. . . .
[¶ 2] On April 7, 2009, Evergreen filed an application with the Department of Environmental Protection for permits to construct the Oakfield Wind Project, a fifty-one-megawatt wind energy generation facility, in the Town of Oakfield. See 35-A M.R.S. §§ 3452-3455 (2008); 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-GG, 481-490 (2008). Evergreen's project involves the construction of thirty-four wind turbines, to be located along the ridgelines of Sam Drew Mountain and Oakfield Hills; access roads and a crane path; approximately twelve miles of an electrical collector line; an electrical collector substation; four meteorological towers; and an operations and maintenance building. This project is an "expedited wind energy development" because it is "a grid-scale wind energy development that is proposed for location within an expedited permitting area." 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(4) (2010).
. . . .
[¶ 4] With its application, Evergreen submitted a "Sound Level Assessment" prepared by an engineering company, which concluded that "sound levels from operation of the Oakfield Wind Project will not exceed Maine DEP sound level limits during construction or routine operation." See 38 M.R.S. § 484(3)(B); 2 C.M.R. 06 096 375-6 to -15 § 10 (2001). To "verify" compliance with the Department's sound level limits, the engineering company recommended that Evergreen monitor actual sound levels during operation of the project.
. . . .
[¶ 9] On appeal, the Trust contends that the Board was required to hold a public hearing. We addressed this exact argument in Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury v. Board of Environmental Protection, 2011 ME 39, ¶¶ 18-23, 15 A.3d 1263, 1270-71. In that case, we determined that the Board has discretion to decide whether to hold a public hearing when reviewing the Commissioner's decision on an application for an expedited wind energy development. Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, 2011 ME 39, ¶ 23, 15 A.3d at 1271; see also 38 M.R.S. § 345-A(1-A), (2) (2010); 38 M.R.S. § 341-D(4), (4)(D) (2009); 2 C.M.R. 06 096 002-4 to -5, -12 §§ 7(B)-(C), 24(B)(7) (2003).
. . . .
The order of this Court, dated January 27, 1966, as amended by the order of December 1, 1982, is further amended to read as follows:
1. The Atlantic Reporter is the official publication of the Court's opinions commencing January 1, 1966.
2. Opinions issued on or after January 1, 1966, and before January 1, 1997, shall be cited in the following style:
Westman v. Armitage, 215 A.2d 919 (Me. 1966)
3. Opinions issued on or after January 1, 1997, shall include the calendar year, the sequential number assigned to the opinion within that calendar year, and shall be cited in the following style:
Smith v. Jones, 1997 ME 7, 685 A.2d 110
4. The sequential decision number shall be included in each opinion at the time it is made available to the public and the paragraphs in the opinion shall be numbered. The official publication of each opinion issued on or after January 1, 1997 shall include the sequential number in the caption of the opinion and the paragraph numbers assigned by the Court.
5. Pinpoint citations shall be made by reference to paragraph numbers assigned by the Court in the following style:
Smith v. Jones, 1997 ME 7, para 14, 685 A.2d 110
6. Memorandum Decisions and Summary Orders shall not be published in the Atlantic Reporter and shall not be cited as precedent for a matter addressed therein.
[This order and all others of its vintage were withdrawn in 2005. See Me. Admin. Order, No. JB-05-01 (Aug. 1, 2005), http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/adminorders/JB-05-1.html. However, it continues to govern citation practice in Maine.]
Note: See also University of Maine School of Law, Uniform Maine Citations (2012 ed.), http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/pdf/UMC2012.pdf, (which seeks to aid Maine practitioners in preparing legal briefs and memoranda, and Maine justices and judges in writing opinions, by providing a system of citation for the materials most frequently cited in this state).