Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Energy Facilities Siting Board's approval of a proposed electrical substation connecting an offshore wind farm to the grid. The petitioner challenged the board's reliance on acoustic modeling predicting an eight-decibel noise increase at her home, arguing it lacked substantial evidence because it depended on specifications for unmanufactured equipment. The court held that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence based on conservative modeling assumptions and expert testimony, and upheld the conditional requirement for pre- and post-construction noise compliance reviews.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the board's decision on the substation's noise impact is supported by substantial evidence
- Whether the board's Condition S, which requires future compliance filings, is beyond the board’s statutory authority
Holdings
- The board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is affirmed.
- Condition S is a permissible exercise of the board’s authority under G.L. c. 164, §69J and is affirmed.
Key quotations
“We give great deference to the board's expertise and experience.” (at 1)
“We do not "substitute our judgment or the petitioners' judgment for that of the board."” (at 1)
Factual background
The board approved a substation to connect an offshore wind farm, relying on expert acoustic modeling that projected at most an eight dBA increase in noise at Johnson's residence, within the DEP's ten‑dBA limit. The board conditioned approval on PCW demonstrating compliance both before and after construction.
Procedural history
Johnson challenged the board's approval of a substation that would increase ambient noise at her home by up to eight dBA. After a three‑year administrative proceeding, the board approved the project subject to pre‑construction and post‑construction compliance conditions. Johnson appealed, arguing lack of substantial evidence and unlawful delegation of decision‑making.