Injunction denied
Continued from page 1
Public Service Commission has the sole authority to regulate largescale wind energy projects, but it also states that local units of government may pass rules to “protect the public health and safety.”
In his decision, Jacobson cited case law stating that a temporary injunction may be granted only if four conditions are met. The party seeking the injunction must prove that it is “likely to suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction is not issued;” the party has “no other adequate remedy” under the law; the injunction is “necessary to preserve the status quo,” and the party has a “reasonable probability of success on the merits” of its case.
Because granting the injunction would “destroy” the status quo, Jacobson said he did not need to address the other three elements required for an injunction to be issued.
Judge Jacobson also denied a request by Farmland First, a citizens group that opposes industrial wind and solar operations, to intervene in the case. In assessing the group’s motion, the judge said he had to consider four criteria in state law, including whether or not Farmland First’s interests are “sufficiently related” to the outcome of the lawsuit.
Attorneys for Farmland First have said that the group wants to help uphold the validity of the towns’ ordinances, but it also has other interests, such as advocating to preserve the local landscape against the negative effect on “the aesthetic and recreational values of the area,” according to its previous court filings.
Judge Jacobson said that any impact of the court’s ruling on Farmland First’s activities would be “indirect.”
“Regardless of whether these two towns’ ordinances are upheld, Farmland First can continue to engage in advocacy,” the judge wrote. “The court’s ruling will not have such a direct and immediate impact on Farmland First to find that Farmland First would gain or lose by direct operation of that ruling.”
Farmland First had also argued that the court’s ruling will have a “statewide impact” on the ability of other rural municipalities to regulate wind farms, something the group has an interest in as an advocacy organization.
“However, this case is not about the wisdom of the state’s energy policy — it is about the validity of two town ordinances,” Judge Jacobson wrote in response.
Judge Jacobson said that Farmland First’s interests are already being adequately represented by the towns defending their ordinances, and allowing the group to participate as a third-party would create a potential “distraction.”
“Farmland First’s stated intention to use this lawsuit to further its policy goal of hindering or disrupting development of wind farm projects statewide threatens to distract from the legal issues on which the case actually turns,” he wrote. “Such a distraction would cause both prejudice and undue delay.”
Meanwhile, attorneys for the two towns have filed motions to dismiss the case, and MFW’s attorneys have requested a status conference to discuss the motion. A scheduling conference has been scheduled for Jan. 17.
