Champlain Wind, LLC v. Board of Environmental Protection
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
129 A.3d 279 (2015)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The Maine Wind Energy Act and related statutes were intended to encourage the development of wind-energy production in Maine. The statutes created an expedited permitting area with a streamlined regulatory process for obtaining wind-energy-development permits. The statutes prohibited the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (the board) (defendant) from denying a wind-energy-development permit solely because of the wind turbines’ visual impact. The statutes also exempted expedited wind-energy developments from the statutory environmental-protection requirement that a proposed development fit harmoniously within the existing natural environment. At the same time, however, the Maine legislature identified certain areas in the state in which the visual impact of proposed wind-energy developments had to be scrutinized more closely. Specifically, closer scrutiny was required if the development would compromise views in a way that had an unreasonably adverse effect on the scenic character of “scenic resources of state or national significance” (e.g., natural landmarks, historic places, state and national parks, and great ponds). In October 2012, Champlain Wind, LLC (Champlain) (plaintiff) applied to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (the department) for permits to construct a wind-development project within the expedited permitting area. Champlain met nearly all of the permitting criteria. However, the project’s wind turbines would have been visible from nine scenically significant interconnected great ponds that were outside the expedited permitting area. The department denied Champlain’s application, concluding that the proposed project would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses related to the scenic character of the affected great ponds. Champlain appealed to the board, which affirmed the department’s decision. The board considered the affected area’s existing character, the scenic significance of the affected ponds, the fact that the affected ponds were outside the expedited permitting area, and the ponds’ interconnectedness, which would result in people being repeatedly subjected to views of the wind turbines from multiple sites when traveling between the ponds. Champlain petitioned for judicial review of the board’s decision, asserting that the board had improperly aggregated the proposed project’s scenic impact on the nine ponds in concluding that an unreasonable adverse scenic effect existed. The board argued that it was allowed to take a holistic approach to analyzing a proposed project’s impact on multiple interconnected scenic locations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saufley, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.