Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`Nos. 19-1794, 19-1797, & 19-1803 (Consolidated)
`______________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
`______________________
`
`TOWN OF WEYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
`Respondent,
`
`ALGONQUIN GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC,
`Intervenor for Respondent.
`______________________
`
`On Petitions For Review Of Final Action Of The Massachusetts Department Of
`Environmental Protection
`______________________
`
`FINAL BRIEF OF INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT
`ALGONQUIN GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC
`
`
`James T. Finnigan (No. 13228)
`RICH MAY, P.C.
`176 Federal Street
`Boston, MA 02108
`Phone: (617) 556-3800
`jfinnigan@richmaylaw.com
`
`Jeremy C. Marwell (No. 1159796)
`Joshua S. Johnson (No. 1184756)
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 500 West
`Washington, DC 20037
`Phone: (202) 639-6507
`Fax: (202) 879-8997
`jmarwell@velaw.com
`joshjohnson@velaw.com
`
`Counsel for Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Algonquin Gas
`
`Transmission, LLC (“Algonquin”), a Delaware limited liability company, through
`
`undersigned counsel, certifies as follows:
`
`
`
`Algonquin is engaged in the interstate transportation of natural gas. The
`
`following two companies have ownership interests in Algonquin: (i) Spectra
`
`Algonquin Holdings, LLC (“SA Holdings”), a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`and (ii) Eversource Gas Transmission II LLC (“Eversource II”), a Massachusetts
`
`limited liability company.
`
`(i)
`
`SA Holdings
`
`
`
`SA Holdings is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Spectra Energy
`
`Transmission II, LLC, which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Spectra
`
`Energy Partners, LP.
`
`Spectra Energy Partners, LP, is a limited partnership in which the following
`
`entities have ownership interests: (i) Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP;
`
`(ii) Spectra Energy Southeast Supply Header, LLC; and (iii) Spectra Energy
`
`Transmission, LLC. Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP, is owned by Spectra
`
`Energy Transmission, LLC, and by Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC, which in turn
`
`is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC. Spectra
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Energy Southeast Supply Header, LLC, is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
`
`Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC.
`
`Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC, is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
`
`Spectra Energy Capital, LLC, which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
`
`Spectra Energy Corp. Spectra Energy Corp is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
`
`Enbridge (U.S.) Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Enbridge
`
`US Holdings Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Enbridge Inc.
`
`Enbridge Inc. (TSX and NYSE:ENB) is a publicly held corporation that has
`
`no parent companies, and to our knowledge, no publicly held corporation has a 10%
`
`or greater ownership interest in Enbridge Inc.
`
`(ii) Eversource II
`
`Eversource II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eversource Energy.
`
`Eversource Energy (NYSE: ES), a Massachusetts voluntary association, is a publicly
`
`held corporation that has no parent companies, and no publicly held corporation has
`
`a 10% or greater ownership interest in Eversource Energy.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Date: February 5, 2020
`
`James T. Finnigan (No. 13228)
`RICH MAY, P.C.
`176 Federal Street
`Boston, MA 02108
`Phone: (617) 556-3800
`jfinnigan@richmaylaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Jeremy C. Marwell
`Jeremy C. Marwell (No. 1159796)
`Joshua S. Johnson (No. 1184756)
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 500 West
`Washington, DC 20037
`Phone: (202) 639-6507
`Fax: (202) 879-8997
`jmarwell@velaw.com
`joshjohnson@velaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... xiii
`JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 2
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 8
`I.
`The Atlantic Bridge Project And The Weymouth Compressor
`Station .............................................................................................................. 8
`FERC Authorized The Atlantic Bridge Project After Fully
`Considering Potential Environmental Effects, Including Effects On
`Air Quality. ...................................................................................................... 9
`III. After Over Three Years Of Review, The Department Approved
`Algonquin’s Application For A Minor-Source Air Permit. ..........................14
`IV. After An Adjudicatory Hearing, The Department’s Commissioner
`Adopted The Presiding Officer’s Recommendation To Issue A
`Final Permit. ..................................................................................................16
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................34
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................42
`I.
