Title: Brockton Power Co. LLC v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11405
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 2014

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11405 
SJC-11407 
 
BROCKTON POWER COMPANY LLC  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD 
& others.1 
 
CITY OF BROCKTON  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD 
& another2 (No. 2). 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     March 4, 2014. - July 31, 2014. 
 
Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, 
& Lenk, JJ.3 
 
 
Energy Facilities Siting Board.  Public Utilities, Electric 
company, Energy company.  Municipal Corporations, Electric 
plant, Water supply.  Environment, Air pollution.  Electric 
Company.  Administrative Law, Decision, Judicial review, 
Substantial evidence. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on October 28, 2011. 
 
 
The case was reported by Spina, J. 
 
                     
 
1 City of Brockton (city), and various residents of the city 
and the town of West Bridgewater, interveners. 
 
 
2 Brockton Power Company LLC, intervener (Brockton Power or 
company). 
 
 
3 Chief Justice Ireland participated in the deliberation on 
this case prior to his retirement. 
2 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on October 26, 2011. 
 
 
The case was reported by Spina, J. 
 
 
 
Gregor I. McGregor (Nathaniel Stevens with him) for city of 
Brockton. 
 
David S. Rosenzweig (Erika J. Hafner & Michael J. Koehler 
with him) for Brockton Power Company LLC. 
 
Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, for Energy 
Facilities Siting Board. 
 
Lisa C. Goodheart (Phelps T. Turner, Joshua D. Nadreau, & 
Staci Rubin with her) for Frank J. Babbin & others. 
 
Wendy B. Jacobs & Aladdine D. Joroff, for Massachusetts 
Rivers Alliance & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
BOTSFORD, J.  On August 7, 2009, the Energy Facilities 
Siting Board (board), acting pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼ 
(§ 69J¼), approved the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC 
(Brockton Power or company), to build and operate a 350-megawatt 
combined-cycle energy generating facility (facility or project) 
powered by natural gas and ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) in 
the city of Brockton (city).  As approved by the board, the 
facility would use wastewater from the city's advanced 
wastewater reclamation facility (AWRF) for its cooling tower.  
In a consolidated appeal by three of the interveners, we 
affirmed the board's decision.  See Brockton v. Energy 
Facilities Siting Bd. (No. 1), ante     (2014) (Brockton [No. 
1]), decided today. 
 
On April 9, 2010, while the consolidated appeal was 
pending, Brockton Power submitted a project change filing (PCF) 
3 
 
to the board, seeking approval of three changes to its project.  
In the PCF, Brockton Power sought to:  (1) change the source of 
the facility's cooling tower water from the AWRF to the Brockton 
municipal water supply (BMWS); (2) eliminate the use of ULSD as 
an alternative fuel and rely solely on natural gas as the 
facility's fuel; and (3) make certain changes in the design of 
the facility.  After additional public comment, extensive 
discovery, testimony, and six days of evidentiary hearings that 
the board considered as a "continuation of the [o]riginal 
[p]roceeding," the board issued its PCF decision, denying 
Brockton Power's proposal to use BMWS but approving the two 
other project changes.4  Brockton Power appealed from the board's 
denial of the PCF with respect to the facility's water source,5 
and the city appealed from the board's approval of the design 
and fuel changes.  A single justice of this court reserved and 
reported the appeals to the full court.  We affirm the board's 
final decision with respect to both appeals. 
                     
 
4 The city, Brockton Power, various residents of the city 
and the town of West Bridgewater represented by Alternatives for 
Communities and Environment, Inc., and the Taunton River 
Watershed Alliance intervened in the project change filing (PCF) 
proceeding. 
 
 
5 We acknowledge the amicus brief filed by Massachusetts 
Rivers Alliance, Charles River Watershed Association, Jones 
River Watershed Association, North and South Rivers Watershed 
Association, and Taunton River Watershed Alliance. 
 
4 
 
 
The scope of our review of the board's PCF decision is the 
same as in Brockton (No. 1), supra, and is set forth in G. L. 
c. 164, § 69P.6  The board's evidentiary rulings are entitled to 
deference, and the appellants bear the burden of showing that 
the board's decision is invalid.  Alliance to Protect Nantucket 
Sound, Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 448 Mass. 45, 51 
(2006) (Alliance I). 
 
