*1 and LINE, (NPL), Our INC. Save NO POWER By STATE of Minnesota FAMILIES ARE (SOC), Countryside, Inc. and Preserve TOO, INC., CONCERNED a Minnesota County (PGC), Appellants, Grant non-profit corporation, (48043), Appel v. lants, ENVIRONMENTAL The MINNESOTA and QUALITY COUNCIL, Respondent, Inc., Too, Families Are Concerned and non-profit corporation, Minnesota LINE, (NPL), INC. Our POWER Save NO name, Appellant, in its own (SOC), Countryside, Inc. and Preserve v. County (PGC), Appellants, Grant ASSOCIATION, UNITED POWER Min and Corporation Association; nesota Coop Too, Inc., Families Are Concerned Association, erative Power a Minnesota (FACT), Intervenors-Appellants, Cooperative Association; The Minneso Quality Council, ta v. Environmental an Agency Minnesota; State and The MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL Energy Agency, Agen Minnesota COUNCIL, QUALITY Respondent, cy Minnesota, Respon of the State of and dents, Virgil FUCHS, Individually, and Herman and on behalf of Counties United for Rural
Environment, Inc., Application by In the Coop aka CURE and all Matter of the petitioners, parties, Ap erative other Power interested Association and United pellants, Power Association for a Construction High Voltage Permit for a Transmission v. Line and Associated Facilities. and The STATE of Minnesota the Minne Quality Council, an sota Environmental Air, Inc., Appellant-below. Traverse MEQC, Agency aka Re Administrative Nos. spondents. Supreme Court of Minnesota. SCHMIDT, Individually, Sept. 30, Russell and on CURE, Inc., and all in behalf of other similarly situated, persons Ap
terested
pellants,
v. Minnesota, The
The STATE of Minnesota Quality Council, a State
Environmental Agency, United Power
Administrative Cooperative
Association Power As
sociation, Respondents. UNITED FOR RURAL EN
COUNTIES (CURE), Appellant,
VIRONMENT AGENCY,
MINNESOTA ENERGY
Respondent,
SHERAN, Chief Justice. Appellants1 appeal from the final orders specially appointed of a three-judge district panel2 court composed of Judge Ronald E. Paul, Hachey Judge of St. Charles W. Ken- Wadena, nedy of Judge Thomas J. Stahler affirming of Morris decisions of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council (MEQC)3 and the Minnesota Energy Agen- cy (MEA) joint approving construction by Cooperative (CPA) Power Association (UPA) and United Power Association of a Duranske, Bemidji, appel- for George high-voltage (HVTL) transmission line lants. from the North Dakota Rap- border to Coon ids, Minnesota. panel held that Skevas, and Eleni P. Min- David A. Grant MEQC’s designation of a corridor for the FACT. neapolis, for HVTL,4 the later designation of a route Navarre, Hatlie, Virgil M. Norton corridor,5 within that and the issuance of a Fuchs et al. permit6 construction as well as MEA’s grant of a certificate of need7 for the Gen., Spannaus, Atty. Stephen Warren HVTL “proper were and substantially sup- Shakman, William Donald A. Kannas and ported by evidence in the record.” The *5 Gen., Paul, Dorigan, Sp. Attys. Asst. E. St. panel rejected the claim that et al. for State MEA had violated the Minnesota Environ- Gen., Wagenius, Sp. Atty. Asst. Dwight mental Policy (MEPA)8 Act ap- and denied Paul, Energy Agency. for Minn. St. pellants’ requests to introduce additional testimony and to remand the proceedings to Paul, Miller, Roger St. for United South part and MEA. As of its orders the Assn. Power panel 10-day also issued a stay which was Drawz, Minneapolis, Cooperative for John extended this court until August Assn. Power day arguments on which oral were presented to be supreme sitting court Cloud, Roger Nierengarten, Lindquist St. en banc. Vennum, Parker, Minneapolis, J. & Edward Appellants are a number of farmer-citi- intervening farmers in Traverse and for zen organizations formed over the past few Counties. Grant years in response to the proposal by Athens, Wheaton, Thomas C. for Tra- CPA/UPA to construct a HVTL across this Air, verse Inc. part Line, of Minnesota. No Power Inc.
(NPL), Countryside, Our (SOC), Save Inc. Too, and Families Are Concerned Inc. (FACT) are nonprofit corpora- Minnesota Air, parties partici- changed one of the 3. The 1. Traverse has the Minnesota below, proceedings Quality pated has notified the Environmental Council to the in the Minneso- L.1975, Quality appealing ta Environmental Board. c. court that it is not the orders of the 271, 3(7). panel. § district court 1976, 116C.57, 4. Minn.St. § previous appeal, response a this court In designated special panel to hear all the cases 1976, 116C.57, 5. Minn.St. subd. 2. § demanding judicial agency decisions review of relating high-voltage to the construction of this 1976, 116C.61, 6. Minn.St. subd. 2. Line, transmission line. No Power Inc. v. Min Council, Minn., Quality Environmental nesota 7. Minn.St. 116H.13. (1976). 250 N.W.2d
8.Minn.St. c. 116D. circuit HVTL from there to a membership of over 200 CPA/UPA joint with a tions Grant, Rapids, County. in Anoka Doug- facility Coon in residing primarily citizens Preserve Grant las, Pope Counties. May Prior to the effective date noncorporate association (PGC) is a County (PPSA),10 Act Siting of the Power Plant members, most of approximately with location and construction of electrical trans- County. Most in Grant whom reside on a regulated mission lines were not state- allegedly organizations of these members Instead, public utility wide basis. in the property own landowners who are line had to wished to construct proposed HVTL. designated for corridor from the local authorities of permits secure of the administrative pendency During municipalities through the counties and member of Counties was a hearings, NPL proposed which it to locate its facilities.- In (CURE), Environment for Rural United devel- attempt to ensure the future in all through counsel participated opment power generating plants sep- partially but NPL has proceedings, in the high-voltage transmission lines state purposes from CURE arated itself proceed orderly would in an and rational FACT include The members of appeal. guarantee wide-ranging, fashion11 and to members of many current and former public participation,12 legis- continuous and, although FACT organizations, other passed lature PPSA. just prior to the consolida- incorporated savings exempted included a clause which to the district court appeals tion of operation from the of the act those— “* * * allegedly participated its members panel, high voltage transmission hearings throughout held the various lines, the construction of which will com- through which the counties the affected 1974; prior July provided mence * * * is routed. HVTL days following that within 90 enactment, the affected utili- the date of are wholesale CPA and UPA Respondents ty shall file with the council a written energy. power and of electric suppliers identifying statement such transmission cooperatives 19 rural composed CPA lines, location, and the esti- planned their 15; they provide ser- together and UPA of for commencement of con- mated date 250,000 accounts approximately vice to *6 struction.” three Wisconsin counties. and to Minnesota 1973, agreed construct an electric they to initially In CPA and UPA availed them- facility9 in plant 22, and conversion generating savings August selves of the clause. On Dakota, (of 427 miles approximately 1973, MEQC letter North notified Minnesota) will lie in prior about 172 miles to construct HVTLs they planned 1974, 13, 1, 1973, (kv) July dc HVTL from and on November of ± 400 Kilovolt MEQC to a adopted in North Dakota a resolution that Creek Station Coal Wright County, and CPA/UPA transmission line satisfied the facility conversion requirements savings kv ac double clause. On 28 miles of 345 approximately sys- alternating insuring continuing power facility 9. This current while electric will convert reliability (dc) integrity insuring (ac) which will be trans- tem and and into direct current energy conversion HVTL to another electric needs are met and fulfilled in an mitted over the facility orderly timely it will be converted in