`The Department’s Permitting Decision Is Entitled To Deference
`And Should Be Affirmed If Supported By Substantial Evidence
`And Not Arbitrary And Capricious. ..............................................................42
`The Department Properly Applied Its Well-Established Policy Of
`Assessing The Modeled Air-Toxics Concentrations Caused Solely
`By The Compressor Station’s Maximum Potential Emissions. ....................46
`A.
`The Department’s Policy Rests On The Reasonable
`Determination That Insignificant Air-Quality Impacts Do
`Not “Cause” A “Condition Of Air Pollution.” ....................................50
`Petitioners’ Argument Conflicts With Town Of Brookline. ................56
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`If The Court Agrees That The Department’s Air-Toxics
`Analysis Was Required To Consider Background
`Conditions, It Should Remand Without Vacating The
`Permit Approval. .................................................................................59
`III. The Department Reasonably Granted Algonquin’s Permit
`Application Despite Alleged AAL And TEL Exceedances
`Resulting From Startups. ...............................................................................61
`A.
`The Department Acted Reasonably And Did Not Deviate
`From
`Its Guidelines
`In Assessing The Alleged
`Exceedances. .......................................................................................61
`The Alleged Exceedances Do Not Warrant Vacatur. .........................70
`B.
`IV. The Department Reasonably Concluded That BACT For The
`Compressor Driver’s NOx Emissions Was A Gas-Fired Turbine
`Using The Dry Low NOx Technology SoLoNOx. .........................................70
`A.
`The Department Reasonably Concluded That SCR Is Not
`Cost-Effective. .....................................................................................72
`1.
`The Department Properly Accounted For Emissions
`Rates In Assessing SCR’s Cost-Effectiveness. ........................73
`The Department Acted Reasonably In Applying Its
`Established Cost-Effectiveness Range. .....................................79
`The Department Reasonably Concluded That An Electric
`Motor Is Not Cost-Effective. ...............................................................82
`1.
`Petitioners’
`Procedural Challenges To The
`Department’s BACT Analysis Of The Electric-Motor
`Option Are Meritless. ................................................................85
`The Department’s Conclusion That The Electric-
`Motor Option Is Not Cost-Effective Is Substantively
`Reasonable And Supported By Substantial Evidence. .............89
`C. Alleged Defects In The Department’s BACT Analysis Do
`Not Warrant Vacatur. ..........................................................................94
`The Alleged Absence Of Manufacturer Emissions Guarantees
`Provides No Basis For Disturbing The Department’s Permit
`Approval. .......................................................................................................95
`VI. Massachusetts’s Environmental Justice Policy Provides No Basis
`For Disturbing The Department’s Air-Permit Approval. ..............................99
`
`V.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`VII. The Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act’s Financial-
`Responsibility Provision
`Is
`Irrelevant
`In This Air-Permit
`Proceeding. ..................................................................................................102
`VIII. The Arguments In The Anderson Petitioners’ Omnibus Issue Five
`Are Forfeited And Meritless. .......................................................................105
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................109
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .....................................................................110
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases:
`Alabama Power Co. v. Costle,
`636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .............................................................................51
`Albert v. Mun. Ct. of City of Boston,
`388 Mass. 491, 446 N.E.2d 1385 (1983)..............................................................48
`Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC v. Weymouth,
`919 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 5, 9, 10
`Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC,
`161 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2017) ............................................................................ 11, 13
`Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,
` 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................59
`Appalachian Voices v. State Water Control Bd.,
`912 F.3d 746 (4th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................42
`Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev.,
`620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................65
`Bath Iron Works Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
`336 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 44, 94, 98
`Butman v. Fence Viewers of Chelsea,
`327 Mass. 386, 99 N.E.2d 44 (1951) ....................................................................51
`Castillo Condo. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev.,
`821 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................44
`Catlin v. Bd. of Registration of Architects,
`414 Mass. 1, 604 N.E.2d 1301 (1992)..................................................................45
`Centennial P.R. License Corp. v. Telecomm. Regulatory Bd. of P.R.,
`634 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................42
`Central Me. Power Co. v. FERC,
`252 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... passim
`City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc’ns Co.,
`532 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................45
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases—Continued:
`City of Brockton v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd.,
`469 Mass. 196, 14 N.E.3d 167 (2014)................................................. 40, 100, 101
`Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec’y of Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot.,
`870 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2017) .................................................................................45
`Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.,
`452 Mass. 764, 897 N.E.2d 1001 (2008)..............................................................88
`Doherty v. Retirement Bd. of Medford,
`425 Mass. 130, 680 N.E.2d 45 (1997)..................................................................65
`Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Summers,
`723 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .........................................................................9, 10
`Dominion Transmission, Inc.,
`155 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2016) ...................................................................................11