1.  Board's authority to consider PCF as part of original 
proceeding.  In its August 7, 2009, final decision, the board 
required Brockton Power to notify it of "any changes other than 
minor variations to the proposal so that the [board] may decide 
whether to inquire further into a particular issue."  In 
addition to this general requirement, noting "the uncertainty 
. . . around the availability of the Brockton AWRF water 
supply," the board directed Brockton Power to "work with the 
[city] regarding use of [the city's] AWRF water, and to provide 
a report to the [board] with respect to the outcome of such 
efforts."  In the event that Brockton Power determined not to 
                     
 
6 General Laws c. 164, § 69P, provides that the court's 
review is limited to "whether the decision of the board is in 
conformity with the constitution of the commonwealth and the 
constitution of the United States, was made in accordance with 
the procedures established under [G. L. c. 164, §§ 69H to 69O,] 
and with the rules and regulations of the board with respect to 
such provisions, was supported by substantial evidence of record 
in the board's proceedings, and was arbitrary, capricious or an 
abuse of the board's discretion under the provisions of [§§ 69H 
to 69O]." 
5 
 
use the AWRF water and instead "to use potable [municipal] water 
for the majority of the water requirements of its proposed 
facility," the board directed the company to "provide a project 
change filing to the [board], together with a detailed analysis 
focused on those issues that are germane to the use of potable 
water, including opportunities for water conservation." 
 
Consistent with this directive, on April 9, 2010, Brockton 
Power submitted its PCF to the board seeking approval of a 
change in the source of the facility's water supply for the 
cooling tower, approval of the nonuse of ULSD as an alternate 
fuel, and approval of building design changes.  Over the 
objection of interveners, who argued that the PCF should be 
treated as a new petition, the board, as previously described, 
held evidentiary hearings on the PCF and issued a decision 
rejecting the proposed change in source of water supply for the 
cooling tower, but approving the two other changes. 
 
Under § 69J¼, fifth and sixth pars., the board may approve, 
reject in whole or in part, or conditionally approve a petition 
for an electrical generating facility.7  The statute provides 
                     
 
7 General Laws c. 164, § 69J¼ (§ 69J¼), fifth and sixth 
pars., provide in relevant part: 
 
"The board shall, within one year from the date of filing, 
approve a petition to construct a generating facility if 
the board determines that the petition meets [certain 
enumerated] requirements . . . . 
 
6 
 
that "[i]n the event of rejection or conditional approval, the 
applicant may, within 180 days, submit an amended petition.  
Public and evidentiary hearings on the amended petition shall be 
held on the same terms and conditions applicable to the original 
petition."  G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼, sixth par.  See note 7, supra.  
The city contends that Brockton Power's PCF was an "amended 
petition" within the meaning of § 69J¼, sixth par., and because 
it was submitted on April 9, 2010, 245 days after the board 
issued its original decision, the board did not have the 
authority to consider it as part of the original proceeding -- 
the window for filing an amended petition had already closed.  
According to the city, the board should have reviewed the PCF as 
a new petition, which would have required readjudication of the 
full range of issues the board considered in its original 
decision issued on August 7, 2009.  The city's argument fails. 
 
"We accord substantial discretion to an agency to interpret 
the statute it is charged with enforcing . . . ."  Alliance to 
Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 
                                                                  
"If the board determines that the standards set forth above 
have not been met, it shall, within one year of the date of 
filing, either reject, in whole or in part, the petition, 
setting forth in writing its reasons for such rejection, or 
approve the petition subject to stated conditions.  In the 
event of rejection or conditional approval, the applicant 
may, within 180 days, submit an amended petition.  Public 
and evidentiary hearings on the amended petition shall be 
held on the same terms and conditions applicable to the 
original petition." 
7 
 
457 Mass. 663, 681 (2010).  Moreover, "administrative agencies 
have broad discretion over procedural matters before them."  
Zachs v. Department of Pub. Utils., 406 Mass. 217, 227 (1989) 
(Zachs).  We defer to an agency's procedural rulings and review 
them for "error of law or abuse of discretion."  Id.  This is so 
in particular when the ruling concerns whether to reopen a 
proceeding or an administrative record.  See Alliance to Protect 
Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Department of Pub. Utils. (No. 2), 461 
Mass. 190, 193-194 & n.7 (2011); Box Pond Ass'n v. Energy 
Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 408, 420 (2001) (Box Pond). 
 