Delano where and fashion.” back to ac. from dc public hearings 12. mandated 1976, 116C.51 116C.69. §§ 10. Minn.St. criteria, development inventory Minn.St. 1976, 116C.55, 2, hearings public in the § 1, 1976, 116C.55, subd. the state- § 11. Minn.St. designation process site or route as well as legisla- policy, “The reads as follows: ment of 1976, public hearing, general Minn.St. annual policy hereby it to be the declares ture 116C.58, public participation through and ad- § large in an facilities to site electric state orderly visory committees, and other means to be de- compatible with environmental manner by MEQC, Minn.St. 116C.59. preservation § yeloped and the efficient use of resources. policy, the environmen- with this In accordance quality 1976, sites that mini- 13. Minn.St. board shall choose tal 116C.67. § impact human and environmental mize adverse through Traverse, Grant, 28, 1974, the utilities sent a letter to Douglas, Pope, June separate acts of con- MEQC detailing Stearns, Meeker, Wright, and Hennepin satisfy the had been taken to struction Counties, and issued a “Certificate of Corri- Nevertheless, 3, April on clause. savings Compatibility.” dor 1975, project utilities withdrew this Appellants appealed to district court for savings clause and submitted it to from judicial review of this decision on December MEQC.14 jurisdiction of 3, After the appeal dismissed, 1975.16 1975, 8, MEQC resolved to ac- April On and appeal court, further taken to this for a corri- application the CPA/UPA cept the case was remanded for trial17 and later and a certificate of corridor designation dor appeals consolidated with other stemming 1976, compatibility pursuant to Minn.St. approval from the of the HVTL. 116C.61, respectively. 116C.57 and §§ CPA/UPA, proposed two application, 6, 1975, in its On October applied CPA/UPA (I HVTL and alternative corridors for the MEA for a certificate pursuant of need 10, 1975, II). MEQC expanded the June On 1976, appointed Minn.St. 116H.13.18 MEA corri- study area to include two additional officer, hearing days and 14 public 1975, 27, (III IV), August dors and and hearings 8, were held between December MEQC Siting the Power Plant Staff 1975, 15, January 5, and 1976. On March (V). a fifth corridor All the recommended 1976, hearing officer submitted his re- point entry fixed the proposed corridors recommendations, port 2, April and on North Dakota. of the line from 1976, MEA issued a certificate of need. On officer, hearing and 11 appointed a 3, 1976, May appellants appealed judi- 21, 1975, hearings July were held between cial review of this decision. September August 1975. On 9, 1975, On pursuant December Committee,15 Evaluation Corridor 116C.57, MEQC, applied subd. CPA/UPA appointed by sub- for a which had been report, September its final and on permit mitted construction for construction of the submitted hearing officer his HVTL within approved corridor. fact, conclusions, findings of and recom- public hearings Twelve were held between mendations. April 14, 1976, March at least one in each of the affected counties. 3, 1975, MEQC adopted the
On October
Department
ordered the
hearing
report, designated the cor-
officer’s
Natural
hearing
(DNR)
recommended
officer Resources
prepare
ridor
an environ-
lands,
brief,
According
“[qjuestions
brush, pastureland, hay-
to the FACT
such as scrub
routing
disruption
land,
forest,
second-growth
about
operations,
to minimize
of farm
rather than re-
height
tower
and location to mini-
quiring
prime
the utilization of
farmlands.
effects,
negative aesthetic
and line diame-
mize
*7
production
ter to minimize ozone
pollution
and thus air
12, 1975,
appealed
16. On November
CURE had
potential health hazards
were
Pope County
decision to the
MEQC’s
District
county
hearings.”
board
At
raised at the
least
appeal
Court. The
was later consolidated with
county, Pope,
appli-
denied the
one
CPA/UPA
appeal
by
the NPL
remanded for trial
this
Another,
permit.
special
cation for a
County, required
use
Grant
court.
placed
HVTL to
under-
the
be
placed
ground
to be
at least 500 feet from
Line,
17. No Power
Inc. v. Minnesota Environ
residential structures.
Council, Minn.,
Quality
mental
such transmission MEQC jurisdiction date for com- had over the cation, ap- the estimated HVTL plication court, this binding is not on which construction.” mencement can review the independently evidence and availed the initially itself of CPA/UPA come to its own conclusion. its reasons savings and documented clause MEQC/MEA Both respondents All from the exempted PPSA. being for a “grandfa- CPA/UPA label 116C.67 as MEQC granted that when parties agree the 23 construing grand- ther All cases clause.” they had ground the that request their on thought father clauses share one in common begun that construction had demonstrated —namely, penalize it is unfair to the 1, 1974, deadline, it lost July the prior to something regulated party begun prior for siting the of the HVTL. jurisdiction over Thus, the statute. to enactment of the it whether, once lost question having penalize would be unfair to CPA/UPA for jurisdic- project, over the such jurisdiction starting the prior construction of HVTL to regained. tion could be PPSA, the the sav- enactment of and the ings panel probably pre- court held that clause was included to The district clude such a result. “grandfather” was because 116C.67 clause, spe the with a it furnished utilities What makes this case different from all did, could, they which privilege, cial savings others in which clauses been have acting the relinquish and that was the courts is that here the by construed jurisdiction accepted over properly when asking party regulated regula- to for be HVTL. Because this con siting the cases, reported tion. In all the the appel- legal rather factual clusion is based on than lant is retain fighting get exemp- to or his considerations, reviewing court is not tion; never has a heretofore-exempt party by agency bound the decision sought relinquish being to excluded from agency expertise. need defer to regulations burdensome enacted See, N. 15.0425. L. R. B. v. Minn.St. legislature.24 reason, For this existing 278, 291, Brown, 980, 988, 85 380 S.Ct. U.S. subject grandfather case law on the 839, (1965). Moreover, 13 L.Ed.2d 849 as largely clauses becomes irrelevant. Mining in Reserve v. this court noted Co. Herbst, Minn., (1977), 256 N.W.2d 822 way conceptualizing Another opinion reviewing “We are of jurisdictional the issue Appel is in terms. agencies decisions of administrative this argue lants that the specifically performs essentially court jurisdiction same func MEQC’s subject-matter limited is governed by tion as the district court and to those HVTLs whose construction Accordingly, 1,1974. scope begin July theory, same of review. Under after usual deference requiring rule to trial court once decided that CPA/UPA had apply.” Thus, begun prior decisions does not the fact construction on HVTL (1975) (Such According 45 L.Ed.2d 59 to State ex rel. Krausmann v. a clause legislative amnesty Streeter, 458, 463, simple “a conferral 226 Minn. 59 N.W.2d unchallenged for exception theretofore transactions com (1948): purpose grand “The of an or pleted Congress before had clarified the nature statutory exempt father from the clause is accommodation.”); of that Monk & Excelsior regulations imposed for the first time on a Health, Bd. of Minnesota State 302 Minn. profession those who trade or members thereof 502, 508, (1975) (The 225 N.W.2d newly engaged regulated are in the field then legislature, by establishing period grace, acceptably theory who have projects intended to allow those who had process period profession or trade for followed such proceed completion without first * * * may presumed years to have having need.) to obtain a certificate of subsequent qualifications entrants demonstrate examination.” field must See, Annotation A.L.R.2d 667 and A.L. See, also, South States v. Citizens and United R.2d Later Service Case discussion of Bank, 95 S.Ct. ern 422 U.S. Nat. interpreting grandfather cases clauses.
