CHA’s Appeal of Order No. 5

I. Introduction

Order No. 5 incorrectly assumes that the only interests by the CHA are about the sites of the wind farms. There are very real damages associated with the infrastructure of the transmission line that will adversely affect CHA members. Ecological fragmentation will negatively affect the adjacent ranches and bird watching groups. Economic, environmental and recreational interests will all be affected.

II. Legal Grounds for Appeal

The judge improperly found that the CHA does not have standing. The appeal will be on three grounds:

a. The project adversely affects the environmental, recreational and economic interests of the CHA and its members.

b. The Coastal Management Program requires public input and gives standing to the CHA.

c. PURA 37.054(b) provides standing.

III. Procedural and Background Facts

Members of the CHA are well-established environmental and ecological groups as well as adjacent properties to the proposed transmission line. The CHA and its members have judiciable interests to intervene in the case.

IV. Arguments and Authorities

a. Order No. 5 denying the CHA’s appeal is unjustified and improper because it denies persons with legal standing the right to participate in the process.

i. Order No. 5 improperly presumes that the interests of CHA do not pertain to the proposed transmission line.

1. Impacts of the transmission line with adversely affect CHA members. The transmission line will have detrimental impacts in terms of: collision mortality, loss of habitat, disturbance of habitat and disruption of ecological links. There will be impacts on recreation and tourism, which the King Ranch relies on for revenue. Several bird watching groups rely on the habitats for recreational activities.

2. Collision Mortality. AEP’s application admits that there will be collision mortalities to birds as a result of the project.

3. Endangered Species Impacts. The transmission line will threaten several protected species. The AEP application admits this.

4. Disturbances and Destruction of Wetlands, Dunes and Sheet Flow.

5. Impacts Recognized by Coastal Management Program. Disruption of wildlife and impact of wind farms themselves.

b. Order No. 5 denies unique information to the PUC under Coastal Management Program. The project is within the CMP boundary and must meet CMP standards for public participation. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that Coastal Management Program standards apply for public participation in transmission projects. The PUC would benefit greatly from input by the public and the affected property owners for this project.

c. Order No. 5 denies the CHA’s right to participate. The order incorrectly assumes that the CHA’s objections are about the wind farms and not the transmission line directly. However, there are specific economic, recreational and environmental impacts that give CHA members standing as interested parties in this case.

d. The denial of CHA’s intervention prejudices a substantial or material right of the CHA. The environmental, recreational and economic interests of the CHA members will be harmed by their exclusion in the proceedings.

V. Conclusion

The CHA and its members have specific interests that give standing in the AEP case. Negative ecological affects, fragmentation and danger to birds will be felt by adjacent ranches (Armstrong, King) and birding groups. All of these impacts must be taken into account by the PUC.

To read more please click here