The board determined that Brockton Power's PCF was not an 
"amended petition" within the meaning of § 69J¼, sixth par.  As 
interpreted by the board, the "amended petition" provision is 
limited to an amended filing submitted by a project proponent 
within six months after the board has issued a final decision 
rejecting the original petition or imposing conditions from 
which the proponent seeks relief.  The board contends that its 
power under § 69J¼, fifth and sixth pars., to approve a petition 
with conditions, combined with its ability to "issue orders with 
respect to any matter over which it has jurisdiction," see G. L. 
c. 164, § 69H, provides it with more than sufficient authority 
to include in a final decision an order requiring the project 
proponent to bring back to the board for potential review any 
8 
 
proposed changes to the project that may affect the basis on 
which it was originally approved. 
 
The board's interpretation of its "statutory mandate will 
be disturbed only if the interpretation is patently wrong, 
unreasonable, arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious."  Box Pond, 
435 Mass. at 416, quoting TBI, Inc. v. Board of Health of N. 
Andover, 431 Mass. 9, 17 (2000).  Where, as here, the relevant 
statutes are silent on the means of enforcing compliance with 
its orders, the board has broad discretion to establish 
appropriate procedures.  See Zachs, 406 Mass. at 227-228.  An 
administrative agency may, as here, "adopt policies through 
adjudication as well as through rulemaking."  Alliance I, 448 
Mass. at 51, quoting Arthurs v. Board of Registration in Med., 
383 Mass. 299, 312–313 (1981).  The board's interpretation of 
§ 69J¼, fifth and sixth pars., is a reasonable one to which we 
accord deference, and the procedure the board adopted to review 
potentially material changes to Brockton Power's project does 
not constitute an abuse of its discretion.8 
 
2.  Water source.  The board in its original final decision 
approved Brockton Power's proposed use of water from the city's 
                     
 
8 Moreover, requiring new proceedings on the full petition 
would be futile, because "[a] final order of an administrative 
agency in an adjudicatory proceeding . . . precludes 
relitigation of the same issues between the same parties."  Box 
Pond Ass'n v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 408, 419 
(2001) (Box Pond), quoting Tuper v. North Adams Ambulance Serv., 
Inc., 428 Mass. 132, 135 (1998). 
9 
 
AWRF for the facility's cooling tower.  Because the city refused 
to supply recycled wastewater from the AWRF for the facility, 
Brockton Power submitted a PCF based on the use of water from 
BMWS, which supplies potable water to the city.  The board 
concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the 
Brockton Power's use of BMWS water failed to "minimize the 
environmental impacts consistent with the minimization of costs 
associated with the mitigation, control, and reduction of the 
environmental impacts of the proposed generating facility."  
G. L. c. 164, § 69J¼, fifth par. 
 
Brockton Power argues that the board's analysis of 
environmental impacts intruded on the authority of the 
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was unsupported by 
substantial evidence.  We disagree, and conclude that Brockton 
Power has not met its burden of showing that the board's 
decision is invalid.  See Alliance I, 448 Mass. at 51. 
 
The record reflects the following facts.  The city draws 
its water supply from the Silver Lake system, the Brockton 
Reservoir, the Hubbard Avenue well and, beginning in 2008, a 
desalination plant owned and operated by Aquaria, LLC (Aquaria), 
in Dighton.9  The city's permits issued under the Water 
Management Act (WMA), G. L. c. 21G, authorize withdrawals of 
                     
 
9 The Silver Lake system includes Silver Lake, Monponsett 
Pond, and Furnace Pond. 
10 
 
11.94 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Silver Lake system 
and Brockton Reservoir.10  In addition, the city is authorized to 
purchase up to 4.07 mgd from Aquaria, which draws water from the 
Taunton River.11 
 
In 1986, subsequent to a prolonged drought, the predecessor 
agency of the DEP issued an administrative order and emergency 
declaration that, among other requirements, directed the city to 
control water demand and withdrawals, and to develop new water 
sources.  Thereafter, in 1995, an administrative consent order 
(ACO) replaced the emergency declaration.  Pursuant to the ACO, 
the city reestablished its water commission and, among other 
measures, prepared a comprehensive water management plan 
concerning its water supply.  In 1997, a modification to the ACO 
                     
 
10 The Water Management Act (WMA), G. L. c. 21G, permits for 
the Silver Lake system authorize withdrawals of 11.11 million 
gallons per day (mgd).  The WMA permit for the Hubbard Avenue 
well authorizes withdrawals of 0.04 mgd, but this well may be 
used only in emergency situations with permission of the 
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).  The WMA permit 
for the Brockton Reservoir authorizes a withdrawal of 0.83 mgd.  
Since 1994, however, the city has obtained less than ten per 
cent of its supply from the Brockton Reservoir. 
 
