Northern Laramie Range Foundation v. Converse County Board of County Commissioners
2012 WY 158
Wyo.2012Background
- Two consolidated wind-energy permit cases involve Wasatch Wind In-termountain in Converse County, Wyoming.
- Case No. S-12-0060 challenges a Converse County WECS permit and standing of NLRA, NLREF, and White Creek Ranch.
- Case No. S-12-0061 challenges an ISC industrial siting permit; NLRA and NLREF challenge the ISC decision.
- Board granted a WECS permit; district court held NLRA/NLRF lacked standing; White Creek Ranch had standing; merits reviewed under arbitrary and capricious standard for informal hearings.
- ISC issued a permit with Special Condition #19 requiring additional financial assurances prior to construction; the ISC decision was reviewed under substantial evidence standard for contested proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review applied to the Board decision | Wasatch/NLRA argued substantial evidence should apply after a formal hearing. | Board decision from informal hearing merits arbitrary and capricious review under Dale. | Arbitrary and capricious standard applies. |
| Standing of NLRA and NLREF to appeal the WECS permit | NLRA/NLREF have standing via association-member injuries and/or associational rights. | NLREF lacked injury-in-fact; NLRA lacks individual standing. | NLRA has standing; NLREF does not. |
| Traffic study adequacy under WECS requirements | Wasatch was obligated to study relevant roads and provide a comprehensive traffic analysis. | Statute requires study of roads with some relationship to access; Box Elder segment studied was sufficient. | Board's traffic study found adequate; not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Financial assurance for WECS permit | Wasatch must demonstrate sufficient own financial resources; reliance on a partner is improper. | Financial resources may be demonstrated through outside investors; ISC could condition permits. | Agency could rely on outside resources and condition the permit; no error. |
| Notification and due process in WECS permitting | Owner-occupant notifications were inadequate for Hornung and White Creek Ranch. | Actual notice and opportunity to participate; no prejudicial error. | Notification and due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2008) (clarifies standards of review for agency findings; substantial evidence vs arbitrary and capricious)
- Gilbert v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Park County, 232 P.3d 17 (Wy. 2010) (informal proceedings and applicable standards of review; authority of board)
- Pfeil v. Amax Coal West, Inc., 908 P.2d 956 (Wy. 1995) (noting prejudice and notice standards in deference to final agency action)
- Northfork Citizens for Respons. Dev. v. Park County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 189 P.3d 260 (Wy. 2008) (standing for neighboring landowners in land-use decisions)
- Hoke v. Moyer, 865 P.2d 628 (Wy. 1993) (standing requires perceptible harm to property interests)
- Cox v. City of Cheyenne, 79 P.3d 500 (Wy. 2003) (adjoining landowners have standing to challenge zoning/annexation decisions)
- Laramie River Conservation Council v. Industrial Siting Council, 588 P.2d 1241 (Wy. 1978) (ISC may condition permits to protect environment and community interests)
- Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1997) (arbitrary and capricious review for informal agency decisions)
- Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (arbitrary and capricious review after informal adjudication)