`Eubank Heights Apartments, Ltd. v. Lebow,
`669 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................89
`Frontier Fishing Corp. v. Pritzker,
`770 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................44
`Galvin v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
`852 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ passim
`Goldberg v. Bd. of Health of Granby,
`444 Mass. 627, 830 N.E.2d 207 (2005)................................................... 45, 49, 55
`In re CF&I Steel,
`Petition No. VIII-2011-01, 2012 WL 11850455 (EPA May 31, 2012) ...............52
`In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp.,
`6 E.A.D. 764, 1997 WL 94742 (EPA 1997) ................................................. 77, 78
`In re John Soursourian,
`OADR Docket No. WET-2013-028, 2014 MA ENV LEXIS 49
`(Department June 13, 2014) .................................................................................86
`Islander E. Pipeline Co. v. Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot.,
`482 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................42
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases—Continued:
`Islander E. Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy,
`525 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 9
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) .................................................................................. 45, 55
`Massachusetts Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Sec’y of Agric.,
`984 F.2d 514 (1st Cir. 1993) ................................................................................48
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ........................................................................................ 43, 62
`Norway Cafe, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n,
`7 Mass. App. Ct. 37, 386 N.E.2d 32 (1979) .........................................................89
`Rattigan v. Wile,
`445 Mass. 850, 841 N.E.2d 680 (2006)................................................................51
`Sasen v. Spencer,
`879 F.3d 354 (1st Cir. 2018) ................................................................................45
`Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.,
`485 U.S. 293 (1988) ............................................................................................... 9
`Second Generation Props., L.P. v. Town of Pelham,
`313 F.3d 620 (1st Cir. 2002) ................................................................................44
`Sentara-Hampton Gen. Hosp. v. Sullivan,
`980 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................59
`Sierra Club v. EPA,
`705 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................51
`Sur Contra La Contaminacion v. EPA,
`202 F.3d 443 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................................................53
`Ten Local Citizen Grp. v. New Eng. Wind, LLC,
`457 Mass. 222, 928 N.E.2d 939 (2010)......................................................... 45, 50
`Town of Brookline v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Envtl. Quality Eng’g,
`387 Mass. 372, 439 N.E.2d 792 (1982)................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases—Continued:
`Town of Brookline v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Envtl. Quality Eng’g,
`398 Mass. 404, 497 N.E.2d 9 (1986) ............................................................ passim
`Town of Northbridge v. Town of Natick,
`394 Mass. 70, 474 N.E.2d 551 (1985)..................................................................55
`Town of Weymouth v. FERC,
`No. 17-1135, 2018 WL 6921213 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2018)....................... 14, 101
`Township of Bordentown v. FERC,
`903 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2018) .................................................................................44
`United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo,
`933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019) ................................................................................103
`Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.,
`505 U.S. 214 (1992) .............................................................................................51
`Statutes:
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ................................................................................................43
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E) ................................................................................................43
`15 U.S.C. § 717(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`15 U.S.C. § 717b(d)(2)............................................................................................... 9
`15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) ..................................................................................................10
`15 U.S.C. § 717r(b) ........................................................................................... 1, 101
`15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) ..................................................................................................42
`15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(2) .............................................................................................15
`42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) ............................................................................................10
`42 U.S.C. § 7409 ......................................................................................................11
`42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1).............................................................................................19
`42 U.S.C. § 7607(b) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`Statutes—Continued:
`42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) ................................................................................................... 1
`42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 ........................................................................................101
`42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492 ..........................................................................................24
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21C, § 2 ........................................................................ 41, 103
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21C, § 4 ........................................................................ 17, 102
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21C, § 4, para. 9 ....................................................... 4, 41, 103
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 14(7) ..........................................................................43
`Regulations:
`18 C.F.R. § 157.21 ...................................................................................................10
`18 C.F.R. §§ 380.1-.16 .............................................................................................10
`40 C.F.R. § 52.21 .....................................................................................................14
`40 C.F.R. § 70.2 .......................................................................................................14
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 1.01(13)(n) ..........................................................................87
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 1.01(14)(d) ..........................................................................88
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 4.10(2)(b) ............................................................................14
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.00 .............................................................................. passim
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.01 ............................................................................... 56, 58
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.01 (1979) ..........................................................................56
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.01(1) ......................................................................... passim
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(3)(j) .............................................................. 18, 22, 104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(3)(j)(1) ........................................................................18
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(3)(j)(3) ................................................................. 18, 49
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(3)(j)(6) ........................................................................18
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(5) .................................................................................14
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`Regulations—Continued:
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.02(8)(a)(2) ........................................................................22
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.04(9) ...............................................................................104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.05(7) ...............................................................................104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.05(8) ...............................................................................104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.05(9) ...............................................................................104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.08(4) ...............................................................................104
`310 Mass. Code Regs. 7.10(1) .................................................................................33
`Other Authorities:
`BLS Data Viewer, Televisions in U.S. City Average, All Urban Consumers,
`Not Seasonally Adjusted,
`https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CUUR0000SERA01 ...............81
`Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked
`Questions, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm.........................80
`Derek Thompson, Why Are TVs So Cheap?,
`Atlantic, Dec. 27, 2011, http://bit.ly/2Nf3Uov ....................................................81
`FERC, An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land?: What Do I Need to
`Know? (2015), http://bit.ly/2PBe0Tz ..................................................................... 8
`FERC, Office of Energy Projects, Docket No. CP14-497, New Market
`Project: Environmental Assessment (Oct. 2015), http://bit.ly/2nUsKQm ...........11
`Letter from Danny Laffoon, FERC, to Chris Harvey, Algonquin (Nov. 27,
`2019), FERC Docket No. CP-16-9-000. ..............................................................34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Intervenor-Respondent Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, does not oppose
`
`Petitioners’ request for oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Petitioners seek review of a July 12, 2019 Final Decision and an August 7,
`
`2019 Final Decision on Reconsideration of the Commissioner of the Massachusetts
`
`Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”).1 Those decisions were
`
`issued after an adjudicatory administrative hearing and finalized the Department’s
`
`decision to issue a Non-Major Comprehensive Air Quality Plan Approval—a minor-
`
`source air permit—relating to the proposed construction and operation of a natural
`
`gas pipeline compressor station in the Town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, by
`
`Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (“Algonquin”). This Court has jurisdiction
`
`under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1).2
`
`
`1 This Court consolidated the three petitions for review challenging the Department’s
`permit decision. See Order of Court (Aug. 28, 2019). Similar to the Department,
`see Department Br. 1, this brief refers to the Petitioners in Case No. 19-1794 as the
`“Municipalities,” the Petitioners in Case No. 19-1797 as the “Moulds Petitioners,”
`and the Petitioners in Case No. 19-1803 as the “Anderson Petitioners.” On October
`2, 2019, this Court authorized Algonquin to file a consolidated brief containing up
`to 39,000 words in response to Petitioners’ three opening briefs. See Order of Court
`(Oct. 2, 2019).
`2 Certain statutes that the Anderson Petitioners cite (Anderson Br. 4, 6-8) in
`discussing jurisdiction are inapposite: The state agency action at issue here is not
`subject to the Clean Air Act’s judicial-review and rulemaking provisions, 42 U.S.C.
`§ 7607(b), (d), and this case does not involve review of a Federal Energy Regulatory
`Commission order under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Since 1989, written Department policy has provided that certain air-
`
`permit applicants must “assess, through computer modeling, the ambient [air-toxics]
`
`concentrations caused solely by th[e] source’s emissions.” JA2603 (emphasis
`
`added). Petitioners contend that the Department should have deviated from that
`
`policy by requiring Algonquin to incorporate general, preexisting background air-
`
`toxics concentrations into its modeling, rather than assessing only the incremental
`
`addition from the Weymouth compressor station’s emissions. See Moulds Br. 4-5;
`
`Anderson Br. 8; see also Municipalities Br. 57-59 (“Mun. Br.”). Did the Department
`
`violate its regulations or act arbitrarily and capriciously by adhering to its
`
`longstanding policy, which does not call for consideration of background conditions
`
`in assessing a source’s air-toxics emissions?