 
11 By contract, the city is entitled to 3.5 mgd from 
Aquaria, LLC (Aquaria), in 2014, a withdrawal amount that will 
increase incrementally to 4.07 mgd by 2019.  The city also has 
the right to purchase the first 1 mgd of excess water from 
Aquaria and to demand Aquaria produce and provide a minimum of 
0.5 mgd of excess water during June, July, and August in 
addition to the contracted amounts described above.  In 2014, 
the city is expected to pay Aquaria $5.8 million for the right 
to 3.5 mgd of water from the plant, not including any payments 
for excess water purchased. 
11 
 
also established a "safe yield" of 10.33 mgd for the city from 
its then existing sources, which did not yet include the Aquaria 
plant.  The ACO provides that in the event the city's water 
withdrawals exceed 11.3 mgd or 110 per cent of the "safe 
yield,"12 whichever is larger, the excess withdrawal will 
"constitute a request for the imposition of a [d]eclaration of 
[w]ater [e]mergency."13  From 1996 to 2010, the city's average 
annual water use was relatively constant, at approximately 10 
mgd.  In 2014, the city is estimated to require between 10.15 
and 11.44 mgd of water from all sources.  The ACO, and the safe 
yield limits, remain in effect.14 
 
As proposed to be modified by the PCF, the facility's 
cooling tower will require 1.75 mgd of water at full capacity on 
                     
 
12 Pursuant to G. L. c. 21G, § 2, "[s]afe yield" is defined 
as "the maximum dependable withdrawals that can be made 
continuously from a water source including ground or surface 
water during a period of years in which the probable driest 
period or period of greatest water deficiency is likely to 
occur; provided, however, that such dependability is relative 
and is a function of storage and drought probability." 
 
 
13 In its November, 2009, comprehensive water management 
plan (CWMP), which has not yet been approved by the DEP, the 
city sought to increase its permissible withdrawals from the 
Silver Lake system and Brockton Reservoir to 13.1 mgd from the 
currently approved 11.3 mgd. 
 
 
14 In its draft CWMP required as a part of the MEPA 
certification for use of water from the Aquaria plant, the city 
requested that the administrative consent order (ACO) be lifted.  
However, the DEP has not yet lifted the ACO. 
 
12 
 
a typical day, or 1.1 mgd on an average annual basis.15,16  During 
the summer electrical peak period, when the Silver Lake system 
is the most stressed, the facility is expected to use water at 
the rate of 2.1 mgd, roughly twice its estimated annual average 
rate.17 
 
Brockton Power contends that BMWS readily can supply the 
volume of potable water necessary for the facility's cooling 
tower, essentially because, in Brockton Power's view, "most (if 
not all) of the incremental water needed to supply [the 
facility] will come from Aquaria rather than the city's historic 
system."  The board disagreed, noting that the city had never 
had to manage the supply demand of a water customer the size of 
the Brockton Power facility, that the facility would account for 
                     
 
15 The estimate for operating at full capacity on a typical 
day is based on the facility's operation at one hundred per cent 
capacity on a day with a temperature of fifty-nine degrees 
Fahrenheit.  The average annual basis estimate is based on 
operation at seventy per cent capacity, which Brockton Power 
asserts would be typical for the facility, on a day with a 
temperature of fifty-nine degrees Fahrenheit.  Due to design 
changes, these estimates represent reductions from the volumes 
initially approved by the board for the use of effluent from the 
city's AWRF. 
 
 
16 In Brockton Power's original petition as approved by the 
board, it was estimated the facility would require 0.257 mgd of 
potable water from the city for process and sanitary water 
needs.  The city has issued a permit approving the facility's 
use of this quantity, and this aspect of the original project 
filing remains unchanged in Brockton Power's PCF. 
 
