Friends of Maine's Mountains v. Board of Environmental Protection
2013 ME 25, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20056, 61 A.3d 689 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state administrative agency abuses its discretion when it approves a development permit under an existing standard after the agency, in its separate rulemaking capacity, has already made factual findings that the existing standard is inadequate to protect public health and has provisionally adopted a stricter standard.
Facts:
- Saddleback Ridge Wind, LLC (Saddleback) proposed to build a 12-turbine, 33-megawatt wind energy project in Carthage, Canton, and Dixfield, Maine.
- The proposed project was located near thirty-four residences and Webb Lake.
- Saddleback's application included a noise impact study showing that the modeled nighttime sound level at the most affected residence would be 44 dBA, which complied with the then-effective 45 dBA limit.
- Friends of Maine’s Mountains (Friends), a group opposing the project, raised concerns about the health effects of noise emitted by wind turbines.
- While Saddleback's application was pending, the Board of Environmental Protection (Board), in its rulemaking capacity, studied the noise from wind energy developments.
- Based on its study and evidence that residents near existing projects were experiencing adverse health effects at levels near 45 dBA, the Board determined the 45 dBA limit was not sufficiently protective of public health.
- Twenty-one days before the Department approved Saddleback's permit, the Board provisionally adopted an amendment to its rules, lowering the nighttime sound limit for wind projects from 45 dBA to 42 dBA.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 26, 2010, Saddleback Ridge Wind, LLC filed permit applications with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
- Friends of Maine’s Mountains (Friends) objected to the application and requested a public hearing, which the Department, as the court of first instance, denied.
- On October 6, 2011, the Department issued a final order approving Saddleback’s permit application, subject to a 45 dBA nighttime sound limit.
- Friends, as appellant, appealed the Department’s order to the Board of Environmental Protection (Board), an intermediate appellate body for this type of decision.
- On February 18, 2012, the Board issued a final order affirming the Department’s approval of the permit.
- Friends, as appellant, appealed the Board’s final order to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in the state, with the Board and Saddleback as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state environmental board abuse its discretion by approving a wind energy project permit under a 45 dBA nighttime sound limit when the board, in its separate rulemaking capacity, has already determined that this limit is inadequate to protect public health and has provisionally adopted a stricter 42 dBA limit?
Opinions:
Majority - Silver, J.
Yes. The Board abused its discretion by approving the permit under the 45 dBA standard because in its separate rulemaking capacity, it had already determined that this standard was insufficient to protect public health. The Board's statutory obligation is to protect the health and welfare of a project's neighbors. Having concluded in its rulemaking capacity that the 45 dBA limit did not adequately protect public health, the Board could not then ignore its own findings when acting in its adjudicatory capacity to approve a permit under that same inadequate standard. Although the new 42 dBA rule was not yet formally effective, the Board's factual determination that the stricter limit was necessary to protect public health was part of the record and could not be disregarded. By applying a standard it knew to be inadequate, the Board exceeded the bounds of its reasonable choices and failed to meet its statutory duty. The court also rejected the appellant's constitutional claims, finding the Wind Energy Act's definition of 'scenic resource' was rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and its visual impact criteria provided an 'intelligible principle' and were therefore not an unconstitutional delegation of power.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important principle in administrative law, holding that an agency's factual findings from its rulemaking function can constrain its discretion in separate adjudicatory proceedings, even before a new rule becomes formally effective. It prevents an agency from knowingly applying a standard it has already deemed insufficient to protect public health, thereby prioritizing the agency's protective mandate over procedural timing. This precedent could be used in future cases to challenge agency actions that rely on outdated standards when the agency's own more recent findings demonstrate those standards are inadequate. It blurs the strict separation between an agency's legislative and adjudicative roles, requiring greater consistency between an agency's declared findings and its case-specific decisions.