321 Thus, date, it.25 when it jurisdiction jur- it had no over sions. decided to accept that by alleging 8, that responds 1975, April only isdiction on it was apply- CPA/UPA subject-matter not savings clause defines ing prospectively. the statute personal jurisdiction but rather jurisdiction preceding From the discussion it becomes MEQC. subject matter of of Since parties assuming obvious that the are their siting generating of electric is the PPSA by labeling savings conclusions clause as Minnesota, and HVTLs plants “grandfather speaking “per- clause” or plan to construct a HVTL in CPA/UPA “subject as opposed juris- sonal” to matter” Minnesota, MEQC subject-matter juris- has opposed diction or of “retroactive” as to questions surrounding its con- diction over “prospective” application. question The important The is an struction. distinction resolved, must be by applying labels, subject-matter, personal, because unlike one by determining legislature but what jurisdiction by cannot be conferred consent accomplish to with intended this section of Inc., Huhn parties. Foley of the v. Bros. the PPSA. 279, 286, (1946). 22 221 Minn. N.W.2d 8 Thus, if the court were to that decide PPSA, By enacting the the legisla savings subject-matter clause defined the sought ture to ensure that the siting future PPSA, MEQC jurisdiction acting power plants and transmission lines by appli- accepting ultra vires CPA/UPA’s orderly would be carried out in an fashion April 1975.26 cation according design, to a rational rather than savings clause can also be viewed in haphazardly, possibly unnecessarily, at prospec- terms of the PPSA’s retroactive or whim public individual utilities perspective, From application. tive might whose decisions fail to consider or question becomes whether with the comport interest. Minn.St. regulate only intended to construction be- 116C.55 to 116C.60. The two cru §§ 1, 1974, gun July begun prior after or that concepts permeate cial that the entire act 1, 1974, July as well. Minn.St. 645.21 process are that should be orderly and law shall be construed to provides “[n]o there public participation should be clearly manifestly retroactive unless stages of agency decision-making. all Appel- by legislature.”27 so intended It seems obvious that the legislature accepting by lants contend savings protect intended the clause to pub MEQC application apply- CPA/UPA’s projects lic utilities whose had already be ing retroactively. response, the statute In 24, 1973, being overly MEQC gun from burdened the new argued May it that as of jurisdiction siting Recognizing projects all deci- statute. that such acquired over of- rightly argues agency that FACT’S inter- 26. “Jurisdiction of an 25.CPA/UPA administrative savings overly rigid powers granted pretation clause is consists of the it statute. statutory power juris- exempt Lack of betokens lack of because it would from the control It is therefore diction. well settled that a deter- all lines on which a burst of the PPSA agency 1, 1974, mination of an July administrative is void activity just prior occurred but subject collateral attack where it suspend- thereafter which construction was statutory power made either without or in ex- years. Such a conclusion ed for number Spurck ex cess thereof.” State rel. v. Civil follow, necessarily Since does not however. Board, 253, 259, Service 226 Minn. 32 N.W.2d requires plans with the PPSA utilities to file (1948). 586 basis, regular on a would be able MEQC whether construction was contin- to determine 645.21, construing In this court noted in not, uing. nothing prevent If in the act would Harmon, Ekstrom v. 256 Minn. asserting jurisdiction. In this from MEQC case, however, (1959): N.W.2d “If the appears no evidence ever give operation wishes to retroactive one of presented extent have been about the statutes, its so as to effect causes of action proceed- to which construction was or was not enactment, which arise before its even as to appear ing, of this issue does not and resolution relating governing procedure, statutes to or decision to to have been the basis MEQC’s may easily clearly make such an intention man- application. accept jurisdiction HVTL over the Accord, Watson, Cooper ifest.” 362, 367, 290 Minn. (1971). 187 N.W.2d *10 legis- justified the not in fact complete, to either or in law and many years took ten on impose to conditions would have corrected by wish been available le- did not lature they gal process; (2) had been unable that and the utilities sub- for utilities the legisla- the possible authority MEQC that mitted to of protect is also the to It plan. to project a moratorium would that such the from future the thought attack on ture develop guidelines its and to were ground improperly evading the state allow to utilize the seeking upon without the imposed restraints them the standards immediately. adoption of the PPSA. process not ex- probably did legislature the Since that, acknowledged It be even must if regulated to it seek be utility to pect reflection, legislative after ascertainment of legislature in- whether the option, had an legislative intent is difficult. the claim ex- utilities first to to permit tended goals public participation of orderliness and operation of the PPSA the emption from have could been better achieved had the procedures its is then to submit to later procedures fully administrative been devel our to ascertain at all clear. In effort not MEQC’s oped prior accept to decision to intent, ques- the likely had it considered its HVTL, jurisdiction routing over the of this tion, guided by the twin we been have decision-making orderly centralized is more the goals ensuring of orderliness legislative actions, duplicative than numerous local provid- decision-making process and the of all given interested citizens were public participation for ing opportunity the opportunity to heard in hear be the therein. stage ings process. conducted at each of the Appellants contend that the administra- long deliberation, After and serious we case, it this process, tive as unfolded in the legislature have decided that would toward mean- orderly neither nor oriented have to jurisdiction intended have position ingful public participation. Their on based our residual the conviction the as expressed is in FACT brief follows: legislature preferred have would the PPSA way may pragmatic apply “The to reasonably Act to to the fullest extent power Therefore, long power large site lines and possible. legislature the must However, the in which plants. way the permit have to utilities to intended applied very in case to a PPSA was this exception waive the it in had carved out situation defied Act’s favor, though delicate local exemption their even had objective promote coop- local and state previously claimed granted. been of inflammatory nature this eration. The 2. The of Administrative part magnitude in Conduct may
ease
be due
Hearings
HVTL,
it
be due
may
but
also
process
yanked
the fact
the conduct of the administrative
Since
compa-
level
from the local
hearings
litigation
the heart
at
belatedly
new
upon
leg-
seized
nies which
us,
important
before
to understand
political
the local
islation to circumvent
passing
both the
intent
in
these
legislative
history
Because
this
process.