 
17 This estimate is based on operation at full capacity on a 
day with a temperature of ninety degrees Fahrenheit. 
13 
 
more than ten per cent of the city's current water demand, and 
that despite greater flexibility in water withdrawal allocations 
due to Aquaria, "some, and possibly even a significant portion, 
of the [facility's] municipal water could come from Silver 
Lake."  Noting that the city's water supply problems have 
resulted in significant environmental impacts to the Silver Lake 
system over the years and that Brockton Power had not provided 
evidence concerning the additional environmental impacts on that 
system that might result from Brockton Power's increased 
consumption for the project, the board concluded that Brockton 
Power had not met its burden to show that the environmental 
impacts of the proposed change would be minimized consistent 
with the minimization of related costs, as required by § 69J¼, 
fifth par. 
 
On appeal, Brockton Power contends that the board 
impermissibly intruded into the DEP's statutory and regulatory 
authority as expressed in the ACO’s threshold for triggering a 
declaration of water emergency for the city.  Brockton Power 
argues that the DEP's "determination of safe yield as the basis 
for the 1995 ACO limit of 11.3 [mgd] specifically included 
minimization and balancing of environmental protection factors" 
to which the board was obligated to defer in conducting its 
review of the PCF.  We disagree. 
14 
 
 
In evaluating a claim that the board's determination is 
arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, 
we "give[] great deference to the board's expertise and 
experience."  Alliance I, 448 Mass. at 51. "In determining 
whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, 
we must consider the record as a whole and reverse the agency's 
decision if 'the cumulative weight of the evidence tends 
substantially toward opposite inferences.'"  Boston Gas Co. v. 
Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 436 Mass. 233, 237 (2002), 
quoting Cobble v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Social Servs., 
430 Mass. 385, 391 (1999).  Here, Brockton Power has not met its 
burden of showing that board's decision was erroneous. 
 
Pursuant to § 69J¼, fifth par., the board is the agency 
charged with determining whether a project proponent's petition 
is an accurate and complete description of the environmental 
impacts of the proposed facility, and also minimizes 
environmental impacts consistent with the minimization of costs 
associated with mitigation, control, and reduction of 
environmental impacts.  "A permit issued by the board is only 
the first of many permits and licenses that will be required of 
a developer of a generating facility, and no other State agency 
may issue a construction permit for a generating facility until 
it has first been approved by the board."  Andover v. Energy 
Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 377, 380 (2001) (Andover).  The 
15 
 
Legislature has provided for complementary but independent roles 
for the board and the DEP.  Just as the board does not delegate 
or abdicate its statutory responsibility by recognizing the 
authority and expertise of the DEP over water management issues, 
see id. at 381, the board's independent exercise of its 
statutory authority does not intrude upon DEP's authority over 
issues relating to municipal water supplies under the WMA, G. L. 
c. 21G, §§ 3, 7. 
 
In short, the board's and the DEP's mandates are not 
identical although they touch on many of the same environmental 
concerns; "sensible administrative coordination" between the two 
agencies is necessary.18  See Andover, 435 Mass. at 382.  The 
board's approval of a petition to construct an energy facility 
will not necessarily satisfy the DEP's requirements for a permit 
for that facility under the WMA.  Cf. id. at 380-381 (discussing 
different roles of board and DEP in relation to review of air 
emissions).  Likewise, a DEP permit issued to a municipality 
                     
 
18 General Laws c. 164, § 69H, fourth par., provides in 
part:  "In carrying out its functions, the board shall cooperate 
with, and may obtain information and recommendations from every 
agency of the state government and of local government which may 
be concerned with any matter under the purview of the board.  
Each state or local government agency is directed to provide 
such information and recommendations as may be requested by the 
board."  In addition, § 69H, second par., provides that the 
board membership include "the secretary of energy and 
environmental affairs, who shall serve as chairman, . . . the 
commissioner of the department of environmental protection, 
. . . or the designees of any of the foregoing . . . ." 
16 
 
under the WMA is not equivalent to a determination that a 
proposed facility would minimize environmental impacts as 
required by § 69J¼, nor does the existence of such a permit 
compel the board to grant a petition under that statute.  Far 
from intruding on the DEP's authority, the board would have 
abdicated its statutory duties if it had based its decision on 
the proposed water source change wholly on the DEP's municipal 
water withdrawal determinations under the WMA.19 
 
Moreover, the board's determination was supported by 
substantial evidence.  In its PCF, Brockton Power contended that 
because the city was already withdrawing close to the limit of 
its ACO threshold from its traditional sources, the incremental 
water volume required by the facility would primarily come from 
the Aquaria plant, which provided a significant new source of 
                     
