Wow, great news for a change! 🙂 Unless you’re Dominion Energy, that is – haha.
- “environmental justice is not merely a box to be checked, and the Board’s failure to consider the disproportionate impact on those closest to the Compressor Station resulted in a flawed analysis”
- “As Justice Douglas pointed out nearly [fifty] years ago, ‘[a]s often happens with interstate highways, the route selected was through the poor area of town, not through the area where the politically powerful people live.’”
- “…because DEQ relied on a nonexistent redefining the source doctrine, DEQ effectively relieved the Board from even considering the alternative energy source at all, so the Board could not have sufficiently and independently considered the impacts of electric turbines. As a result, we have no idea how much of an impact the Board thinks the electric turbines would make.”
- “…the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence.”
- “We conclude that the Board thrice erred in performing its statutory duty under sections 10.1–1307(E)(1) and (E)(3): (1) it failed to make any findings regarding the character of the local population at Union Hill, in the face of conflicting evidence; (2) it failed to individually consider the potential degree of injury to the local population independent of NAAQS and state emission standards; and (3) DEQ’s final permit analysis, ostensibly adopted by the Board, relied on evidence in the record that was incomplete or discounted by subsequent evidence.”