ways
statutes and the
which the statutes
case,
citizens on the
the reliance
First,
present
are interrelated.
we will
level,
process which existed at the local
broad overview of the statutes themselves
of the
and the intent
description
stages through
and a
legislation
pending
on
force the new
which the
both the ad-
intended
to finish
projects, remand
counties
agencies
applicants
ministrative
appears
proceedings
their
to be
alter-
pass.
HVTL corridors to
Then we will ex-
likely
existing
native most
resolve
alleged
amine
specific
both
instances
and ill will.”
distrust
compliance
spirit
non
with the
and/or letter
and,
appel-
the case
Respondents argue,
response
drawing
statutes
jurisdictions,
claims, (1)
placed
that the
law from this and other
lants’
restrictions
noncompliance,
correctly
by local
were
effect of such
if
project
county
on the
boards
alleged,
process
on the entire
of administra- mechanism of the EIS. Toward
end,
decision-making in this controversy.
tive
the legislature required that all “major gov-
*11
* * *
ernmental action or
major pri-
legislative sessions,
the 1973
1974
In
and
vate action of more than
significance”
local
legislature passed
the Minnesota
a number
“potential
with
significant
environmen-
at protecting
of interrelated statutes aimed
tal
preceded
effects” be
by a
EIS,
detailed
the environment in the context of continued
§ 116D.04. To ensure that
development.
administrative
economic
Three of
these
decision-making affecting the
(MEPA),
statutes —Minn.St.
c.
116D
environment
was made with environmental
(PPSA),
116C.51
116C.69
and
factors in
§§
Minn.St.
mind, MEPA
1976,
(the
directed
c. 116H
Minnesota
that a
Energy Agen-
draft environ-
mental impact
cy Act) play central
statement
roles in the controver-
be made available
—
sy over the
public
construction of this
HVTL
and.
and that “[t]he
final
through
Thus,
much of central Minnesota.
detailed environmental
impact state-
it will
helpful
briefly
be
to outline
what
ment and
we
the comments received .thereon
* * *
legislature
believe the
intended to accom-
precede final decisions on the pro-
.
* * *
when it
plish
passed
pieces
these
of
posed
environ-
action and
accompany the
legislation.
mental
proposal through an administrative review
process.”
116D.04,
Minn.St.
subd. 4. Since
19, 1973,
May
On
en
the legislature directed,
116D.03,
in §
subd.
(MEPA).
acted c. 116D
Patterned
1, that “to the fullest extent practicable the
(the
NEPA28
National
Pro
Environmental
policies, regulations
public
and
laws of the
Act),
tection
passed by
which was
Congress
state shall
interpreted
and administered
1969,
MEPA states that
it is the state’s
in accordance
policies
with the
set forth in
policy
practicable
“to use all
means and
* * *
sections 116D.01 to 116D.06 [MEPA],” the
measures
in a manner calculated
other
legislation
environmental
passed later
promote
general welfare,
to foster and
was to be administered in accordance with
create
and maintain conditions under
policies
of MEPA.30
which man
produc
and nature can exist in
harmony,
social,
tive
and fulfill the
econom
days
Just 4
after
passage MEPA,
of
ic, and other requirements
present
of
and
enacted the PPSA. This act
generations
future
people.”29
state’s
specifically dealt only
power
with
generat-
116D.02, subd. 1.
policy
ing plants
HVTLs,
Minn.St.
This
and
but it is clear from
could be
through
procedural
advanced
its statement of policy that
the legislature
Grad,
Law,
gram
28. 2
planning
Treatise on Environmental
control;”
of
and land use
9.07, pp. 9 to
116D.02,
§
162. In
MPIRG Minnesota
2(f);
“[p]ractice
§
subd.
and to
thrift
370,
EQC,
* * *
(1975),
306 Minn.
state’s compatible manner orderly sonably requirements balance of state facilities and the preservation development, pro- growth with environmental service area and that resources” use safety, preser- efficient health and tection of minimize adverse sites “shall choose quality, and con- of environmental vation impact.” environmental human and fore- energy resources. Such servation set out of the PPSA remaining sections serve by the director shall casts established to fol- expected the state process *12 orderly large energy of for certification as the basis contemplat- Basically, legislature the low. in 116H.13.” Minn.St. facilities section specified time with a stages, each ed four 116H.11, (Italics 1(b). supplied.) subd. § limit: Sep- a of legislature then set deadline (1) and stan- Development 15, of criteria 1975, promulgation the of for tember inventory of develop an dards be used electric criteria for assessment-of-need sites/corridors; Ap- time limit: potential 116H.13, 1, and lines, subd. § transmission 1976, one proximately year. Minn.St. large that date no mandated after 116C.55, 2. subd. § in facility would be constructed energy a certifi- without the issuance of Minnesota (2) Development inventory po- an of of need, 116H.13, subd. 2. of § cate sites/corridors; time limit: One tential 116C.55, 1976, 3. year. subd. § Minn.St. 15, 1975, Thus, by September legisla- the state anticipated that the various specified of site/corridor for ture (3) Choice charged have the facility by agencies prepared of an a would electrical development inventories, standards, year time One after and crite- public utility; limit: mandated site, (6 months) request days specified for a 180 after ria the PPSA32 c. 116H. 1976, time, a request for corridor. a utility wishing Minn.St. From that a to build 116C.57, 1. subd. would first to MEA for a apply § HVTL MEQC certificate of need and then to ini- (4) specific of route within the Choice tially designation for a and later corridor corridor; (6 designated days time limit: 180 designation a within approved for route the 1976, 116C.57, months). Minn.St. subd. § corridor. specifically 2.31 The also man- widespread dated and continuous object Appellants to the manner in which all of participation stages process. on a the various decisions were reached 1976, 116C.55 to 116C.60. Minn.St. §§ grounds. They of contend that number require an at the corridor failure to EIS Act, the Energy Agency In Minnesota stage, inversion of the corridor selection to some extent modified hearings, of and certificate need selection stages by requiring utility a outlined above hearing permit officer to the refusal of the a of for and receive certificate apply considered, and to be additional corridors apply the MEA before could need from was eventu- inadequacy of the EIS that MEQC designation. corridor Minn.St. for Ap- all reversible errors. 116H.13, ally prepared the or- are keeping subd. 2. In with entire above, pellants request derly legisla- therefore procedure described MEQC develop and MEA for ture MEA to esti- case be remanded to intended “[a]n PPSA, potential plant tory” generating legisla- of sites 31. In its 1977 revision 116C.55, steps gave July these last two HVTL corridors § ture combined 2, year publish approve which to inven- one within and to assemble and an subd. MEQC HVTL route. 439, L.1977, July tory potential It also § c. 10. before of sites corridors inventory requirement 1, 1975, 116C.55, 3, that an deleted was never latter L.1977, 8, prepared. c. 9. §§ accomplished requirement corridors inven- and the of an legis- tory dropped in was the 1977 corridors develop Although criteria told L.1977, MEQC revision PPSA. c. lative prepare “inven- to be used to and standards
325
hearings
conformity
(1975);
new
to be conducted in
Byers v. Board of Clallam County
legislative
Commrs.,
intent as outlined above.