 
19 Although Brockton Power correctly notes that 
environmental protection principles, including water 
conservation, are an integral component of DEP's water 
management authority, it does not follow that the ACO threshold 
limit of 11.3 mgd (or 110 per cent of the system's safe yield at 
the time of the ACO) is "fully protective" of the environmental 
concerns that the board must consider under § 69J¼, fifth par. 
Indeed, other than the DEP's general mandate to consider 
environmental effects of water withdrawals under G. L. c. 21G, 
§ 7, there is no evidence that the ACO specifically considers 
the environmental effects of the safe yield threshold.  Rather, 
the focus of the ACO is to "ensure an ample supply of potable 
water is available to [the city]."  The safe yield established 
by the ACO merely sets a threshold at which a declaration of 
water emergency will be imposed on the city if the twelve month 
average exceeds the designated amount; it does not purport to 
establish a level of water withdrawals that is protective of the 
city's traditional water sources, such as the Silver Lake 
system. 
17 
 
potable water for the city.  Consequently, Brockton Power urged, 
despite the city's historical water supply challenges, the 
facility would not have a negative effect on the environment of 
the Silver Lake system.  As the board recognized, however, the 
city's water conservation efforts and stable population forecast 
made it likely that the city's withdrawals would remain under 
the ACO threshold.  Moreover, Brockton Power had no control over 
the origins of the municipal water required by the facility, and 
given the city's view of the Aquaria plant as a supplemental 
source of its water needs, the volume required by the PCF might 
come entirely or at least in part from the Silver Lake system.  
Given the evidence that the city's municipal water withdrawals 
continue to have a significant environmental impact on the 
Silver Lake system, the board concluded that Brockton Power had 
not met its burden of proving that the environmental impacts of 
the incremental potable water usage from BMWS had been minimized 
consistent the requirements of § 69J¼, fifth par. 
 
Brockton Power complains that the board did not analyze 
sufficiently the environmental impacts of the additional 
withdrawals anticipated by the PCF on the Silver Lake system, 
but this appears to have been the result of the position the 
company itself took before the board:  the PCF filing proceeded 
on the assumption that most or all of the increased water 
18 
 
required by the facility would come from the Aquaria plant.20  
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the board did analyze and 
consider the effect of the proposed water use on the city’s 
traditional water sources, including two studies and expert 
testimony indicating that the city's withdrawals have a 
continued impact on the environment of the Silver Lake system by 
degrading freshwater mussel habitat and increasing environmental 
stress on the Jones River, the major tributary of Silver Lake.  
Moreover, contrary to Brockton Power's assertion, the board 
considered the city's water conservation progress in light of 
continuing environmental challenges to the Silver Lake system 
and the facility's projected water needs.21 
                     
 
20 In its PCF decision, the board noted:  "The [c]ompany did 
not provide information on or analysis of the different 
environmental impacts on the Silver Lake system that would 
result from the [c]ity's water consumption with the [p]roject's 
use of [Brockton municipal water supply (BMWS)] water as 
compared to the [c]ity's water consumption without the 
[p]roject.  Rather the [c]ompany restricted its argument to the 
unsubstantiated and, in fact, highly questionable, claim that 
its cooling tower water would predominately come from Aquaria.  
Without analysis specific to the Silver Lake system, the 
environmental impacts of the [p]roject change cannot be reliably 
assessed." 
 
 
21 Brockton Power's remaining arguments are without merit. 
The board need not address or make findings with respect to all 
the evidence in the record.  See Box Pond, 435 Mass. at 418.  
The board's initial approval of 0.257 mgd of BMWS water for 
sanitary and process use by the facility does not compel the 
conclusion that the proposed use of 1.1 mgd for the facility's 
cooling tower minimized environmental impacts as required by 
§ 69J¼.  Further, the board did not deviate impermissibly from 
its precedent.  Although the board previously has granted siting 
19 
 
 
Although the board's denial of the PCF with respect to BMWS 
appears to preclude construction of the facility as currently 
proposed, we briefly review the city's appeal of the board's 
approval of the two other proposed changes.22 
 
