*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
NOT ANOTHER POWER PLANT v. CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL—

CONCURRENCE

McDONALD, J., concurring. Although I concur in the

result that the majority reaches and join in the court’s

judgment, I am not persuaded by the majority’s analysis

of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act, General Statutes § 16-50g et seq., or its conclusion that the

act did not preclude the named defendant, the Connecticut Siting Council, ‘‘from considering an interdependent

facility that does not yet exist when balancing the public

benefit that will be provided by a proposed facility

against the harm that it will cause to the environment.’’

(Emphasis added.) Part II B of the majority opinion.

In my view, that conclusion is inconsistent with the

command of General Statutes § 16-50p (a) (3), which

provides in relevant part: ‘‘The council shall file, with

its order, an opinion stating in full its reasons for the

decision. The council shall not grant a certificate, either

as proposed or as modified by the council, unless it

shall find and determine:

* * *

‘‘(B) The nature of the probable environmental

impact of the facility alone and cumulatively with other

existing facilities . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)

When the controlling statute explicitly provides that

the council can consider only the facility that is the

subject of the application before it alone and cumulatively with ‘‘other existing facilities,’’ it is improper, in

my view, to go beyond that language and allow the

council to consider nonexistent facilities that may or

may not be the subject of future applications that would

be submitted, if at all, by completely separate applicants. To do otherwise excises ‘‘existing’’ from the statute. Applications filed with the council are unusually

technical and remarkably detailed, and the majority

does not explain how the council should evaluate the

probable environmental impacts of facilities for which

it does not have that detailed information.

The legislature included the word ‘‘existing’’ in the

statute for a reason, and the majority opinion undermines the legislature’s choice by extending the authority

of the council to permit consideration of nonexistent,

hypothetical facilities when evaluating a proposed facility. To the extent that the plaintiff, Not Another Power

Plant, has expressed concerns with segmentation of

applications for interrelated facility projects, the resolution of those concerns are policy decisions for the legislature to make, not this court.