Opinion ID: 2301453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Relevant Issues

Text: [¶ 12] FBM argues that LURC ignored several issues raised by it during the administrative hearings. These issues include whether the project had any effect on Canada, whether an offset for public subsidies was considered when examining tangible benefits, whether LURC considered the effect on wildlife in determining noise levels, and whether LURC considered the potential for congestion of transmission lines. These arguments are not persuasive. Pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9061 (2011), [e]very agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding. . . shall include findings of fact sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision. The Wind Energy Act, 35-A M.R.S. §§ 3401-3457, and provisions in LURC's enabling statute, see 12 M.R.S. § 685-B(4), (4-B), require LURC to make certain findings when reviewing expedited wind energy development applications. Although these statutes do not require an agency to make a detailed incident-by-incident fact finding, Murphy v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 615 A.2d 255, 260 (Me.1992), the findings must be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful appellate review, see Schwartz, 2006 ME 41, ¶ 10, 895 A.2d 965. If an agency fails to make sufficient and clear findings of fact and such findings are necessary for judicial review, [this Court] will remand the matter to the agency or board to make the findings. Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶ 30, 837 A.2d 148. [¶ 13] Contrary to FBM's assertions, LURC was not required to consider the first two issues raised by FBM, LURC considered everything statutorily required for the third issue, and the party on whose behalf the fourth issue was raised did not appeal the issue. [¶ 14] Regarding the first issue, LURC is not required to consider the project's effects on Canada, but rather its effects on the scenic character or existing uses related to scenic character of the scenic resource of state or national significance.  35-A M.R.S. § 3452(1) (emphasis added). As to the second issue, no statutory provision required LURC to consider an offset of the dollar amount for the public subsidies TransCanada will receive in analyzing whether the project will provide significant tangible benefits. 12 M.R.S. § 685-B(4-B)(D); 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10). Regarding the third issuethe effects of noise generated by the project on wildlifeLURC summarized the positions of FBM and IF & W in its decision, and it ultimately made the finding required by statute: that the noise generated by the project satisfied applicable noise-control laws. See 12 M.R.S. § 685-B(4-B)(A). Finally, regarding the fourth issue, none of the applicable review criteria requires a finding relating to the potential for congestion of transmission lines, and the interested party on whose behalf the argument is being raised has not appealed the decision.