris and contamination risk remain local.
McKean County sits under the Duke Military Operations Area (MOA), where low-level training occurs. In September 2025, an Executive Order restored “Department of War” as a secondary title used by the Department of Defense in official communications, but a permanent rename would still require Congress. The key point for us is unchanged: low-level training corridors and radar considerations deserve full transparency before ridgelines are industrialized.
Bottom line: if turbines are proposed near training airspace, the public deserves clear, complete, on-the-record answers.
Turbines have control systems designed for high winds, but real storms still bring risk: lightning strikes, erosion, and ice accretion with ice throw. In forested terrain, access for safe shutdown and response is harder.
Bottom line: the control systems are real. So are the risks and the maintenance burden in harsh weather.
Public NYISO interconnection tracking shows the listed Black Cherry Wind and battery requests are withdrawn, including C24-298, C24-299 and C24-309. That does not confirm whether the underlying land-development proposal has been canceled, redesigned, or moved to another interconnection strategy. View the public queue tracker.
Even an active interconnection request would identify a proposed wholesale-market relationship; it would not by itself establish the ultimate purchaser of electricity or physically track individual electrons. We are asking Swift Current to release its current project plan.
Contact decision-makers, sign the petition, and share what you've learned with neighbors.
Oppose the Black Cherry Wind Project. Call out foreign-backed ownership, NYISO market benefit, long leases, and risks to residents, wildlife, water, and ridgelines. Enter your name, pick a recipient, copy, and send.
Add your voice to the petition calling for transparency and safeguards. Review its language before you sign.
Sign the PetitionAfter you sign, help the movement by sharing this page with others in our community.
Send meeting minutes, notices, permits, filings, photographs, or a factual correction for review. This form sends submissions to the established Protect McKean County Wilds intake system.
Not affiliated with Swift Current Energy. BlackCherryScam.com is an independent community commentary and public-records website. It is not operated, approved, sponsored, or endorsed by Swift Current Energy, any project affiliate, or any governmental agency. Swift Current Energy and Black Cherry Wind are used solely to identify the subject of reporting and commentary. Original trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Facts, allegations and opinions are not interchangeable. We identify public filings, company statements, attributed reports, allegations, predictions and editorial opinions as such. Litigation allegations are not proof of wrongdoing; permit applications and queue filings are not construction approvals. Third-party links are provided for verification and do not mean the site endorses every statement in those sources.
Corrections and responses: We welcome dated primary-source records, documented corrections and responses from any person or organization mentioned. Use the document and correction form. Good-faith errors will be evaluated and corrected promptly. Project status and ownership information may change; review original sources for their latest updates.
Privacy: Information submitted through this site's form is handled by the separate Protect McKean County Wilds intake service. Do not assume anonymity or legal privilege. This site does not give legal, financial or medical advice.
Editorial review date: October 17, 2026.