with
84 Wash.2d
burden have been un (1) Under the law in effect at the rele- to meet. able time, vant given discretion to *13 determine when an impact environmental argue Appellants that was reversible statement required. was 116D.03, Minn.St. MEQC require for not to error an at EIS 1, subd. provides: stage proceed- the corridor-selection “The legislature authorizes and directs ings. designation Since of a corridor that, to the practicable fullest extent “major governmental action” with policies, regulations and public laws of “potential significant environmental ef- the state shall be interpreted and admin- fects,” and since this was the last discre- istered in accordance with the policies set tionary stage proceedings,33 in the the lack forth in sections 116D.01 to 116D.06.” the spirit of an EIS violated both and the (Italics supplied.) letter of MEPA. This discretion is found neither in NEPA jurisdictions There are cases from other nor in the statutes of those states whose See, appear support position.
that
this
courts have nullified
pro-
administrative
Information,
Institute for Public
Scientists’
ceedings when an
EIS
absent.
Comm.,
Energy
Inc. v. Atomic
U.S.App.
156
(2) There never has been specific
395,
statu-
(1973);
D.C.
(4)
to,
reservations we have about
ridor compatibility prior
Whatever
contingent
but
followed, no information has
procedure
upon,
the issuance of the certificate of need.
to convince us that the ad-
presented
argued
been
It is
placed
that
this
MEA in the
agency
adequately
did not
con-
position
ministrative
of being compelled to issue a certif-
116C.57,
specified
sider
factors
icate of need even though the evidence
equivalent
proper-
not the
of a
adequately
failed
establish
the line’s ne-
EIS,
ly prepared and assembled
substantial
cessity.
argument
We believe that
this
this subsection makes the
compliance with
judgment
without merit.
In our
the need
critical than it
absence of an EIS less
would
for additional electric
was so clear
otherwise be.34
that
the order in which the hearings were
held
practical significance.
was of no
This
well
may very
It
be
belief is confirmed
the fact that during
gave
range
a broader
of discretion to
argument
course of oral
before this
MEQC
than it should have and that
court none of the appellants seriously ar-
carry
legislative
could better
out its
man-
gued
energy
the electrical
sup-
to be
required
preparation
if it
of a
date
plied by
project
was unnecessary.
impact
draft environmental
statement ear-
than it
It
process
may
lier in the
did.
also
Appellants also attack on a number
true that
in the future should be
grounds
the hearing officer’s decision
vigilant
protecting
alleged
in-
more
the HVTL’s entry point was fixed.
play
terests of the
and that it should
object
They
agency’s
refusal either to
more of an active role as an advocate of
consider additional corridors which would
environmental values. These considera-
permit
the HVTL to enter Minnesota at
tions, however,
scope
fall outside the
of our
point
some other
or to allow appellants to
properly
review and are more
addressed to
introduce evidence on the availability of
than to
courts.
*14
such other corridors.
hearing
The
officer
claim
Appellants further
found that
language
116C.57,
subd.
1,
hearing
failure of the
officer in the corridor
precluded the suggestion of other corri
proceedings
ques
to consider the
by
selection
dors
citizen participants, and we believe
HVTL was
tion of need for this
reversible
this determination to be correct. His task
statutory
error.
scheme es was to decide whether the proposed corridor
by
legislature obligates
tablished
a utili
should be approved; generalized references
ty proposing
apply
to construct a HVTL to
to other corridors would have served no
need,
first
MEA for a certificate
purpose.
appellants
useful
And
have 116H.13,
sequence
in which
convinced us that a different routing of the
adopted
the statutes were
meant
power line would do more than merely shift
granted
a certificate
CPA/UPA
of cor-
the burdens associated
presence
with its
rejected
argument
by
project. Only
34. This exact
a fed
ular
if this is done will the most
(E.
intelligent,
eral court
Natural
optionally
Resources Defense
beneficial decision be
Council,
Grant,
356, 365,
F.Supp.
likely
Moreover,
Inc. v.
341
to result.
the detailed state-
D.N.C.1972),
fulfilling
found that
provides
the re
ment
evidence that these factors have
quirements of NEPA in substance was not the
importantly,
been taken into account. More
it
filing
same as
an EIS. The reason for such a
allows those removed from the decision-mak-
by
position was stated
the court in Environ
process
ing
to evaluate and balance the factors
Valley
mental Defense Fund v. Tennessee
fact,
on their own.
In
‘if the decision was
Auth.,
F.Supp.
(E.D.Tenn.1972)
339
810
as
procedurally
reached
without
individualized
follows:
balancing
consideration and
of environmental
fully
102(2)(C)
good
purpose
factors —conducted
and in
“The
a section
detailed
faith —it
(1)
responsibility
impact
is the
environmental
statement
is
to aid
of the courts to reverse.’
(Emphasis added.)
agency’s decision-making process
(2)
Calvert
Cliffs’ v. A. E. C.
U.S.App.D.C. 33],
(1971).”