`
`2.
`
`The Department assessed the potential risks posed by the Weymouth
`
`compressor station’s formaldehyde emissions by comparing the formaldehyde
`
`concentrations caused by the station’s emissions to a benchmark called the
`
`Allowable Ambient Limit. That benchmark reflects the formaldehyde concentration
`
`associated with a one-in-a-million marginal increased cancer risk over a lifetime of
`
`continuous exposure. Standard air modeling, which does not account for
`
`intermittent events like startups of compressor equipment, showed no exceedances
`
`of the Allowable Ambient Limit, but modeling modified to attempt to account for
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`startups did show minor exceedances at locations near the compressor station’s fence
`
`line. Did the Department act arbitrarily and capriciously by approving the air permit
`
`after considering and addressing those modeled startup-related exceedances? See
`
`Mun. Br. 54-60.
`
`3.
`
`Department regulations required Algonquin to adopt the Best Available
`
`Control Technology, which reflects the maximum degree of emissions reduction that
`
`the Department determines is achievable, taking into account energy, environmental,
`
`and economic impacts and other costs. The Department concluded that the Best
`
`Available Control Technology for the compressor unit’s driver is a gas-fired turbine
`
`(1) using a dry low nitrogen oxides (NOx) technology marketed under the brand
`
`name “SoLoNOx” to limit NOx emissions, and (2) equipped with an oxidation
`
`catalyst to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds,
`
`including formaldehyde. Did the Department act arbitrarily and capriciously in
`
`rejecting Petitioners’ contention that the Best Available Control Technology for the
`
`compressor unit’s driver is instead an electric motor or a gas-fired turbine using
`
`selective catalytic reduction? See Mun. Br. 33-54.
`
`4.
`
`The Anderson Petitioners contend that the Department incorrectly
`
`stated that the emissions rates of the Weymouth compressor station’s turbine are
`
`guaranteed by the turbine’s manufacturer. See Anderson Br. 27-32. Does the
`
`administrative record lack substantial evidence of the existence of manufacturer
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`guarantees? Also, would the absence of manufacturer guarantees render the
`
`Department’s air-permit approval arbitrary and capricious or in violation of
`
`Massachusetts law, given that the permit itself includes enforceable limits and
`
`monitoring requirements?
`
`5.
`
`The Department found that the Weymouth compressor station did not
`
`meet the thresholds for applying the Massachusetts Environmental Justice Policy’s
`
`enhanced public-participation and environmental-analysis requirements. Did the
`
`Department nevertheless act arbitrarily or capriciously or violate Massachusetts law
`
`by not applying the Environmental Justice Policy to Algonquin’s air-permit
`
`application? See Anderson Br. 32-36.
`
`6.
`
`The Department’s Air Pollution Control Regulations do not require a
`
`showing of compliance with the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management
`
`Act’s financial-responsibility provision, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21C, § 4, para. 9, as a
`
`prerequisite for obtaining an air permit. Did the Department act arbitrarily or
`
`capriciously or violate Massachusetts law by not applying the Hazardous Waste
`
`Management Act’s financial-responsibility provision to the Weymouth compressor
`
`station in the context of the Department’s air-permitting decision?
`
`7.
`
`The final issue raised in the Anderson Petitioners’ brief is an omnibus
`
`argument that the Department’s air-permit approval “is arbitrary, capricious, an
`
`abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Anderson Br. 9. To
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1794 Document: 00117547300 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Entry ID: 6314873
`
`
`
`the extent that the Anderson Petitioners raise arguments under this heading that are
`
`not already addressed in the context of the other issues in this case, are the arguments
`
`sufficiently developed to avoid forfeiture, and do they overcome the considerable
`
`deference to which the Department’s permitting decision is entitled?
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case involves one component of local opponents’ vigorous campaign to
`
`delay and ultimately prevent the construction and operation of a federally approved
`
`natural gas pipeline compressor station in the Town of Weymouth, Massachusetts.
`
`See, e.g., Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC v. Weymouth, 919 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.
`
`2019) (prior litigation between Weymouth and project proponent Algonquin
`
`regarding compressor station).
`
` Although the Federal Energy Regulatory
`
`Co