## Facts

- Champlain Wind, LLC proposed the Bowers Wind Project, a 16-turbine grid-scale wind development sited within Maine’s statutorily defined expedited permitting area for wind energy.
- Several “scenic resources of state or national significance” (SRSNS)—including nine interconnected great ponds—were within view of the proposed turbines; the ponds were outside the expedited permitting area and valued for remote recreation and largely undeveloped character.
- Maine’s statutory scheme expresses dual policies: expediting wind energy development in defined areas while providing enhanced protection for designated scenic resources.
- Champlain applied to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the required permits; DEP denied the application after finding the turbines’ visibility from the nine great ponds would cause an “unreasonable adverse effect” on scenic character and related uses.
- Champlain appealed to the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP), which affirmed the denial after record-based review, emphasizing the ponds’ high scenic value, their interconnected use patterns, and the repetitive nature of turbine views for users traveling among them.
- Champlain petitioned for judicial review, arguing the BEP unlawfully aggregated impacts across multiple ponds and failed to give adequate effect to the Legislature’s policy favoring expedited wind development.

## Issues

1. Whether the BEP acted unlawfully or arbitrarily by evaluating visual impacts cumulatively across multiple interconnected great ponds rather than treating each pond separately.
2. Whether the BEP misapplied the wind-energy permitting statutes by overvaluing scenic protection relative to the policy favoring expedited wind development in the expedited permitting area.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the BEP’s finding that the project would have an “unreasonable adverse effect” on the scenic character and scenic-related uses of the affected great ponds.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court) affirmed the BEP’s denial of the permit.
- The court held the BEP’s cumulative assessment of scenic impacts across the interconnected ponds was permissible under the statutory framework.
- The court held the BEP appropriately balanced the Legislature’s dual policies and the court would not reweigh that policy balancing on the record presented.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported the BEP’s finding of an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and scenic-related uses of the nine great ponds.

## Legal Principles

- An expedited wind project permit may be denied if the project’s visual impact on SRSNS would have an “unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character or existing uses related to scenic character” of those resources.
- The wind-energy statutes both facilitate wind development within expedited permitting areas and preserve heightened protection for designated scenic resources, including great ponds.
- Absent a statutory directive to analyze each scenic resource in isolation, an agency may consider interconnected resources and repeated user exposure when determining the reasonableness of visual impacts.
- On judicial review of environmental permitting decisions, courts examine errors of law, abuse of discretion, and whether findings are supported by substantial evidence, while deferring to reasonable agency interpretations and fact findings supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Law Court upheld the denial of Champlain Wind’s permit because the BEP reasonably applied the scenic-impact standard to protected great ponds using a cumulative, interconnected-resources analysis, and its determination of an unreasonable adverse visual effect was supported by substantial evidence and reflected a permissible balancing of the governing statutory policies.


Champlain Wind, LLC v. Bd. of Env’t Prot., 129 A.3d 279 (Me. 2015)