[146
to advise the
of the environmental con-
327 of landowners to another. group from one A number of federal courts adding pro- corridors to the While other have also held that it is an abdication of change the identities of the ceedings would agency responsibility under NEPA for its groups objecting to the individuals and to rely solely EIS prepared information prop- line on their placement of project’s proponent. City of Des persuaded that erty, we are not would Plaines v. Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of improve the situation from an environmen- Chicago, (7 552 F.2d 1977); 736 Cir. Greene point tal of view. County Planning Bd. v. Federal Power Finally, appellants challenge pre- the EIS Comm., (2 455 F.2d 420 1972); Cir. during proceed- the route selection pared Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, grounds: ings following on the Inc. v. Energy Comm., Atomic 146 U.S.App. (1) many That of the statements made in 1109, 1119 D.C. 449 F.2d (1971). The factual, conclusory, are rather than EIS purpose of all legislation, environmental at in nature. both the state levels, and the federal is to (2) adequate agencies That it does not include an force to make their impartial own of alternatives discussion HVTL. evaluation of environmental considerations reaching before their decisions. agen The (3) That it little more than incorpo- does cy’s role in the preparation of an EIS is not provided rate applying information to serve as an arbiter . between two opposing utilities. parties, as a judge expected to do in the The usual statement of the stan adversary process. Instead, expected it is of the adequacy dard of review of an envi to be a source independent expertise impact ronmental statement under NEPA whose scientific investigation can uncover that it through should be determined the data necessary to make an informed use of “a rule of reason.” Trout Unlimited environmental decision. This theme was Morton, (9 1974); v. 509 F.2d 1283 Cir. stressed in Greene County Planning Bd. v. Accord, Council, Natural Resources Defense Comm., Federal Power supra (455 Morton, F.2d U.S.App.D.C. Inc. 458 F.2d 420): (1972). theAs court noted in Lathan v. Brinegar, (9 1974), 506 F.2d Cir. “The Federal Power Commission has “ * * * procedures required by significant part abdicated a respon- of its * * * designed NEPA are to secure sibility by substituting the statement of accomplishment of the vital purpose PASNY for its own. The Commission *15 NEPA. That result can be achieved appears to be content to collate the com- only prescribed procedures if the are ments of other agencies, federal its own followed; faithfully grudging, pro forma staff and the intervenors and once again * * compliance will not do. *. to act as an umpire. The danger of this
procedure, and one obvious shortcoming, “This does not mean that the courts are potential, is the likelihood, if not that the ‘fly speck’ environmental impact state- applicant’s statement will upon be based preparation ments. The of such a state- self-serving assumptions.” necessarily ment calls for judgment, and however, We must emphasize, judgment agency’s. that is the But the that the mere fact that much of the infor can, should, full, fair, require courts and mation in the proponent’s environmental compliance bona fide with NEPA.” appears statement also in the agency’s EIS Although appellants questions raise serious sufficient, itself, is not to demonstrate conclusory about the nature of much of the its inadequacy. appellants While have chal and its failure to EIS discuss alternatives to lenged the completeness adequacy HVTL, they the have not carried their bur- EIS, they have not MEQC’s established that it is persuading den of us that actions untrue, “full, fair, inaccurate, comprised less than bona or misleading. fide After with compliance” MEPA. carefully considering appellants’ criticisms, the extensive hear- We light in would like to emphasize, how particularly of the adminis- during ever, the course issuing held that in ings per construction persuaded that mit, we are not process, MEQC proceeding trative was on the assump Thus, fatally we defective. was EIS tion that construction of the HVTL was adequate. challenged to be EIS find justified by the evidence before it. say To that the utilities can install a power line is Quality Ambient Air Standards say not to that are authorized to cre 116C.61, that might states ate conditions that damaging subd. be ei Section “[n]o designated which vio- route shall be ther to human or animal life vegeta site or or to Appellants regulations.” agency respects state tion in presently anticipated. lates precludes ap- this section Thus, MEQC contend that both and the utilities have an because of the existence proval of the route obligation to monitor the line35 to ensure following factors: produced that if effects are that were not anticipated at the time the HVTL ap regulation prohibiting (1) The PCA has proved, modifications will be introduced to more than 0.07 in the air of presence protect Moreover, interest. be than one of ozone for more parts per million cause HVTL sought by this the utili per year. hour ties, they, public, and not the should have to testimony was introduced that (2) Expert bear risk that such modifications might the area was once violation segment necessary. regulation. emit some ozone—estimated (3) HVTLs Inadequacies Claimed of the Record situations, be, parts per .005 in some million. The Minnesota statutes that govern both agency making judicial decision suggest the records require review thereof complete that a rec by appellants, that urged possibility, of all hearings ord be maintained and uti standard, quality the ambient air confused Thus, lized at both levels. Minn.St. permissible which the maximum am fixes 116C.06,subd. 2 states that transcript pollution agent, level of an air bient air “[t]he standards, testimony and exhibits shall which fix constitute pollution with “source” upon the exclusive record permissible the maximum contribution hear [the ing made,” pollution any given pollution findings from of fact are air officer’s] source, the inaccurate requires we do not think that a complete 116C.60 record of § expressions employed sometimes public hearings kept. to be Similarly, Min proof hearing transcripts should be taken as nesota’s Administrative Procedures Act re ele overlooked distinction so quires maintained, an official record to be Rather, mentary obvious. we believe 15.0418, agency which the § transmits to MEQC concluded that the level of court, reviewing 15.0424, pollution of ozone that would be source record, whose review is confined presence line caused 15.0424, subd. 6. minimal,
was so
the likelihood
*16
Appellants contend
increase the ambient air
that the failure
contribution would
MEQC
certify
to
a complete record of
permissible
levels above
máximums was so
remote,
authority
hearings
judicial
two of the local
continuing
and the
make
re
MEQC
view of the
MEQC
impossible.
source emissions was so
decision
Re
prohibit
to
permit
spondents
on this
assert
that
extensive that denial of
record was cor
agree.
We
by
would be unreasonable.
rected
the addition to the official
ground
rec-
by
Paragraph
monitoring
Expanded
or
2.7 of the Construction Permit
for
moni-
MEQC.
by
requires
toring
authority
the utilities to moni-
could be ordered
issued
under the
MEQC
generated by
Paragraph
provides
permit
1.14
tor the effect of ozone
oxides
that the
not,
adjacent vegetation.
subject
It
to
the line on
however,
does
modification or even revocation.
monitoring
provide for
forms of
other
recordings of one of the
tape
the fact that it might pay
ord36 of
for its share of
three-judge
district court
appellants.
line
up
and wind
being denied
“[tjhere is now before the
held that
panel
it;
the use of
and of having its rates based
*
* *
is,
substance,
‘a
what
court
all
of the deferred construction costs of
”
record,’
appellants had not
complete
alone,”
all of the involved utilities
without
for-
bring additional evidence
sought
linking
prejudice
to the decisions that
ward,
“[ajppellants
have not
were made at the corridor- and route-selec-
by the condition of the
any prejudice
shown
Thus,
hearings.
tion
since the MAPP mem-
review.”
finally returned for
record as
bers were never shown to
indispensable
proceedings,
these
of the
decision of the
judgment,
the decision
In our
hearing
require
the “in-
officer not to
panel
respect
with
them to an-
three-judge
interrogatories
correct.
swer
complete transcript”
clearly
issue is
correct.
