## Facts

- Brockton Power Company LLC petitioned the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) to approve a 350-megawatt combined-cycle generating facility in Brockton, primarily fueled by natural gas with ultra-low sulfur distillate oil as backup.
- The proposed site included environmental justice (EJ) populations under Massachusetts EJ policy.
- During permitting, the Legislature enacted G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼, creating (1) an “enhanced public participation” trigger for certain projects affecting EJ communities and (2) a higher “enhanced analysis and review” trigger tied to specified impact thresholds.
- EFSB found the project triggered enhanced public participation but did not meet the higher threshold requiring enhanced EJ impact analysis; it provided additional outreach and participation opportunities accordingly.
- After evidentiary hearings on air quality, water resources, traffic, and public health, EFSB approved the project with mitigation conditions, including conditions addressing fuel delivery routing and water use.
- Municipalities and residents challenged EFSB’s EJ determinations, its technical environmental findings (including reliance on air modeling and standards), and its authority to impose certain conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether EFSB correctly interpreted and applied G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ in concluding the project required enhanced public participation but not enhanced EJ impact analysis.
2. Whether substantive equal-protection principles required EFSB to conduct EJ analysis beyond what § 69J¼ mandates for the project.
3. Whether EFSB’s air-quality and water-resource determinations were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether EFSB acted within its statutory authority in imposing mitigation conditions, including conditions affecting fuel-delivery traffic routes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed EFSB’s approval of the facility.
- The court held EFSB permissibly interpreted § 69J¼ to require enhanced public participation, not enhanced EJ analysis, on the project’s facts and thresholds.
- The court rejected the argument that equal-protection doctrine independently compelled EJ analysis beyond the statutory scheme where the agency followed the Legislature’s framework.
- The court upheld EFSB’s technical findings on air emissions and water impacts as supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony and modeling.
- The court concluded EFSB acted within its authority in using air-quality benchmarks and in imposing conditions, including fuel-delivery routing, to minimize environmental impacts.

## Legal Principles

- An agency’s interpretation of its governing statute is upheld when it is reasonable and consistent with statutory text, particularly in a technical regulatory setting.
- Under substantial-evidence review, a court does not reweigh technical disputes if the agency’s findings are supported by evidence a reasonable decisionmaker could accept and the decision is not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.
- G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ establishes distinct EJ obligations; enhanced public participation does not automatically require enhanced EJ impact analysis absent the statute’s higher triggering thresholds.
- Substantive equal protection does not, by itself, require an agency to impose EJ procedures or analyses beyond those set by the Legislature when the agency complies with the statutory EJ framework.
- EFSB may condition energy-facility approvals to reduce environmental and community impacts, including through operational and routing conditions, when consistent with its statutory mandate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld EFSB’s approval of the Brockton generating facility, ruling that the EJ statute required enhanced participation but not enhanced EJ impact analysis for this project, that equal-protection doctrine did not compel additional EJ review, and that EFSB’s air, water, and mitigation determinations were supported by substantial evidence and within its authority.


City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd. (No. 1), 469 Mass. 196, 14 N.E.3d 167 (2014)