Town of Middlebury v. Conn. Siting Council
161 A.3d 537, 326 Conn. 40, 2017 WL 2652052 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a statute requires an administrative agency to "consider" a factor, it must reflect upon and take that factor into account in its deliberative process, but it is not required to make express written findings or articulate its specific reasoning on that factor in its final decision, particularly when the same statute uses more demanding language like "find and determine" for other factors.
Facts:
- In 1999, the Connecticut Siting Council granted a certificate to CPV Towantic, LLC's (CPV) predecessor for a 512-megawatt electric generating facility in the town of Oxford.
- By 2014, the facility had not yet been constructed.
- On November 3, 2014, CPV submitted a petition to modify the certificate, proposing to upgrade the facility to 785 megawatts and expand the site from twenty to twenty-six acres.
- The Town of Middlebury and sixteen other local residents and entities opposed the modification, participating in public hearings.
- During the hearings, the plaintiffs raised numerous concerns about the facility's adverse effects, including harmful pollutants, noise, traffic, risks to aviation safety, and the impact on local hay and timber production.
Procedural Posture:
- The Connecticut Siting Council issued a decision granting the petition of CPV Towantic, LLC, to modify its certificate for an electric generating facility.
- The town of Middlebury and other local entities (plaintiffs) appealed the Council's decision to the Superior Court (a state trial court).
- The Superior Court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut, the state's highest court, transferred the appeal to itself before the Appellate Court could hear it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state agency's statutory duty to 'consider neighborhood concerns' require the agency to make express written findings addressing each specific concern in its final decision?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, J.
No. The statutory requirement for the Connecticut Siting Council to 'consider neighborhood concerns' obligates it only to reflect on and take those concerns into account when rendering a decision, not to make express written findings on them. The court reasoned that the plain dictionary meaning of 'consider' refers to a deliberative process, not a requirement to articulate those deliberations. The court contrasted this with other parts of the same statute where the legislature explicitly required the Council to 'find and determine' certain factors, such as public benefit and environmental impact. The legislature's choice to use the less demanding term 'consider' for neighborhood concerns implies a lesser burden. The administrative record showed the Council held extensive hearings, admitted substantial evidence regarding these concerns, and made 314 findings of fact on related topics like air quality and noise, demonstrating that it fulfilled its duty to consider them, even without specifically mentioning them in its final opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the level of deference given to administrative agencies and sets a precedent for interpreting statutory mandates. By distinguishing between the duty to 'consider' and the duty to 'find and determine,' the court reinforces the principle that legislative word choice matters. This ruling makes it more difficult for challengers to overturn agency decisions based on the agency's failure to explicitly address every concern in its written opinion, so long as the administrative record demonstrates the concerns were heard and taken into account. It places the focus on the agency's deliberative process rather than the documentary output, potentially streamlining agency decision-writing while increasing the importance of a comprehensive administrative record.