3.  Elimination of ULSD capacity.  As initially approved by 
the board, the facility would use ULSD as an alternative fuel 
for up to sixty days per year.  In its PCF filing, Brockton 
Power proposed to construct the facility with natural gas-only 
generators, eliminating the facility's capacity to use ULSD.23  
                                                                  
permits for energy facilities utilizing municipal water for 
their cooling towers, the board's decision on the PCF here 
discussed and distinguished these precedents based on the 
evidence of environmental threats to the Silver Lake system 
contained in the record.  See Tofias v. Energy Facilities Siting 
Bd., 435 Mass. 340, 349 (2001), quoting Robinson v. Department 
of Pub. Utils., 416 Mass. 668, 673 (1993) ("'reasoned 
consistency' . . . means only 'that any change from an 
established pattern of conduct must be explained'").  Finally, 
Brockton Power asserts also that the board's decision interfered 
with its right to obtain potable water from the BMWS in a 
nondiscriminatory manner.  Because of the projected quantity of 
water that Brockton Power will need for the facility's cooling 
tower, discussed infra, the company is not situated similarly to 
other users of the system.  See Rounds v. Board of Water & Sewer 
Comm'rs, 347 Mass. 40, 44 (1964). 
 
 
22 The board concluded, "The evidence in this case 
demonstrated that the three proposed [p]roject changes are not 
interrelated in such a way that implementation of one [p]roject 
change without implementation of one, or both, of the other two 
changes is prevented.  Accordingly, our findings stated above 
are made considering each proposed change on a stand-alone 
basis." 
 
 
23 The PCF did not propose modifying the facility's use of 
three ULSD-powered "black-start" generators, used for restarting 
the turbine when power is not available. 
20 
 
According to Brockton Power, a gas-only plant would reduce air 
emissions, visual impacts, most ULSD deliveries, and the 
facility's water requirements, while the expansion of gas 
supplies in the Northeast would guarantee the reliability of the 
facility's energy supply.  The board found that a gas-only plant 
would "reduce the environmental impacts, consistent with the 
minimization of costs associated with the mitigation, control, 
and reduction of the environmental impacts" of the facility, as 
required by § 69J¼, fifth par. 
 
On appeal, the city primarily asserts deficiencies with 
respect to the air emission findings in the board's original 
final decision.24  As stated previously, in reviewing a PCF, the 
board need not consider issues that have already been decided in 
the original decision.  The board's PCF decision analyzed the 
PCF for accuracy and completeness and "compared the 
                     
 
24 For example, the city argues that the board erred by 
relying on the Environmental Protection Agency's National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to evaluate the facility's 
estimated emissions, and by using Logan Airport meteorological 
data.  We address these issues in Brockton v. Energy Facilities 
Siting Bd. (No. 1), ante     (2014) (Brockon [No. 1]), also 
decided today.  In addition, the city alleges that the board 
erred by not considering an alternative turbine and cooling 
tower design.  However, the board was under no obligation to 
examine design alternatives in the context of a review of the 
PCF for a facility that it had already approved.  See Box Pond, 
435 Mass. at 419-420.  Finally, the city argues that the board 
failed to apply the Environmental Justice policy (EJ policy) to 
the PCF.  We also discuss the EJ policy in Brockton (No. 1), 
supra.  In this appeal, the city does not claim that the board 
failed to implement the procedural protections of the EJ policy 
in relation to the PCF. 
21 
 
environmental impacts of the facility as originally approved 
with the environmental impacts of the project as changed."  This 
approach is reasonable and consistent with the board's statutory 
mandate.  See Zachs, 406 Mass. at 227 ("administrative agencies 
have broad discretion over procedural aspects of matters before 
them").  Our review of the city's appeal is limited to new 
issues raised by the PCF.  See Box Pond, 435 Mass. at 419-420 
(rejecting attempt to relitigate issues already decided in 
underlying proceeding).  With respect to the elimination of ULSD 
fuel, we conclude that Brockton Power's PCF was accurate and 
complete, and "minimize[d] the environmental impacts consistent 
with the minimization of costs associated with the mitigation, 
control, and reduction of the environmental impacts."  G. L. 
c. 164, § 69J¼, fifth par. 
 
The record indicates that with the elimination of ULSD, the 
emissions of all criteria pollutants will be reduced from the 
level estimated in the original petition, which the board has 
already approved (and we have upheld).25  Accordingly, there is 
                     
 
25 Brockton Power's estimated percentage reductions based on 
a comparison of the emission estimates in the proposal to those 
in the original final decision are as follows:   nitrogen 
dioxide (twenty-nine per cent); carbon monoxide (ten per cent); 
particulate matter up to ten micrometers in diameter (thirty-
nine per cent); particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers in 
diameter (PM2.5) (forty-two per cent); sulfur dioxide (twenty-
three per cent); and volatile organic compounds (thirty-eight 
per cent).  A smaller portion of this reduction is due to 
updated estimates (with respect to the proportion of particulate 
22 
 
no basis upon which the board could have concluded that the PCF 
would not minimize environmental impacts, as required by G. L. 
c. 164, § 69J¼, fifth par.26  The city has not met its burden of 
showing that the board's decision is invalid, unsupported by 
substantial evidence, or an abuse of discretion.  See Alliance 
I, 448 Mass. at 51. 
 
