January 11, 2011- Maine's Supreme Judicial Court to consider two wind cases

In any major development, securing siting and environmental approvals is a key step.  This can be especially true when siting renewable and wind energy projects, where local sentiments about siting can be strong.  This afternoon, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will entertain oral argument on two appeals relating to separate wind energy generation projects in Maine.  Both are appeals of orders of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection issuing permits to projects.

In the first case, Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection, a group of individuals and camp owners are challenging the Board's issuance of permits to Record Hill Wind, LLC.  Record Hill intends to construct a wind energy facility in Roxbury, Maine.  (This summer, the Maine PUC conditionally approved a plan to upgrade transmission lines from 34 kV to 115 kV to enable the Record Hill project to get its power out.) The citizens now argue that the Board committed a variety of errors in the case, including denying their requests to hold a public hearing and to supplement the record after it was closed.  The citizens also argue that the Board improperly reached findings that Record Hill had sufficiently demonstrated safeguards to prevent adverse health effects from noise, financial capacity to fund the project, and licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the project.

In the second case, Martha A. Powers Trust et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection, appellants challenge a decision of the Board issuing permits to Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Oakfield.  Similarly, in this case, appellants claim that the Board committed a variety of errors in the case, including denying a request to hold a public hearing.  Appellants also dispute whether the developer sufficiently demonstrated safeguards to prevent adverse health effects from noise, financial capacity to fund the project, and decommissioning requirements.

After today's oral argument, the Court will likely take the matters under advisement.  In each case, the Court should issue a written opinion providing its analysis and judgment.  How will the agency's permits weather these gusts?