against
The claim of
Larry
bias
Hartman
Violations
Alleged
Due-Process
is equally without merit. All the cases cit
contend that the
Appellants
failure
by appellants proscribe
ed
by
bias
the deci
of the multi-utili
join the other members
by
sion maker and not
a witness. Cinderel
(MAPP) in the corri
ty pooling agreement
Schools,
la Career
Finishing
Inc. v.
route-designation hearings and the
dor- and
Comm.,
Federal Trade
138 U.S.App.D.C.
by Larry
influence exerted
Hart
improper
(1970) (decision
Under Minnesota sion-making agency). As the trial court party he must cedure, Rule 19.01 process shall be parties, or ing to the in his absence cannot ter situated that the action if “A impair for a person be accorded reads in (1) or subject (2) party in his absence satisfy who is impede he claims may joined disposition part to be an (i) certain among subject to service of his the action as a as follows: as ability complete practical interest requirements. those indispensable party and is so already protect in the action relat- relief mat- correctly these matters member of the Power Plant cision maker in the final determination of cer did not violate constitutional due process. and his “ “The hearing officer * * n position [******] noted, testimony * * to observe the activities and Mr. Hartman was not a de and his *. before participation * * * hearing Siting was in Staff as a offi (ii) any per- leave
that interest or demeanor of Mr. specifical- Hartman and * * * already parties subject to a substan- sons ly found that Mr. Hartman * * * double, incurring multiple, tial risk of or prejudiced was not or biased. by rea- obligations otherwise inconsistent [Moreover, issue of potential bias or t]he his claimed interest.” son of prejudice particular of a witness runs to however, weight given testimony to be no Appellants, have demonstrated officer, hearing of such witness or route selection way in which corridor ground joinder of these and is not for reversal of the would be affected claim, the ultimate They example, decision of decision maker parties. >> * * * appellant regard in this prejudice to “[t]he original August findings; ordered the firmed his 36. On did like- *17 by tapes three-judge Fuchs hearing transcribed and reviewed the wise and then transmitted to the hearing panel supplemental examiner and The ex- a record which included MEQC. aminer, tapes, transcription listening tapes. the after to Fuchs reaf- the of the Fuchs 330 law, pursuant under and Delegation of Power some fact
6. Unconstitutional or upon by circumstance which the law appear argu to be appellants The makes, make, its own terms or to intends never been the state has ing that because depend. its own action power to exactly how much the find out able to facts, ascertain which automatically price paid the and because will cost HYTL brings operation a into by law virtue of electricity will be of users by the rural terms, power pass, its own is not the to the costs of con by determined partially modify, or annul a law. If the law fur- HVTL, and structing the reasonably policy nishes a clear or stan- the utilities a blank check given have MEA dard of action which guides controls and electricity. of gouge the consumers to the administrative officers in ascertain- They claim: ing operative facts to which the law “ * * * statute, a or the [U]nless applies, so that the law upon takes effect it, under or the safe- promulgated rules terms, by these facts virtue of its own (sic) by procedures guarded afforded according caprice and not to the whim or on during hearings based employed officers, of the administrative the discre- rules, a means or provide and the statute tionary power delegated to the board or which the burden of the costs by method legislative.” commission is not against the benefits to be can be balanced appears There meaningful to be no dif- consumers, who ‘foot the received power ference between the legisla- bill’, are the ultimate consumers denied delegated MEQC ture in the PPSA process of law. due power delegated to MEA in Minn.St. 116C.57, c. 116H. Section statute, pro- any or the rules “[Thus,] 116H.13, provide guidelines subd. 3 statute, the ad- mulgated any under or respectively and MEA about the fac- rule, any statute or ministration of coming decisions, tors to consider in to their inquiry or on the public expression denies expanded and both have been regula- into proposed activity a point of the cost of respective agencies.37 tions Yet the industry, especially one which regulated a challenged is not ground. PPSA this drastically public pocket- affect will persuaded We are not that the failure of book, delegation legisla- is an unlawful require specific finding contrary powers, and hence tive probable proposed project cost of a ren- Article III of the Minnesota provisions of delegation authority ders the unconstitu- Constitution.” concerning tional. The evidence probable Delmont, stated in Lee As court cost that received was certainly rele- 36 N.W.2d 538 vant, Minn. requiring finding such a many Remington Arms (1949), and affirmed situations would be most useful. We do not M., Minn. 102 believe, however, Inc. v. G. E. Co. that the determination of (1960): N.W.2d cost is so essential that its absence nullifies “ * * * proceedings grounds. on constitutional power, legislative Pure delegated, is the au- which can never be Stay Proceedings complete law-—com- thority make .to time it shall take effect plete as to the We are satisfied that the Minnesota apply it shall and as to whom Supreme Court has inherent to order —and enact- expediency of its determine stay proceedings pending before it to determine ment. discretion necessity supersedeas without of a upon however, whom a law shall take authority, when and bond. This should be legisla- may delegated, sparingly only not be exercised when effect we are or may upon unique ture confer a board commis- satisfied that the circumstances of a ascertain, particular discretionary power case makes it in the inter- sion a 74; Minn.Reg. Minn.Reg. EA 601 to 638. *18 stay. perceive such a We have tested I the est to order latter being proper the func- have instant case this standard and the tion statutory under the scheme of things. stay proceed- decision to concluded that our All of the new dealing laws with the filing ings pending the of this decision with- protection of the environment included requirement supersedeas of a bond out the within c. 116A through 116H, Minn.St. conformity Upon in with law. remand passed in recent years, fundamentally court, stay this case to the district of changed the law in this state. Prior to the terminates. heretofore directed passage laws, of these holders of eminent rights domain simply could decide to con- 8. Conclusion struct generating new and transmission fa- persuaded we are not cilities, route, decide on a go and ahead and procedures by MEQC that the followed and acquire rights of way. requirements MEA failed to meet the With passage of the environmental we affirm the law and unanimous decision policy 116, however, in contained c. leg- three-judge panel, we are acutely clearly islature to place intended conditions problems aware of the that will be faced and limitations on further destruction of the landowners who have to bear the bur legislature decided, environment. The power line. It den of the is evident that with the guide wisdom which must presence property of HVTL on their courts, that generating before and trans- significant damage will create to their live mission facilities could be constructed the jus lihoods and their investments. We are need for those impact facilities and the assuming in tified since the issue of the environment must be determined. will compensation county be tried in the in located, 117.055, which the land is Minn.St. Prior to the passage 116C, of c. Minn.St. the landowners affected will be treated the utilities involved in these proceedings fairly reasonably. taking and Because the already had decided to participate in the here involved is an intrusion which they generating construction of facilities requested they have not and to which have North Dakota and to transmit power consented, damage not awards should predetermined into Minnesota to a location subjected judicial scrutiny be to close near Rapids. Goon There was a savings compliance with art. assure Minn.Const. clause in the statute exempted which cer- provides in cases such as already tain work commenced. After first equitable compensation this “a fair and applying exemption for the having paid for such land and for the shall granted, the utilities then elected to drop arising damages taking from it.” voluntarily their claim and come under the Affirmed. new purview argument act. At oral part it was admitted of the reason was to YETKA, (concurring specially). Justice simplify procedure acquiring the en- right way. tire The net result is that the majority, only I with the but be- concur previous utilities used the law to foreclose purpose cause I can see no in remand ex- need, the necessity establishing ap- but cept delay higher in construction and plied acquire right the new law to It is costs as result thereof. obvious to True, way. separate proceedings on the existing me that under the statutes question of the need for the facilities were agencies will than state do no more conduct conducted, but were hastily organized hearings approve the certificate of need possible alternative sources do already route selected. appear to have been seriously con- However, in my opinion, wrong what is sidered. agencies with this case is that the state have misconstrued their intended apparent involved It is from the transcripts of the type. proceedings They public hearings throughout role in have held the state in played passive rather than an active role. connection with the location of the route *19 foregone power. was a construct facilities and transmit finding of need the gener- the the location of conclusion, was But when they as elected to come under the Dakota, the where in North system act, ating purview of the that act should have Dakota would from North line fully implemented.
