Opinion ID: 4538714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Environmental Justice Policy

Text: Petitioners claim that DEP failed to comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy. The EJ Policy, first implemented in 2002 by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, states that all people have a right to be protected from environmental pollution and to live in and enjoy a clean and - 42 - healthful environment, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, or handicap. Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 2–3 (2002), https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/11/29/ej%20policy%2020 02.pdf; see City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 14 N.E.3d 167, 171 n.9 (Mass. 2014) (describing the various iterations of the EJ Policy prior to 2014). The EJ Policy requires that agencies subject to it, including DEP, engage in enhanced public participation for projects that meet two criteria: (1) the project site is located within five miles (for air pollutants) of an EJ population,20 and (2) emissions will exceed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) threshold under the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, §§ 61–62I. City of Brockton, 14 N.E.3d at 172. The policy requires enhanced analysis and review of 'impacts and mitigation' for projects that meet the first of these criteria and where emissions will exceed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) threshold under MEPA. Id. DEP and Algonquin acknowledge that the Weymouth station is located within five miles of EJ populations. However, they 20 An EJ population is a neighborhood where 25 percent of the households have an annual median household income that is equal to or less than 65 percent of the statewide median or 25% of its population is Minority or identifies as a household that has English Isolation. Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 3 (2017). - 43 - argue, the Weymouth station's emissions exceed neither the ENF nor the EIR thresholds, so the EJ Policy is not implicated. Seeing no rejoinder from petitioners on this point, we agree. Petitioners nevertheless argue that DEP was required to do something more. They cite City of Brockton, which stated in dicta that [t]he EJ policy does impose a general, but affirmative, requirement on all agencies covered by it . . . to develop strategies designed 'to proactively promote environmental justice in all neighborhoods' in a manner tailored to and consistent with that agency's 'specific mission.' Id. at 174 n.17. The City of Brockton court said there may be an argument that under this general requirement, agencies must incorporate EJ principles into certain agency decisions for projects not implicating the enhanced public participation or enhanced analysis criteria, but the court ultimately left the question unresolved. Id. (emphasis added). Since DEP has not, in petitioners' view, developed any special strategies, petitioners say we should invalidate the air permit for noncompliance with the EJ Policy. We decline to do so. City of Brockton does not mandate that agencies go beyond the two requirements set out in the EJ Policy, only that there may be such a requirement. In this case, there is no real need to resolve this issue of Massachusetts law. Even assuming DEP is required to go beyond the two stated requirements, here DEP allowed for enhanced public participation - 44 - even though there was no exceedance of the ENF threshold. City of Brockton also recognized that agencies would need time to implement any special strategies, id., and the 2017 updated EJ Policy (issued after City of Brockton) says that all agency strategies will be consolidated into one Secretariat EJ Strategy and will be finalized by a date established by the Secretary [for Energy and Environmental Affairs], Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 9 (2017). So we can hardly blame DEP for the fact that this future date has not arrived yet. Petitioners also do not explain what special procedures they have in mind, only that DEP should have implemented something more than it did. We are unwilling to disturb DEP's decision in this case with only the vague admonition that it needed to do more, without saying what more is needed.21 Petitioners point us to Brockton Power Co., Nos. 2011-025, 2011-026, 2016 WL 8542559 (Mass. DEP July 29, 2016), in which DEP performed an enhanced substantive review of a power plant even though the relevant MEPA thresholds were not 21 Petitioners also argue, in one sentence, that the Presiding Officer's decision to dismiss the EJ Policy claim prior to the hearing was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right or short of statutory right. To the extent petitioners attempt to raise a separate challenge -- constitutional or otherwise -- to the Presiding Officer's procedure, we deem this argument waived for lack of development. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). - 45 - triggered. Id. at . So, petitioners say, the EJ Policy does not prevent DEP from voluntarily doing more, and the unexplained departure from what DEP did in Brockton Power was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree. As Brockton Power recognizes, DEP can, in its discretion, engage in further review on a case-by-case basis, id., and in this case it chose not to do so (except for the enhanced public participation). Finally, petitioners draw our attention to Friends of Buckingham, in which the Fourth Circuit vacated Virginia's approval of a compressor station because the agency failed to comply with Virginia's EJ requirements. 947 F.3d at 87–92. Friends of Buckingham is easily distinguishable, though, because Virginia's EJ requirements are not Massachusetts's EJ requirements. A violation of the former, even on similar facts, would not necessarily be a violation of the latter, and as we have determined, there was no violation of Massachusetts's EJ policy here.