In re Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project Water Quality Cert. Appeal, et al.

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, denied Appellants’ motion to alter or reconsider prior decisions dismissing Questions 1 and 2 for lack of statutory standing and denying related requests to vacate the water quality certifications and enter judgment. The court held that the motion did not establish a basis for relief under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and that the earlier rulings were not final judgments subject to Rule 60(b). The court also declined to revise its interlocutory orders but clarified that the parties may address the interpretation and application of applicable regulatory standards in connection with properly raised questions at the de novo hearing.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because appellants failed to identify a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law, and principally repeated arguments previously raised and rejected.
2. The court could not reconsider the merits of Questions 1 and 2 because it had dismissed those questions on standing grounds and therefore had not decided their merits.
3. The court was not required to infer the procedural basis of a motion that cited no applicable procedural rule, examine outside materials to supply that basis, or convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment.
4. The court declined to revise its interlocutory orders but clarified that appellants may argue how the applicable regulatory standards should be applied to evidence presented at the de novo trial on properly raised questions, while they may not argue that ANR applied the wrong standard or seek remand to ANR.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appellants established a basis under V.R.C.P. 59(e) to alter or amend the court's prior decision dismissing Questions 1 and 2 and its entry order denying appellants' motion to vacate and for judgment.
2. Whether the court was required to infer the procedural basis of appellants' prior motion from materials outside that motion or convert it into another procedural motion.
3. Whether the court should revise or clarify its interlocutory orders concerning the scope of regulatory arguments that appellants may present in the de novo proceeding.

Disposition

denied