transmission
agen-
been
The state
Minnesota, and final-
the state
into
enter
cies should have delved into all alternative
terminating point would be
the
ly where
available,
sources
such
energy,
as solar
Rapids.
Coon
near
transmission of fuel for a series of smaller
facilities, hydroelectric power, etc. Where
What
question:
serious
very
This raises
go?
existing
is this extra
to
To
agen-
the state
role of
proper
be the
should
contemplated
customers or to new
this statute?
custom-
to act under
empowered
cies
ers,
industrial,
proposals
commercial and
as well as
limit itself to consideration
To
possible coun-
any
by the utilities
farm and rural households? Could these
made
from the
might
come
proposals
ter
supply
new users
their own electrical needs?
independent,
it
serve as an
Or is
public?
Although
questions
these were
the citizens of this
arm of all of
impartial
gone
should have
prior
been
into
to the
hear evidence but
only
take and
state to
determination that
there was even a need
evidence of its
necessary
generate
if
facilities,
for these
it. would appear that all
own.
action,
parties
including
to this
agency
governmental
envision a
cannot
I
agencies,
state
assumed that
there was a
protecting
public
being effective in
facilities,
subject
need for these
of this
having
authority
to itself seek
without
action,
the question
and therefore
has not
legisla-
The
independently.
the facts
out
litigated
been
and is not before us.
clarifying and
itself to
ture should address
However,
environmental
impact
agencies
the role of
strengthening
required
which was
prior
statement
proceeding if the intent of the
type of
this
selection of route should have been filed in
is to be carried out.
statutes
environmental
prior
this
case
the selection of a corridor.
agen-
upon
was incumbent
I believe it
Here the alternatives
for a route were
of the envi-
in-depth studies
cies to conduct
greatly narrowed when the
agency
state
of the construction of
impact
ronmental
allowed the utilities to select
the entry
facility prior to the selec-
transmission
point from North Dakota and the terminal
or route.
any
corridor
tion
point
power.
for
transmission of the
It
originally passed,
act as
under the
agency,
entirely possible
that if
points
these two
up
inventory
set
required
was
upon early
had not been decided
in the
routes for transmission
possible corridor
game, new corridors could have been select-
lines,
by
so
the time the
it had not done
point
far
ed
from the
of actual selection.
companies was
brought by these
application
impact
actual environmental
state-
board, conducting
Accordingly, the
filed.
ment
that was filed leaves much to be
corridor,
went
hearings on selection of
It appears
desired.
to have been construct-
was even a
before there
decision
ahead
great
ed in
haste and with little study or
Many
the facilities.
members
the need for
input on behalf of the citizens of this state
objected to the
who
facilities
part
agencies.
on the
of its state
were confused
being constructed at all
order in the
reversal of the natural
argument,
In the briefs and at oral
decision-making process.
Mining
Reserve
case1 has been cited.
I
whatever on
bearing
think
has no
these
fully appreciate the fact that
I can
objec-
In the Reserve case the
proceedings.
obligation
have an
to serve their
utilities
get
large existing
industrial
tive
shareholders,
con-
customers
using
Superior
cease
Lake
as a
user to
duty
ceive their
is to do it in the most
dumping ground
tailings
get
and to
way possible. They
feasible
made a deci-
disposal
the act
them to
an on-land
site. There
passed
sion before
was even
use
Herbst, Minn.,
(1977).
Mining Company
apparent statute, written, as is not preventing the continued change. “Times Until the Act was warping away of our treasured rural envi- passed, power the holder of the of emi- ronment; agencies the state must be nent domain had in its hands almost a given a clear mandate to stop the destruc- fiat to construct a legislative highway lands; tion of farm and forest that existing wherever it wished. In the 1920’s and roadways rights and railroad of way must 1930’s, encouraged highway the state con- be used possible, wherever though even expan- struction to facilitate industrial may resultant cost be higher in dollars than transportation products sion and of farm some possible other route. Because over However, a consequence to market. long run spending additional money in construction has been the elimina- such laying down these new line routes impairment tion or of natural resources.” initially may cheaper by be reason of the agencies The state came no where close fact that there produc- would be continued studying impact the environmental tive use of these farm and forest lands in they Mining this case as did in the Reserve perpetuity that otherwise would taken had, they perhaps proper If case. solution production. Moreover, out of it seems to could have been found that would not have by requiring me that these facilities to be farmlands, crossed forests and but could along public located highways where every- fully existing have more utilized roads of them, one can see itself may be commerce, highways such as and railroads. more limiting concerned with their use. noteworthy It that after this action When asked at argument, oral counsel for brought the 1977 amended the state admitted that these utilities’ provide the act to addition being transmission lines are not constructed previous matters that must be taken into along highways, first of all because of a in designating consideration sites program Federal of preventing their use on routes, new requirements. it added three and, highways, second, interstate because of (L.1977, are c. They amending objection highway of the state depart- 1976, 116C.57, 4): Minn.St. being ment to their “unsightly.” The more “(8) potential Evaluation routes public generally is exposed to what is parallel existing which would use or rail- being environment, done to our the better highway rights-of-way; road they will participáte be able to in the deci- “(9) governmental Evaluation of sur- sion-making process determining wheth- vey lines and other natural division lines er or not wish to pay cost—both in agricultural land so as to minimize dollars and in destruction to the environ- agricultural with operations; interference project ment —involved in a such as this. “(10) Evaluation of the future needs high voltage PETERSON, J.,
for additional transmission part took no in the con- general any lines in the same area as or decision of this case. sideration