Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00207/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

DOWNWIND, LLC and GOLDEN 

BRIDGE, LLC 

v. No. 3:16-cv-207-DPM 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY; ERNEST MONIZ, in his 

official capacity as Secretary of the United 

States Department of Energy; 

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION; 

and SCOTT CARPENTER, in his official 

PLAINTIFFS 

capacity as Administrator of the Southwestern 

Power Administration DEFENDANTS 

PLAINS AND EASTERN CLEAN 

LINE HOLDINGS, LLC 

ORDER 

INTERVENOR 

1. Clean Line's timely motion to intervene, NQ 11, is granted. Although 

Downwind and Golden Bridge responded, they didn't oppose intervention. 

NQ 14. They offered some clarification on the facts. Clean Line has shown a 

substantial interest in the transmission line project and that its interest will be 

impaired if Downwind and Golden Bridge succeed in blocking the line. The 

Department of Energy and the Southwestern Power Administration will 

represent the public's interest in compliance with the regulatory framework, 

and Clean Line is, of course, part of the public. But the Department doesn't 

Case 3:16-cv-00207-DPM Document 15 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 2
represent the developer's independent personal interests. National Parks 

Conservation Association v. U.S. EPA, 759 F.3d 969, 975-77 (8th Cir. 2014). 

Clean Line's project responsibilities, property rights, and financial obligations 

are unique to the entity. So Clean Line has a right to be in the case. Ibid; FED. 

R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). 

2. Even if Clean Line couldn't intervene as of right, the Court concludes 

that the company needs to be in the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b). Intervention 

will not delay the case or prejudice any party's rights. South Dakota ex rel. 

Barnett v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 317 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir. 2003). The 

motion was timely; independent federal question jurisdiction exists; and 

Clean Line's defenses raise questions of law and fact already in play. Flynt v. 

Lombardi, 782 F.3d 963, 966-67 (8th Cir. 2015). 

3. Clean Line should file its answer by 14 November 2016. 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-2-

Case 3:16-cv-00207-DPM Document 15 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2