The city also argues that the board erred by 
underestimating the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from the 
facility by basing its analysis on Brockton Power's allegedly 
inaccurate estimates of plant "start-up and shut-down" events.27  
In its PCF decision, the board noted that the city and Brockton 
Power disagreed about the modeling of the CO emissions.  Without 
analyzing the dispute, the board noted Brockton Power's lower 
                                                                  
matter classified as PM2.5) and improved aerodynamic downwash 
resulting from changes in the design features in the PCF.  See 
note 26, infra. 
 
 
26 With respect to the NAAQS for annual PM2.5 levels, 
Brockton Power's new estimate, based on a gas-only plant, 
updated projections regarding emissions, and design changes, is 
9.46 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual PM2.5.  In Brockton 
(No. 1), supra, we affirmed the board's approval of annual PM2.5 
at a level of 10.15 µg/m3. 
 
 
27 Brockton Power estimated that the gas-only facility plant 
would emit 98.5 tons per year (tpy) of CO, a ten per cent 
reduction from 108.9 tpy for the facility approved by the board 
in the original final decision.  According to the city's expert, 
the correct estimate for the facility's CO emissions is 138.8 
tpy.  The city alleges that the lower figure, accepted by the 
board, is "conveniently below the then-applicable 100 tpy 
threshold for a rigorous review under the [F]ederal Clean Air 
Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration . . . permitting 
process." 
23 
 
figures and stated that the facility would be subject to 
"enforceable annual and hourly limits . . . set out in [the 
DEP's] Conditional Air Plan Approval."  Brockton Power's CO 
emissions estimate, 98.5 tpy, represents 8.6 per cent of the 
NAAQS threshold for one-hour CO, and 18.9 per cent of the NAAQS 
threshold for eight-hour CO.  Although the city's estimate of 
138.8 tpy is higher than Brockton Power's, it is still well 
below the NAAQS limit for this pollutant.  The board is entitled 
to rely on the NAAQS thresholds to determine whether a project 
proposal has minimized the environmental impacts pursuant to its 
review.  See Brockton (No. 1), supra at    .  The board did not 
err by concluding that the CO emissions from a gas-only plant 
satisfied the standards of § 69J¼, fifth par. 
 
4.  Structural design changes.  In the original final 
decision, the board declined to grant Brockton Power's requested 
zoning exemption under G. L. c. 40A, § 3, which would have 
excused the facility from the Brockton zoning ordinance.  
Brockton Power did not appeal this aspect of the board's 
original decision.  In its PCF, however, Brockton Power proposed 
three changes to the facility as approved in the underlying 
decision, which, in its view, would make the facility compliant 
with the city's zoning ordinance.28  Although the board took no 
                     
 
28 First, Brockton Power proposed to replace the 130-foot 
building enclosing the heat recovery steam generator with four 
24 
 
position on whether the modifications would meet the city's 
zoning ordinance, it analyzed the changes with respect to noise 
and visual impacts, and concluded that the changes minimized the 
facility's environmental impacts as required by G. L. c. 164, 
§ 69J¼, fifth par.29 
 
On appeal, the city argues that the board erred by 
approving a project that does not comply with a local zoning 
ordinance.  This argument is without merit.  In contrast to the 
minimization of visual and noise impacts, compliance with local 
zoning is not a precondition for the approval of a siting 
petition under § 69J¼.  The board's determination that zoning 
issues were "outside the scope" of its § 69J¼ review is 
reasonable. 
 
5.  Conclusion.  We affirm the board's PCF decision in all 
respects. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
                                                                  
116-foot sound walls.  Second, Brockton Power proposed to reduce 
the height of the main power facility building from sixty-four 
to sixty feet.  Third, Brockton Power proposed to redesign the 
accessory buildings so that all of them would be under twenty-
five feet in height. 
 
29 At the time of the board's PCF decision, the zoning 
dispute was the subject of a case pending before the Land Court.