Search
Twitter

DISCLAIMER: This blog is published for general information only - it is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to notify you that any tax-related material in this blog (including links and attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties, and may not be referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.  While we welcome you to contact our authors, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you.

« ISO New England Preliminary Forecast Predicts Continued Growth | Main | MPUC Clarifies Standards for Interconnection of Small Generators »
Friday
Mar252011

Maine Supreme Court Denies Appeals in Record Hill and Oakfield Wind Power Projects 

The Maine Supreme Court issued two opinions Thursday rejecting appeals of permits issued for the development of the Record Hill Wind project in Roxbury, Maine, and the Oakfield wind power project in Oakfield, Maine.  Today’s opinions upholding the Maine Board of Environmental Protection’s approval of both projects mean that the projects’ permits are now final and non-appealable. 

The Court unanimously affirmed the Board of Environmental Protection’s determination that both wind power projects comply with all relevant permitting standards, including the state’s strictest sound limits.  The opponents had claimed that the Board was required to have held a public hearing, should have found that the projects would result in adverse health effects and didn’t satisfy standards related to decommissioning and financial capacity.  The Court disagreed, rejecting all of the opponents’ arguments.

Writing for the Court in Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection et al. (click to open PDF), Justice Ellen Gorman found that, with respect to the Record Hill Wind project, “the Board’s findings concerning the health effects of wind turbine noise are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The report of the [Maine Center for Disease Control] and the [Department of Environmental Protection’s] noise control consultant’s opinion both support the finding that the Record Hill Wind Project will not generate unreasonable adverse health effects.” 

Justice Gorman further found that, “because the record before the Board was voluminous and included numerous written comments, studies, and information submitted by both Record Hill and CCSR, we see no reason to conclude that the Board abused its discretion or otherwise erred in denying CCSR’s request to conduct a public hearing on the ground that the record was ‘adequately developed.’”

Justice Gorman also wrote the opinion in Martha A. Powers Trust et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection et al. (click to open PDF), in which the Court rejected the claims raised by opponents of the Oakfield Wind Power project on the same grounds.

The Record Hill Wind Project is a 22-turbine, 50.6-megawatt facility being developed by Brunswick-based Independence Wind, of which former Maine Gov. Angus King is a principal.  The Oakfield Wind Project is a 34-turbine, 51-megawatt facility being developed by First Wind, which is headquartered in Boston and has offices throughout Maine.  The two projects are unrelated but the Maine Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeals of both projects at the same time and issued its opinions rejecting those appeals on the same day.

Both the Record Hill and Oakfield projects are represented by Verrill Dana attorneys Juliet Browne and Gordon Smith.      

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>