Friends of Maine's Mountains v. Board of Environmental Protection

61 A.3d 689, 2013 ME 25 (2013)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Friends of Maine’s Mountains v. Board of Environmental Protection

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
61 A.3d 689, 2013 ME 25 (2013)

Facts

In October 2010, Saddleback Ridge Wind, LLC (Saddleback) applied to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (the department) for a permit to construct a 12-turbine wind-energy development. Saddleback’s application included a noise-impact study that assessed the effects of turbine noise on 34 residences located near the project site. Friends of Maine’s Mountains, Friends of Saddleback Mountain, and several individuals (collectively, Friends) (plaintiff) objected to Saddleback’s permit application, citing the alleged health effects of turbine noise. While Saddleback’s permit application was pending, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (the board) (defendant) studied wind-development-related noise and considered whether to amend the state’s noise regulations. In September 2011, the board provisionally adopted an amendment to the regulations that lowered the nighttime-sound-level limit for wind-energy projects from 45 decibels to 42 decibels. The board determined that decreasing the sound-level limit was necessary to minimize wind projects’ negative health impacts on nearby residents. Three weeks later, the department granted Saddleback’s permit application and incorporated a nighttime-sound-level limit of 45 decibels. Saddleback’s application indicated that the proposed wind-development project met the 45-decibel limit, but Saddleback had not attempted to show that the project could meet the amended 42-decibel limit. Friends appealed the department’s decision to the board, which had appellate jurisdiction to review certain of the department’s decisions. In February 2012, the board affirmed the department’s approval of Saddleback’s permit application and specifically affirmed the department’s decision to apply the 45-decibel nighttime-sound-level limit. The board noted that, according to Saddleback’s noise-impact study, the most significantly affected residence near the project would experience nighttime sound levels of 44 decibels. The board thus found that residents near the project would be subjected to a nighttime sound level under 45 decibels, even though there was no evidence that the sound levels would decrease fully to a 42-decibel level. Friends appealed the board’s order.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Silver, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership