WILDERNESS ASSOC v DNRC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-354 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A O T N 1982 STATE EX REL. , M N A A WILDERNESS O T N ASSOCIATION, e t a l . , P e t i t i o n e r and Appellant, BOARD O F NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, e t a l . , Respondents and Respondents. A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f L e w i s & C l a r k , The H o n o r a b l e J . M. S a l a n s k y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For Appellant: G o e t z , Madden & Dunn, Bozeman, Montana W i l l i a m L. Madden a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: J a m e s F. W a l s h , Pamela I<. Merrell, B u t t e , Montana Donald M a c I n t y r e a r g u e d , D e p t . o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , H e l e n a , Montana R i c h a r d J. A n d r i o l o a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana C o r e t t e , S m i t h , Pohlman & A i l e n , B u t t e , Montana R. D. C o r e t t e , J r . , a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Amicus C u r i a e : S c h u l z , D a v i s & W a r r e n , D i l l o n , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: L7ji,jL - 1982 9 Clerk December 2 , 1 9 8 1 J u l y 9 1 1982 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. The Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s & C o n s e r v a t i o n (BNRC) g r a n t e d t h e Montana Power Company (MPC) p e r m i s s i o n to c o n s t r u c t a 1 6 1 KV e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e from Bozeman to E n n i s to D i l l o n w i t h a 1 6 1 KV s p u r from E n n i s to B i g Sky. Montana W i l d e r n e s s A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . (MWA) and E n v i r o n m e n t a l I n f o r m a t i o n Center, Inc. o f Lewis & ( E I C ) a p p e a l e d BNRC1s d e c i s i o n to t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t C l a r k County. The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t a f f i r m e d . C MWA and E I C now a p p e a l t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t d e c i s i o n t o t h i s c o u r t . C On J u n e 4 , 1 9 7 4 , MPC f i l e d w i t h t h e Board a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a C e r t i f i c a t e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p a t i b i l i t y and P u b l i c N e e d , p u r s u a n t t o the p r o v i s i o n s of the U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t of 1973, s e e k i n g a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of 1 5 5 m i l e s o f 1 6 1 KV e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e e x t e n d i n g from C l y d e P a r k to a s u b s t a t i o n i n t h e Upper Y e l l o w s t o n e v a l l e y , t h e n to Big S k y , and t h e n t o a s u b s t a t i o n o u t s i d e of D i l l o n . Additionally, approxi- m a t e l y 1 7 m i l e s o f 69 KV e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n - w a s proposed f r o m t h e s u b s t a t i o n i n t h e Upper Y e l l o w s t o n e V a l l e y t o G a r d i n e r . The U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t was amended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e 21, 1 9 7 5 , and became known a s t h e "Montana Major effective ~ p r i l Facility Siting Act". On J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 7 5 , MPC f i l e d a n amended a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u e s t i n g , i n l i e u o f t h e l i n e s p r e v i o u s l y subs u b m i t t e d , a p p r o v a l o f 198 miles o f t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s a l l o f which were to be t r e a t e d as o n e p r o j e c t or f a c i l i t y , cons i s t i n g of the following: a) b) c) d) e) C l y d e P a r k to E m i g r a n t - - 1 6 1 KV l i n e ; E m i g r a n t to G a r d i n e r - - 6 9 KV l i n e ; C l y d e P a r k to Bozeman--161 KV l i n e ; Bozeman to Ennis--161 KV l i n e ; a n d illo on to E n n i s to B i g Sky--161 KV l i n e . P u r s u a n t to t h e m a n d a t e s o f t h e Montana E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t (MEPA) a n d t h e S i t i n g A c t ( S e c t i o n 75-20-216, MCA) . t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and c o n s e r v a t i o n ( D e p a r t m e n t ) s t u d i e d and e v a l u a t e d t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y and i t s e f f e c t s . The Department published a d r a f t environmental impact s t a t e m e n t i n .. I... - ,.. _ :. : -a w..... - ; J a n u a r y o f 1976 a n d , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g comments from MPC, v a r i o u s 1 g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s and i n t e r e s t e d members o f t h e p u b l i c , t h e D e p a r t m e n t p u b l i s h e d i t s f i n a l EIS i n A p r i l o f 1976. The D e p a r t m e n t ' s recornmenda t i o n was to a p p r o v e t h e r e q u e s t e x c e p t t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e 1 6 1 KV t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e to Big S k y was t o be r o u t e d from Bozeman to Big Sky t h r o u g h t h e G a l l a t i n 8 2 Canyon c o r r i d o r , r a t h e r t h a n from E n n i s to Big Sky t h r o u g h J a c k Creek/Cedar Creek C o r r i d o r . On A p r i l 1 0 , t h e f i r s t p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e w a s h e l d w i t h Joe S a b o l , a Bozeman a t t o r n e y and Chairman o f t h e B o a r d , a s hearings officer. On A p r i l 2 0 , 1 9 7 6 , t h e Board commenced f o r m a l " c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s " on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , deeming t h e m a t t e r a c o n t e s t e d c a s e w i t h i n t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t (IYAPA) . P r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y and c o n f e r e n c e s f o l l o w e d and on May 7 , 1 9 7 6 , MWA g a v e n o t i c e o f i t s i n t e n t to become a p a r t y to t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . On May 1 2 , t h e d a t e o f t h e s e c o n d p r e c o n f e r e n c e h e a r i n g ( a l s o p r e s i d e d o v e r by S a b o l ) , MWA member R i c k A p p l e g a t e f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t S a b o l d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f from p a r t i c i p a t i n g a s a h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r and v o t i n g member o f t h e Board. The r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a - t i o n i n c l u d e d c h a r g e s t h a t S a b o l had p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i c l y c r i t i c i z e d t h e MWA ( i m p l i c i t l y r e f e r r i n g to a n a r t i c l e which a p p e a r e d o n F e b r u a r y 15, 1 9 7 6 , i n t h e Bozeman n e w s p a p e r ) and t h a t S a b o l , being a paid l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Ski Yellowstone, Inc. (a p r o p o s e d r e s o r t w h o s e f u t u r e e n e r g y demands w e r e l i k e l y to be a n i s s u e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g , a c c o r d i n g to t h e a f f i d a v i t ) c o u l d n o t r e n d e r a n i m p a r t i a l judgment. Sabol v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r o n S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 9 7 6 , b u t r e f u s e d to r e l i n q u i s h h i s v o t i n g p o s i t i o n on t h e Board and t h e Board v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o d e n y t h e r e q u e s t t h a t he be d i s q u a l i f i e d . On S e p t e m b e r 23 and 2 4 , p u b l i c h e a r i n g s were h e l d b e f o r e t h e Board where t h e p r e f i l e d w r i t t e n t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s was I a d m i t t e d , o r a l e x a m r n a t i o n t a k e n and e x h i b i t s s u p p o r t i n g and opposing MPC'S a p p l i c a t i o n introduced. A c c o r d i n g to t h e d e p o s i- t i o n of Donald H a c I n t y r e ( c o u n s e l f o r D N R C ) and A p p l e g a t e , S a b o l spoke to M a c I n t y r e i n t h e l o b b y d u r i n g o n e o f t h e recesses a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o A p p l e g a t e , t o l d M a c I n t y r e n o t t o e x a m i n e MWA's w i t - nesses b e c a u s e Madden ( a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y ) was b u i l d i n g a record for appeal. A f t e r t h e S e p t e m b e r h e a r i n g s , t h e p a r t i e s e a c h f i l e d prop o s e d E i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e exceptions thereto - --- f i l e d by t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s . = S a b o l ' s term on t h e Board t e r m i n a t e d on December 31, 1 9 7 6 , and o n A p r i l 21, 1977, t h e p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d t h e i r f i n a l o r a l arguments t o t h e Board. On O c t o b e r 28, 1 9 7 7 , t h e Board r e n d e r e d i t s d e c i s i o n and g r a n t e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e to MPC, a u t h o r i z i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a l o n g t h e c o r r i d o r p r e f e r r e d by MPC. t h e Board found t h e E n n i s - J a c k Creek-Big f e r a b l e to t h e Ennis-Cedar Particularly, S k y c o r r i d o r to be p r e - Creek-Big S k y and G a l l a t i n Canyon c o r r i d o r s , r e j e c t i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of u s i n g t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon r o u t e . On December 1, 1 9 7 7 , MWA and E I C f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f t h a t p a r t of t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n a p p r o v i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e l i n e from Bozeman to E n n i s to D i l l o n , w i t h a 1 6 1 KV s p u r from E n n i s t o B i g Sky t h r o u g h t h e J a c k Creek c o r r i d o r . The s e g m e n t of t h e l i n e from Bozeman e a s t w a r d h a s a l r e a d y b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d and is n o t h e r e i n i s s u e . A f t e r v a r i o u s m o t i o n s and t h e f i l i n g of e x t e n s i v e b r i e f s by the p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d f i n a l a r g u m e n t s and deemed t h e c a s e s u b m i t t e d on December 1 3 , 1979. On J u l y 1 4 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e - D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r d i s p o s i n g of a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by MWA and E I C i n f a v o r o f MPC. This appeal followed. On A u g u s t 7 , 1 9 8 1 , MPC o b t a i n e d from t h e Board a n o r d e r a p p r o v i n g c e n t e r l i n e l o c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e l i n e . A p p e l l a n t s , by m o t i o n d a t e d A u g u s t 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , a p p l i e d to t h i s C o u r t f o r a s t a y o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s p e n d i n g a p p e a l and f o r an e x p e d i t e d b r i e f i n g s c h e d u l e . W e denied t h e s t a y but g r a n t e d an e x p e d i t e d b r i e f i n g s c h e d u l e . The i s s u e s on a p p e a l c a n be s t a t e d i n t h i s manner: I. A r e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t str'atements i n a d e q u a t e a s a m a t t e r of law? 2. A r e the Board's f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and C e r t i f i c a t e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p a t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m ' e n t s and s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ? 3. Did S a b o l ' s i n v o l v e m e n t d e n y MWA and EIC a h e a r i n g b e f o r e a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l i n v i o l a t i o n of d u e p r o c e s s requirements? A t t h e o u t s e t , w e must d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d of review of t h i s a p p e a l . Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w is g o v e r n e d by t h e Montana Administrative Procedure Act. S e c t i o n 2-4-704, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n part: " ( 2 ) The c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y as to t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t . The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e a g e n c y o r remand t h e c a s e for f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . The c o u r t may reverse o r nodify the decision i f substantial r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t have been p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s , i n f e r e n c e s , c o n c l u s i o n s or d e c i s i o n s a r e : " ( a ) i n v i o l a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y provisions ; " ( b ) i n e x c e s s of t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y of t h e agency; " ( c ) made upon u n l a w f u l p r o c e d u r e ; " ( d ) a f f e c t e d by other e r r o r of l a w ; " ( e ) c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e reliable, p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o n t h e whole record ; " ( f ) a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s or c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n or c l e a r l y u n w a r r a n t e d e x e r cise of d i s c r e t i o n ; or "(g) b e c a u s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , upon i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l to t h e d e c i s i o n , were n o t made although requested." - 4 - Ir A p p e l l a n t s urge t h a t t h e scope of r e v i e w based on t h e a b o v e s t a t u t e is w h e t h e r t h e d r a f t and f i n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s a r e " i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s n o r " a f f e c t e d b y o t h e r error o f l a w n , c i t i n g s e c t i o n and 2 - 4 - 7 0 4 ( 2 ) ( a ) R d ) , MCA, s u p r a . A p p e l l a n t s also cite T r o u t 1 2 7 6 , f o r t h e assert i o n t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a r e n o t bound b y t h e " c l e a r l y U n l i m i t e d v. Morton ( C C A 9 , 1 9 7 4 ) , 509 F.2d 1 erroneous" s t a n d a r d t h a t governs f i n d i n g s of an agency o r t r i a l court. In Trout Unlimited, supra, the federal appeals court said the following regarding the c o r r e c t standard : "The p r o p e r s t a n d a r d by which to r e v i e w t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e EIS h a s b e e n t h e s u b j e c t o f some c o n f u s i o n i n t h i s c o u r t . The n a t u r e o f t h e c o n £u s i o n h a s b e e n w h e t h e r t h e ~ d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , 5 U.S.C. S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A ) , t h e 'a r b i t r a r y , c a p r i c i o u s , an [dl abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ' s t a n d a r d , or S 706(2)( D ) , t h e ' w i t h o u t observance of procedure required by l a w ' s t a n d a r d o r some t h i r d s t a ' n d a r d n o t p r e c i s e l y conforming t o e i t h e r s 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A ) or s 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) is t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d . See E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e f e n s e Fund v . A r m s t r o n g , 4 8 7 F.2d 8 1 4 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; L i f e o f t h e Land v. B r i n e g a r , 485 F.2d 460 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; J i c a r i l l a Apache T r i b e o f I n d i a n s v. M o r t o n , 4 7 1 F.2d 1 2 7 5 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) . T h i s c o n f u s i o n was e l i m i n a t e d from o u r l a w b y L a t h a n v. B r i n e g a r , 5 0 6 F.2d 677 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . W e h e l d t h a t t h e S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) s t a n d a r d was t h e p r o p e r o n e b e c a u s e NEPA i s e s s e n t i a l l y a: " 'procedural s t a t u t e . I t s p u r p o s e is to a s s u r e t h a t , b y f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s t h a t it p r e s c r i b e s , a g e n c i e s w i l l be f u l l y a w a r e o f t h e i m p a c t o f t h e i r d e c i s i o n s when t h e y make them. The p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d by NEPA, 42 U.S.C.A. S 4 3 3 2 ( 2 ) ( C ) , a r e d e s i g n e d to s e c u r e t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e v i t a l p u r p o s e o f NEPA. T h a t r e s u l t c a n be a c h i e v e d o n l y i f t h e p r e s c r i b e d procedures a r e f a i t h f u l l y followed ; g r u d g i n g - forma compliance w i l l n o t do. W e pro t h i n k t h a t t h e c o u r t s w i l l b e t t e r perform t h e i r n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d role i n e n f o r c i n g NEPA i f t h e y a p p l y S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) i n reviewing environment a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h NEPA ' L a t h a n v. Bririegar, s u p r a , a t 692-." 509 F. 2d a t 1282. ... W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d o u r s c o p e o f r e v i e w of a n a g e n c y d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t a t some l e n g t h i n N o r t h e r n P l a i n s R e s o u r c e C o u n c i l v. N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and C o n s e r v a t i o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Board o f 181Mont. 5 0 0 , - - 594 P.2d 2 9 7 , 36 S t - R e p . 666. W e m p h a s i z e d how c o u r t r e v i e w of e a g e n c y d e c i s i o n s is l i m i t e d : "This Court r e c e n t l y set f o r t h t h r e e b a s i c princ i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g s e c t i o n 82-4216 w h i c h a District C o u r t must c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g what t h e s c o p e of r e v i e w o f a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s h o u l d be: ( I ) t h a t l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l review of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s s t r e n g t h e n s t h e admin i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s by e n c o u r a g i n g t h e f u l l p r e s e n t a t i o n of evidence a t the i n i t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g ; ( 2 ) j u d i c i a l economy r e q u i r e s c o u r t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e e x p e r t i s e of. a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies i n the f i e l d of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and ( 3 ) l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e t h a t a f a i r p r o c e d u r e w a s u s e d , t h a t q u e s t i o n s o f l a w were p r o p e r l y d e c i d e d , a n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e admin i s t r a t i v e b o d y was s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Vita-Rich Dairy, I n c . v. Department of - B u s i n e s s R e g u l a t i o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 3 4 1 , 5 5 3 P.2d 9 8 0 . " 1 8 1 Mont a t 5 0 9 , 594 P.2d a t 303, 36 St.Rep. a t 67. - W e a l s o q u o t e d from t h e case o f V e r m o n t Yankee N u c l e a r P o w e r Corp. v. N a t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s Defense C o u n c i l , I n c . U.S. 5 1 9 , 98 S . C t . 1 1 9 7 , 55 L.Ed.2d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435 460: ... "' t h e r o l e of a court i n reviewing the s u f f i c i e n c y o f an a g e n c y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s is a l i m i t e d o n e , l i m i t e d b o t h by t h e time a t w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was made a n d by- t h e s t a t u t e m a n d a t i n g r e v i e w . " ' " N e i t h e r t h e s t a t u t e n o r i t s leaislative h i s t o r y c o n t e m p l a t e s -h- t a c o u r t - s h o u l d s u b s t i t a t u t e i t s i u d q m e n t ---- t h e a a e n c * - for that of v a s to t h e environmental consequences -- actions." o f its [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ] ' Vermont Y a n k e e , 4 3 5 U . S . a t 555, 98 S.Ct. a t 1217. (Emphasls s u p p l i e d . ) " 1 8 1 Mont. a t 5 1 1 , 594 P.2d a t 3 0 4 , 3 6 S t . R e p . -a t 672. --- 2 a I W e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d b y a p p e l l a n t s t h a t w e s h o u l d move from o u r p o s i t i o n taken i n Northern P l a i n s . I t is a n a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f w h a t k i n d o f c o u r t r e v i e w s h o u l d b e g i v e n to a g e n c y F u r t h e r m o r e , w e n o t e t h e m a n d a t e s o f t h e Montana decisions. r e v i e w s t a t u t e c i t e d a b o v e ( s e c t i o n 2-4-704 ( 2 ) , MCA) w h i c h cont a i n s a clear i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h a t a c o u r t r e v e r s e or m o d i f y t h e lower d e c i s i o n w h e r e t h e a g e n c y d e c i s i o n is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a r b i t r a r y , o r c a p r i c i o u s , resulting i n the appellants' prejudiced . r i g h t s being s u b s t a n t i a l l y With r e g a r d to t h e f i r s t i s s u e o n a p p e a l , a p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h e d r a f t and f i n a l E I S ' s a r e i n a d e q u a t e a s a m a t t e r o f l a w o n s e v e r a l g r o u n d s : t h e f a i l u r e to c o n s i d e r t h e need f o r and a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a t Big Sky; t h e f a i l u r e to c o n s i d e r t h e "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e ; t h e f a i l u r e to u n d e r t a k e a n a d e q u a t e c o s t / b e n e f i t ' a n a l y s i s ; and t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t d e f i c i e n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t : S t a t e m e n t s c a n n o t be r e n d e r e d a d e q u a t e by r e f e r e n c e to t h e r e c o r d o u t s i d e t h e documents. Appellants W e w i l l consider each i n t u r n . f i r s t charge t h a t the f a i l u r e t o consider the need f o r , and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o , t h e f a c i l i t y i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower R u b y v a l l e y s r e n d e r s t h e EIS I s l e g a l l y inadequate. C h a p t e r T h r e e o f t h e d r a f t EIS d i s c u s s e s t h e need o f t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y and o u t l i n e s t h e n e e d s f o r t h e a r e a s of Big S k y , Bozeman, Y e l l o w s t o n e N a t i o n a l P a r k and, t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e V a l l e y . C h a p t e r Four a d d r e s s e s a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s m i s s i o n methods g e n e r a l l y and s p e c i f i c t r a n s m i s s i o n a1t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e f o u r a b o v e a r e a s . . I n n e i t h e r c h a p t e r is t h e r e a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . A p p e l l a n t s r e f e r to s e v e r a l p o i n t s i n t h e r e c o r d w h e r e t h i s d e f i c i e n c y was n o t e d by v a r i o u s individuals. The D e p a r t m e n t , i n i t s b r i e f s to t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and to t h i s C o u r t , a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e E I S ' s c o n t a i n no a d e q u a t e cons i d e r a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o a 1 6 1 KV l i n e s e r v i n g t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . The D e p a r t m e n t j u s t i f i e s t h i s o m i s s i o n by s t a t i n g t h a t MPC f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e S i t i n g A c t a n d t h e r u l e s a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o i n i d e n t i f y i n g i n MPC's a p p l i c a t i o n t h e need f o r a f a c i l i t y to s e r v e t h e demand i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . I t is t r u e t h e r e is no s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n o f t h e d r a f t E I S d e v o t e d to c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a 1 t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e p r o p o s e d e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s e r v i n g t h e Upper ~ a d i s o n / L o w e r Ruby v a l l e y area. However, C h a p t e r T h r e e of t h e d r a f t EIS c o n t a i n s sta- - 7 . . t i s t i c s and d a t a o n t h e n e e d s o f t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y including regulation s t a t i s t i c s , e x i s t i n g transmission sprinkling l i n e d a t a , a map showing a s i g n i f i c a n t g r o w t h i n / i r r i g a t i o n perw h i c h would m i t £ i l i n g s / c o n s t i t u t e . a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l demand, a showing ~e P t h a t V i g i l a n t e ~ 1 e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i which u s e s M C t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s i n the a r e a p r o j e c t s almost doubling the e l e c t r i c a l load a b e t w e e n 1972 and 1 9 7 8 , a n d / t a b l e 1. showing s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n peak e l e c t r i c a l loads a t s u b s t a t i o n s i n the a r e a . C h a p t e r Four of t h e d r a f t E I S d i s c u s s e s a l t e r n a t i v e s t o MPC's p r o p o s e d 1 6 1 k i l o v o l t t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e a s a whole i n c l u d i n g e x p a n s i o n o f MPC's Madison h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s , u p g r a d i n g and a d d i t i o n s t o e x i s t i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s , underground t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s . and Chapter S i x i n c l u d e s an a n a l y s i s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s on t h e Upper Ma4 i s o n / L o w e r Rcby v a l l e y . W e n o t e w h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e s a i d w i t h r e g a r d to e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s u n d e r t h e ~ a t i o n a lE n v i r o n m e n t a l Policy A c t . I n T r o u t U n l i m i t e d v. M o r t o n , s u p r a , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t of A p p e a l s s t a t e d : "That is, i n o u r o p i n i o n an E I S is i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h NEPA when i t s f o r m , c o n t e n t , and p r e p a r a t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y ( 1) p r o v i d e d e c i s i o n makers w i t h an environmental d i s c l o s u r e suff i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d t o aid i n the substantive d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r to p r o c e e d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t i n t h e l i g h t o f i t s e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s e q u e n c e s , and ( 2 ) make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c , i n f ~ r m a t i o nof t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t s e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t and encourage p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e developm e n t of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . " 509 F.2d a t 1 2 8 3 . I n L i f e o f t h e Land v. B r i n e g a r ( 9 t h C i r . 1973), 485 F.2d 460, 4 7 2 , t h e c o u r t a d d r e s s e d what k i n d of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s is mandated b y NEPA: " N E P A 1 s ' a l t e r n a t i v e s 1 d i s c u s s i o n is s u b j e c t to a c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . N.R. D.C. , I n c . v . M o r t o n , s u p r a , 4 5 8 F.2d a t 834. C e r t a i n l y , t h e s t a t u t e s h o u l d n o t b e employed a s Accordingly, a c r u t c h Eor c h r o n i c f a u l t £ i n d i n g . t h e r e is no need f o r a n EIS t o c o n s i d e r a n a l t e r n a t i v e whose e f f e c t c a n n o t b e r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n e d , and whose i m p l e m e n t a t i o n is deemed remote and s p e c u l a t i v e . I d . a t 834. R a t h e r , t h e EIS n e e d o n l y s e t f o r m t h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e s ' s u f f i c i e n t t o permit a reasoned choice.' 836." Xhile Id -. at s i t would have been p r e f e r a b l e i f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s c a s e had s e p a r a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e need for t h e f a c i l i t y i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e r e t o , t h e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n to e n a b l e t h e Board t o r e a c h an i n f o r m e d d e c i s i o n was b e f o r e t h e Board. The EIS's 's u b s t a n t i a l l y c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e m a n d a t e s of MEPA and p r o v i d e d t h e Board " w i t h an e n v i r o n m e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to a i d i n t h e s u b s t a n t i v e d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r to p r o c e e d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t , " Trout Unlimited, supra. W f i n d no g r o u n d s f o r r e v e r e s a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n i n o u r l i m i t e d r e v i e w u n d e r s e c t i o n 2-4-704, MCA, d i s c u s s e d above. A p p e l l a n t s ' n e x t c l a i m is t h a t t h e E I S ' s f a i l to adeq u a t e l y a d d r e s s t h e need f o r , and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o , t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y a t Big Sky c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e r e w a s no i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e b a s i s o f MPC1s p r o j e c t e d l o a d which would j u s t i f y a d d i t i o n a l electrical transmission service. Appellants reason t h a t a n a l y s i s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s is r e q u i r e d by b o t h t h e S i t i n g A c t and NEPA, c i t i n g s e c t i o n 75-20-503(1) ( a ) and ( f ) ,MCA, and t w o c a s e s , E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e f e n s e Fund v. C o r p s of E n g i n e e r s ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) 492 F.2d 1 1 2 3 and L i b b y Rod and Gun C l u b v. P o t e a t (D.C. Mont. 1 9 7 8 ) , 457 F.Supp 1 1 7 7 , a f f ' d i n p a r t and r e v l d i n p a r t ( 9 t h C i r . 1979) (f ) , MCA, 594 F.2d 742. S e c t i o n s 75-20-503 ( l ) ( a ) and provide a s follows : "Environmental f a c t o r s e v a l u a t e d . In evaluating l o n g - r a n g e p l a n s , c o n d u c t i n g 5 - y e a r s i t e rev i e w s , and e v a l u a t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r c e r t i f i c a t e s , t h e b o a r d and d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t of e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s , where a p p l i c a b l e , and may by r u l e add to the c a t e g o r i e s of t h i s s e c t i o n : " ( 1) e n e r g y n e e d s : a ( a ) g r o w t h i n demand and p r o j e c t i o n s o f n e e d ; " ( f ) c o n s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s which c o u l d r e d u c e t h e need f o r more e n e r g y ; We have reviewed the nature of the project in Corps of Engineers, supra, as outlined in both the Fifth Circuit Court opinion and the District Court opinion (348 F.Supp. 916) and fail to see how the case either supports or weakens appellants' position. Corps of Engineers involved challenges to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a navigation project, extending from Demopolis, Alabama, to the Tennessee River. Nowhere do we find discussion regarding electrical transmissions facilities and projected loads. Although the court rejected the Corps' defense that the development of alternatives need only take place where a project involves detrimental environmental impacts, we do not find that statement dispositive here. Poteat, supra, involved the proposed construction of addtional electrical generating units ("LAURD") at Libby Dam. In the District Court opinion, Judge Murray addressed the Corps' projected load forecasts and the conservation alternative: "The peak-power deficit forecasts relied upon by the Corps reflect the years 1974-75, yet LAURD was not projected for completion until 1982-83. The current forecasts for the early 19801s, as projected by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Coordinating Council show a surplus of peaking power and a shortage of base-load power, even without LAURD . "The reference to the alternative of conservation is much too conclusory. The Corps discusses the importance of conservation, but dismisses it as a viable alternative to LAURD, saying 'there is not at present sufficient evidence to warrant delaying the on-line dates of Libby Additional Units.' Recent studies by the BPA and the General Accounting Office indicate there is evidence to conclude that conservation in the Pacific Northwest will have a considerable impact. This information should be explored and analyzed in greater depth by the Corps in preparing a new EIS." 457 F.Supp. at 1188-89. The Department justifies its failure to conduct an independent investigation of MPC's load projections by stating that, in 1975, the Department determined that its legal mandate did not extend to denying increased electrical energy to Montana consumers on the basis of the ultimate use of the elecelectrical tricity, or to setting a maximum amount of / energy that existing e l e c t r i c c o n s u m e r s may consume. The D e p a r t m e n t c o n c e d e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t i t h a s , s u b s e q u e n t to 1 9 7 5 , r e f i n e d i t s p r o c e d u r e s s u c h t h a t t h e c o n c e r n s r a i s e d b y a p p e l l a n t s would b e a d d r e s s e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a p p l i c a n t s a r e now r e q u i r e d , b y - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R u l e s ef M o n t a n a , . s e c t i o n 3 6 . 7 . 3 0 4 ( l ) ( b ) ( i i ) and ( b ) ( B ) to p r o v i d e t o the Department t h e assumptions underlying load growth project i o n s and how c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s may e l i m i n a t e t h e . need f o r t h e proposed f a c i l i t y : "36.7.304 CONTENT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINESAND LIQUID GAS - - -OR TRANSlYISSION r LINES An a ~ n l i c a t i o nf o r a f a c i l i t y d e f i n e d I n s u b s e c t i o n s 75-20-104 ( 1 0 ) ( b ) and 75-20-104 ( 1 0 ) ( c ) o f t h e A c t which is a n e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e o r g a s or l i q u i d transmission l i n e s h a l l contain the following: " ( b) Applications f o r electric transmission l i n e s n o t b a s e d s o l e l y on t r a n s i e n t s t a b i l i t y considerations s h a l l include the following : " ( i i ) 1 0 - y e a r h i s t o r i c a l and 1 0 - y e a r p r o j e c t e d l o a d growth d a t a a t each p o i n t of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e a r e a needing a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . T h e s e d a t a s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d i n t a b u l a r and populan o t be l i m i t e d t o , a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t : E n T r o w t h : chanqes i n electrical -- houseu s e per hold: - i n d u s t r i a l . - c o r n ~ r c i a l .- a a r i c b l t u r a l and u s e o f e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y a n d power; e c o n o m i c conditions a f f e c t i n g i n d u s t r i a l - c o m m e r c i a l and a c t i v i t y ; c o n s e r v a t i o n ; and r e n e w a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e energy use. The e f f e c t upon demand o f c h a n q e s i n t h e a v e r a q e p r i c e and r a t e s t r u c t u r e f o r e l e c t r i c e n e r g y ; h a i l be a s s e s s e d . -- a "(B) An e x p l a n a t i o n s h a l l be g i v e n o f t h e e f f e c t s of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s e n e r g y c o n s e r v a t i o n o r p r o m o t i o n p r o g r a m s , i f a n y , o n p a s t and p r e s e n t e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n r a t e and on f u t u r e The e n e r g y g r o w t h r a t e s . - a p p l i c a n t s h a l l assess t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n -n- a r e d u c t i o n d - o t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r r e d u a i n g or e l i m i n a - i n rom c :inq t h e n e e d f e pr fa c E ----ol r tl h c l u do p o s e d s c u s sl il o ny .of The application sha l n e a di the c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i t h s t a t e , r e g i o n a l , and n a t i o n a l e n e r g y and c o n s e r v a t i o n ( ~ m p h a s i s dded. ) a p o l i c i e s and p r o g r a m s ; " ' 7 The a l t e r n a t i v e s , i n a d d i t i o n to c o n s e r v a t i o n , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d were n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y t r e a t e d b y t h e E I S ' s include o n - s i t e d i e s e l generating f a c i l i t i e s , waste h e a t s o u r c e s , wind power, s o l a r power and t h e use o f more i n s u l a t i o n . Al- t h o u g h t h e D e p a r t m e n t m i g h t be w e l l a d v i s e d to l o o k behind a n y load g r o w t h p r o j e c t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r v a l i d i t y and l e g i t i m a c y b e c a u s e an a p p l i c a n t ' s p r o j e c t i o n s may v e r y w e l l be self-serving t o a c e r t a i n d e g r e e ( t o j u s t i f y t h e proposed p r o j e c t ) , f a i l u r e t o d o so is n o t f a t a l i n t h i s c a s e , a s MPC's l o a d p r o j e c t i o n s d i d n o t form t h e b a s i s o f t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n . W e further note t h a t , i n t h e f i n a l EIS, t h e D e p a r t m e n t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t MPC's l o a d p r o j e c t i o n s d i d n o t c o n t r o l its d e c i s i o n and d i s c u s s e s t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e p r o j e c t i o n s and a c t u a l need: "The D e p a r t m e n t - -t b a s i n g - d e c i s i o n is n o its r e g a r d i n g - - - - r a n a d d i t i o n a l - -t-B i g t h e need f o line o Sky o n t h e a c c u r a c y - -e a p p l i c a n t ' s - - of t h l o a d pro j e c t l o n s - - - A comparison of Table 2, f o r B i g Sky. which c o n t a i n s t h e h i s t o r i c a l peak l o a d d a t a f o r B i g S k y , w i t h Big Sky p r o j e c t i o n s shown i n T a b l e 3-7 o f t h e D r a f t EIS ( p a g e 2 3 ) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t Table 2 g r o w t h is n o t o c c u r r i n g as p r o j e c t e d . d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e peak l o a d f o r w i n t e r 1975-1976 w i l l l i k e l y be a b o u t 9048 KW, t h e same a s t h e 1974-1975 w i n t e r peak. The p r o j e c t e d v a l u e s from T a b l e 3-7 o f t h e D r a f t EIS were 1 0 , 9 5 0 KW f o r w i n t e r 1974-1975 and 1 2 , 4 5 5 KW f o r w i n t e r 1975-1976. W i t h respect t o c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n t h e a c t u a l B i g Sky p e a k l o a d s and t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s projections, the applicant has stated: 7 . - " 'The c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e o f B i g S k y m u s t b e The c o n s i d e r e d when a n a l y z i n g l o a d p r o j e c t i o n s estimates p r e p a r e d by M r . H i l d r e t h ( o f MPC) were b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by B i g S k y which showed c o n s t r u c t i o n o f o v e r 700 condominium u n i t s and o v e r 50 r e s i d e n c e s by t h e 1975-1976 season. The D r a f t I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t , C l y d e P a r k - D i l l o n , o n P a g e 21, i n d i c a t e s t h a t 37 homes h a v e b e e n b u i l t t o d a t e and 564 c o n d o m i n i u m s b u i l t to d a t e . (MPC March 1 5 , 1 9 7 6 ) . ' . "The p r e c i s e t i m i n g o f d e v e l o p m e n t - - Sky a t Big and t h e f i n a l p e a k -a d t o w h i c h ---lo i t w i l l grow a r e - c e r t a i n t i e s . However. t h e maior connot s i d e r a t i o n - p r e s e n t - -a t a d d i t i o n a l at is t h t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y - -g Sky i s a l r e a d y to Bi needed." ( ~ m p h a s i sa d d e d . ) - I n t h e f i n a l EIS i n t h e i n s t a n t case, we n o t e t h e D e p a r t n e n t d i d a d d r e s s t h e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l power a t B i g Sky: "With r e s p e c t t o B i g Sky, D e p a r t m e n t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t Big Sky peak demand h a s i n t h e p a s t r e a c h e d t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e e x i s t i n g 6 9 KV line. T a b l e 3-1 o n p a g e 1 3 o f t h e D r a f t EIS Lists t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e Big Sky-Bozeman l i n e a s 9 !4W. T a b l e 2 c o n t a i n s t h e h i s t o r i c a l B i g Sky p e a k demand d a t a s u p p l i e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t . The B i g Sky l o a d a t t h e J a c k R a b b i t s u b s t a t i o n , w h i c h is t h e t o t a l B i g Sky l o a d (MPC March 1 5 , 1 9 7 6 ) , was 9048 KW i n December 1 9 7 4 , December 1 9 7 5 , and J a n u a r y 1976. B e c a u s e t h e c a p a c i t y o f l i n e h a s bee t h e e x i s t i n q --- n r e a c h e d , and b e c a u s e g r o w t h e c t r i c a l demand w i l l c o n t i n u e - a t Big S k v !e ~ e p a r t m e n tm u s t recognize --- r th t h e need f o 4 a d d r t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y - - Sky." t o Big ( Emphasis a d d e d . ) T h e f i n a l E I S also r e f l e c t s t h a t o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s were - - examined : "The need f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y --t o B i g S k y , which t h e D e p a r t m e n t i n t h i s case ----acknowledges, does n o t n e c e s s a r L l y i n d i c a t e a needfornew-transmission l i n e s . O t h e r a l t e r --n a t i v e s e x i s t : a d d i t i o n of v o l t a g e c o m p e n s a t i o n e q u i p x e n t , u p g r a d i n g t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e by increasing conductor s i z e while r e t a i n i n q t h e e x i s t i n g G o l t a g e l e v e l , and r e b u i l d i n g t h e existing l i n e a t a higher voltage level. N e i t h e r of the f i r s t t w o of these a l t e r n a t i v e s would p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y t o m e e t t h e p e a k p r o j e c t e d l o n g - t e r m demand a t Big Sky, n o r T h e i r implemenwould a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o . t a t i o n would t h e r e f o r e mean u n n e c e s s a r y a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e to a l l Montana Power Company e l e c t r i c a l consumers. E i t h e r upgrading t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e t o 1 6 1 KV o r b u i l d i n g a new 1 6 1 KV l i n e would r e s u l t i n l e s s e n e r g y l o s s d u r i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n ( s e e p a g e 59 o f t h e D r a f t E I S ) , and p r o v i d e c a p a c i t y beyond t h e p r o j e c t e d maximum p e a k power demand o f 3 2 MW a t Big Sky. C o n s t r u c t i o n -f- a - - 1 6 1 KV t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e o - new -7 is t h e m st a o a e o , to --- oneed p fpor r pt rhie t a da littei r n a tl i v rea, n shmwsesvieorn meet t h e d ona t i ----capacity added. ) ( s e e S e c t i o n I .C. 3 . ) ." ( E m p h a s i s For t h e foregoing reasons w e hold t h a t the Environmental not I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s case a r e / g r o s s l y i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e need f o r and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e proposed t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . EIS i s t o p r o v i d e t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r The p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n of t h e with environmental r e p o r t s s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to allow a k n o w l e d g e a b l e judgment and to allow p u b l i c f e e d b a c k i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . W e cannot say t h a t the Board's d e c i s i o n w a s a r b i t a r y , capricious o r c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n v i e w o f t h e E I S 1 s and d o c u m e n t s t h a t it had b e f o r e i t . Appellants next a t t a c k the EIS's on t h e grounds t h a t they f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s or d i s c u s s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f a second 6 9 KV l i n e g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x i s t i n g one. A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h i s a 1 t e r n a t i v e came i n t o b e i n g when i t d e v e l o p e d d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g s t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l . 1 5 m e g a w a t t s p r o j e c t e d by MPC was to s e r v e o n l y peak demands a t p e a k t i ~ n e sof t h e y e a r . H e a r i n g s o f Eicer ~ n d r i o l os u g g e s t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f two 6 9 KV l i n e s t o t h e Board i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 1 6 , 1977, h e a r i n g . I n t h e d r a f t E I S , we f i n d t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i g h e r k i l o v o l t l i n e s b e i n g r o u t e d from t h e Bozeman-Hot t i o n t h r o u g h t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon to B i g Sky. Springs substa- The D e p a r t m e n t f o u n d , howe*rer, t h a t sole r e l i a n c e on o n e s u b s t a t i o n would p r e s e n t r e l i a b i l i t y disadvantages ( i n case of an outage a t t h a t s u b s t a t i o n ) which would n o t be p r e s e n t i n a t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e f r o m D i l l o n to E n n i s t o B i g Sky. Two 6 9 RV l i n e s from Bozeman to B i g Sky would s u f f e r t h e same i n f i r m i t i e s a s a h i g h e r k i l o v o l t l i n e a l o n g t h e same r o u t e . The D i l l o n a r e a r e c e i v e s i t s power from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s a n d , i n an e m e r g e n c y , Big Sky c o u l d be s e r v e d by t h e Madison h y d r o p l a n t n e a r E n n i s . I n c a s e of a n o u t a g e a t any o n e s u b s t a t i o n , e l e c t r i c i t y from t h e o t h e r areas c o u l d b e drawn upon to prevent a t o t a l pwer f a i l u r e . The f a c t t h a t t h e E I S ' s d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s e c o n d 6 9 KV l i n e t h r o u g h alla at in Canyon d o e s n o t r e n d e r them i n s u f f i c i e n t as a m a t t e r o f law. A g a i n , i t is n o t r e q u i r e d t h a t a n a g e n c y p e r f o r m a n exhaustive study of e v e r y p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e : "What is r e q u i r e d is i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t to p e r m i t a r e a s o n e d c h o i c e of a l t e r n a t i v e s so f a r NRDC a s environmental aspects a r e concerned v . Morton ( 1 9 7 2 D.C.Cir.), 458 F.2d 8 2 7 , 8 3 6 . ." A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r contend t h a t t h e Department s h o u l d have a d d r e s s e d t h e "no a c t i o n a a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o n s i d e r i n g M P C V s pro- \ posed a1t e r n a t i v e , I t is c l e a r t h a t a g e n c i e s m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e , see P o t e a t , s u p r a , and L i f e o f t h e Land v , B r i n e q a r , supra. However, t h i s c l a i m o f a p p e l l a n t s is s i m i l a r to t h a t a t t a c k i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t q s p u r p o r t e d a c c e p t a n c e of MPC's l o a d p r o j e c t i o n s and o u r r e s p o n s e t h e r e t o is r e l e v a n t h e r e . .. . I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e Departxient h a s c o r r e c t l y r e v e r s e d i t s e a r l i e r p s i t i o n i n t h a t i t now c o n s i d e r s ways t h a t t h e need f o r a p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y c a n be e l i m i n a t e d , ARM, supra. s e c t i o n 36.7.304(1) ( b ) ( i i ) (b)(B), & Here t h e D e p a r t m e n t i m p l i c i t l y d e t e r - mined t h a t t h e "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e would n o t be s a t i s f a c t o r y , is as i n t h e f i n a l EIS t h i s / s t a t e d . "The c u r r e n t - -r a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c i t y a t ee - h a s b ne nd f o B i g Sky -- e s t a b l i s h e d , and a c c o r d i n g e the Sky M a s t e r P l a n , t h e c o r p o r a t i o n d e s i r e s increased development, and, hence, increased e l e c t r i c a l consumption (Emphasis added. ) t o ." A p p e l l a n t s n e x t c h a l l e n g e t h e E I S ' s on t h e ground t h a t t h e y do not c o n t a i n an adequate c o s t / b e n e f i t analysis, viz., the D e p a r t m e n t s h o u l d h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e l a t i v e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y i n comparison w i t h a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a tives. A p p e l l a n t s q u o t e House J o i n t R e s o l u t i o n N o . 7 3 which pro- vides in pertinent part. " T h a t a l l a g e n c i e s of S t a t e government a r e h e r e b y d i r e c t e d to a c h i e v e f o r t h w i t h t h e f u l l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e Montana E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t i n c l u d i n g t h e economic a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S e c t i o n s 69-6504 t h r o u g h 69-6514 and ... a B E I T FURTHER RESOLVED, t h a t e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s s h a l l accompany e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s a s r e q u i r e d by t h e f o r e g o i n g S e c t i o n s o f t h e a c t a n d s h a l l e n c o m p a s s a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e costs and b e n e f i t s t o whomsoever t h e y may a c c r u e , i n c l u d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f employment, income, i n v e s t m e n t , e n e r g y , t h e s o c i a l costs and benef i t s o f g r o w t h , o p p o r t u n i t y costs and t h e distribution effects , . ." A joint r e s o l u t i o n is n o t b i n d i n g a s l a w on t h i s C o u r t , b u t w e g i v e i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a c l e a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e (1959), l e g i s l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n of MEPA. S t a t e v. Tbomey/ 1 3 5 Mont. 35, (19261, 335 P.2d 1 0 5 1 ; S t a t e ex rel. Jones v. E r i c k s o n / 75 Mont, 4 2 9 , 244 The cost-benefit analysis required by MEPA, as construed by the legislature, encompasses a broad consideration of several factors categorized in House Joint Resolution No. 73, approved March 16, 1974. A reasonable cost-benefit economic analysis undertaken pursuant to these criteria would, in effect, accomplish most of the purposes sought to be served by an environmental impact statement. Appellants concede, however, that the Department's draft EIS undertakes an analysis of the indirect costs and benefits of MPC's proposal although not of the type appellants suggest. Neither the Siting Act nor MEPA explicitly requires such type of analysis. It should also be noted that after the draft EIS appeared, the Department promulgated rules which require EIS's prepared by the Department to include the following: "(e) economic and environmental benefits and costs of the proposed action (if a benefit-cost analysis is considered for the proposed action, it shall be incorporated by reference or appended to the statement to aid in evaluating the environmental consequences); "(f) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment with the effects on maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the environment;" MPC argues that MEPA does not require a formal and mathematically expressed cost-benefit analysis, citing Cady v. Morton (9th Cir. 1975), 527 F.2d 786. On this point we hold there has been sufficient compliance with MEPA so that the EIS is not insufficient as a matter of law. Although this area could have been more fully explored by the Department in preparing the EIS, the ETS's, when viewed in their entirety, sufficiently apprised the Board members of the project's cost and benefits to enable the Board to render a knowledgeable decision. A p p e l l a n t s n e x t c h a r g e t h a t a d e f i c i e n t EIS c a n n o t b e r e n d e r e d s u f f i c i e n t by r e f e r e n c e to t h e r e c o r d o u t s i d e t h e documents. The t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t " . . . the entire S i t i n g A c t p r o c e s s and t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n b a s e d upon t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d is t h e f u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t o f a n E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t Statement." e. S i n c e w e have h e l d t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t s a r e n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w , w e need n o t a d d r e s s nor d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e of f u n c t i o n a l equivalency. sum, ue l In hold t h a t the record before us e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e Board * s d e c i s i o n was n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a r b i t r a r y o r capricious; t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports the Board's find i n g s and o r d e r ; and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s r i g h t s were n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y prejudiced! W e o b s e r v e t h a t t e s t e d by h i n d s i g h t , it is n o t uncommon to u n c o v e r t e c h n i c a l s h o r t c o m i n g s i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t o r to p o i n t o u t a r e a s t h e r e i n t h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n i n v e s t i g a t e d o r a n a l y z e d i n more d e t a i l . However, where a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t s a r e b e i n g p r e j u d i c e d by s u b s t a n t i a l d e f i c i e n c i e s i n an E I S , i t i s no l e s s a n o b l i g a t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t s t o s p e l l o u t i n some d e t a i l s u c h d e f i c i e n c i e s t o e n a b l e t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o c o r r e c t t h e same p r i o r to t h e Board h e a r i n g and a d j u d i c a t i o n which was n o t d o n e h e r e . O t h e r w i s e t h e whole pro- c e s s o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n would be n e e d l e s s l y d r a w n o u t and p o s t p o n e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t s u c h c e r t i f i c a t i o n would become e c o n o m i c a l l y p r o h i b i t i v e , a mockery, and i l l u s o r y . W i t h r e g a r d to t h e s e c o n d i s s u e ( w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d ' s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and C e r t i f i c a t e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p a t a b i l i t y and Need are s t a t u t o r i l y a d e q u a t e and s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ) , w e r e i t e r a t e the circumscribed n a t u r e of o u r stand a r d of r e v i e w u n d e r MAPA. W w i l l r e v e r s e or modify t h e d e c i e s i o n b e l o w i f t h e j u d g m e n t is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s o r a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s or c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n , S e c t i o n 2-4-704(2) (e) & (f) , MCA. I n W e s t e r n Bank of B i l l i n g s v. Montana \ S t a t e B a n k i n g Board ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 3 3 1 , 3 4 0 , 570 P.2d 1115, 1120, w e s t a t e : " T h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t i t s funct i o n on a p p e a l is t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t t h e judgment. S t r o n g v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 6 5 , 460 P.2d 90." Appellants' contend t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n the r e c o r d on t h e need f o r a 1 6 1 KV l i n e i n t h e Upper Madison/ Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a t Big S k y ; t h a t t h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e to supp o r t t h e f i n d i n g and c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d l i n e and r o u t i n g c o n s t i t u t e d t h e minimum e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t ; t h a t t h e Board f a i l e d to comply w i t h MAPA i n i s s u i n g i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w ; and t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s C e r t i f i c a t e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p a t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need v i o l a t e s sect i o n 75-20-303(3), MCA, o f t h e S i t i n g A c t . A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t contend t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t evir d e n c e o f need f o r t h e 1 6 1 KV l i n e i n t h e Upper ~ a d i s o n / ~ o w eRuby valleys. The B o a r d ' s f i n d i n g of need r e g a r d i n g t h i s s t a t e s a s follows : " A l t h o u g h t h e need f o r t h e Bozeman to E n n i s and D i l l o n s e g m e n t o f t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s is n o t a s i m m e d i a t e as t h e G a r d i n e r - C l y d e . - , Park s e a m e n t s o f t h e l i n k . e x i - t i n a t-r-a n s s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s ---- a n d Madison i n the ~ u b ~ V a l l e y s - r e a c h i n s t h e i r c a ~ a c i t vl i m i t s are and with population growth - i n c r e a s e d electrical and demands -e- i n t e n s i v e s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n a du to d e f i n i t e n e e d --- o r a n a d d i t i o n a l r e l i a b l e exists f e l e c t r i c a l transmission f a c i l i t y . The complet i o n o f t h i s l e g of t h e p r o j e c t a l s o p r o v i d e s f o r a f u l l y integrated e l e c t r i c a l transmission system t o s e r v e t h e e n t i r e a r e a . Conversion of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e Madison and Ruby V a l l e y a r e a s would p r o v i d e o n l y s h o r t - t e r m s o l u t i o n s t h a t would r e s u l t i n e c o n o m i c w a s t e . The b e s t long-term s o l u t i o n to t h e e l e c t r i c a l n e e d s of t h e a r e a and p r o j e c t e d g r o w t h p a t t e r n s is - - - 2 -- a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h a 1 6 1 KV s y s t e m p r o p o s e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t w i t h t h e 6 9 KV s y s t e m from migrant to Gardiner ( ~ m p h a s i sa d d e d . ) ." A p p e l l a n t s c o n c e d e t h a t t h e r e is e v i d e n c e t s u p p o r t t h e o u n d e r l i n e d p o r t i o n o f t h e a b o v e f i n d i n g b u t a r g u e t h a t t h e r e is n o s u p p o r t for t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a 1 6 1 KV f a c i l i t y is r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e s e n e e d s . A l t h o u g h t h e r e w a s a s u b s t a n t i a l con£ l i c t i n t h e r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e amount o f p o w e r a c t u a l l y needed i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s , t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n . I t was t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e Board to r e s o l v e t h e s e c o n f l i c t s and w e may n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e Board o n t h e .-- e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e w o n q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , s e c t i o n 2-4-704 ( 2 ) , MCA. Substantial evi- d e n c e s u p p o r t e d t h e B o a r d ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a 1 6 1 KV f a c i l i t y was n e e d e d i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . The r e c o r d is r e p l e t e with f a c t s indicating t h a t the existing transmission l i n e s were o v e r l o a d e d ; t h a t o n l y a 1 6 1 KV l i n e would p r o v i d e long-term, cost-effective s e r v i c e and t h a t t h e n e e d s o f V i g i l a n t e E l e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i v e which used MPC e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s r e q u i r e d a 1 6 1 KV l i n e . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t contend t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f need f o r a 1 6 1 KV l i n e to Big Sky and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s made by t h e Board; that a v a i l a b l e l o a d g r o w t h i n f o r m a t i o n f o r MPC's s y s t e m s s u p p o r t s t h e i r f o r e c a s t c o v e r i n g f u t u r e l o a d g r o w t h f o r b o t h p e a k and average energy; t h a t conservation a c t i v i t i e s w i l l not m a t e r i a l l y r e d u c e t h e demand f o r power i n t h e s e r v i c e a r e a ; t h a t t h e benef i t s d e r i v e d from t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f waste h e a t d o n o t o u t w e i g h t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e e l e c t r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e ; t h a t new t e c h n o l o g ies ( u n d e r g r o u n d i n g , o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n , s o l a r e n e r g y , wind power and t o t a l e n e r g y s y s t e m s ) h a v e n o t r e a c h e d a p o i n t where t h e y p r e s e n t a f e a s i b l e e c o n o m i c and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y ; and t h a t t h e r e a r e no v i a b l e s o u r c e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e energy. W e disagree. W e h o l d t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Board ' s f i n d i n g s . The B o a r d ' s f i n d i n g N o . 17 c o n t a i n s underlying f a c t s ( w h i c h were b e f o r e t h e B o a r d ) from w h i c h t h e Board c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t and c o n s e q u e n t . e l e c t r i c a l need a t Big Sky a s w e l l a s t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a a s a w h o l e ( w h i c h w i l l a l s o be s e r v e d by t h e p r o p o s e d l i n e ) : " T h a t t h e Big Sky Resort and G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a c a n be c o n s i d e r e d a s a s e p a r a t e a r e a f o r g r o w t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n and p r o j e c t i o n s . Big S k y ' s m a s t e r p l a n shows a p r o j e c t e d 2 , 7 0 0 condominiums a n d 1 , 2 6 3 l o t s . A t p r e s e n t , o n l y 21% o f t h e condominiums a r e c o n s t r u c t e d and 5 2 % o f t h e l o t s a r e d e v e l o p e d w h i l e n o t a l l o f t h e .condominiums I n a d d i t i o n , Big h a v e b e e n s o l d or a r e i n u s e . Sky is b a s e d on a n ' . a l l e l e c t r i c ' ' c o n c e p t and e l e c t r i c i t y i s needed f o r t h e h o s t e l s , m e d i c a l c e n t e r , f i r e d e p a r t m e n t , r e s t a u r a n t s and o t h e r commercial f a c i l i t i e s as w e l l a s t h e s k i l i f t , swimming p o o l s and g o l f c o u r s e . W h i l e g r o w t h o f t h e Big fac l has l onsi y -- Skye c o n oimii t ym-edt e c f iunt e d e c g r o wdte r acbaln -b e d u e- -h e to t c ark , ur h -a n t i c i p a t e d o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . - -d i I n ad t i o n- - - - r e s o r t , s a t e l l i t e d e v e l o p t h e B l g Sky merits - -a s I C B I which h a s p u r c h a s e d -such 4 5 acres a n d-a s a n o p t i o n 7- a c r e s --ho n 111 n e a r B i g Sky -a n s - r e s i d e n t l a l condominiums, t o g e t h e r pl 200 w i t h shopping - commercial f a c i l i t i e s . and In view of t h i s a c t i v i t y , a d d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m G t in -t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a --- b e can a l s o anticipated." ( C i t a t i o n s omitted--emphasis added. ) to In finding No. T - 1 8 , t h e Board n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o j e c t i o n s had twice b e e n r e v i s e d d u e t o a d v e r s e economic c o n d i t i o n s b u t s t r e s s e d t h e i n c r e a s e d n e e d s o f t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a and o t h e r a r e a s a d j a c e n t to Big Sky. N e x t , t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e adduced a t t h e h e a r i n g from which t h e Board c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s would n o t m a t e r i a l l y r e d u c e t h e demand f o r power. A p p e l l a n t s u r g e t h a t twice a s much i n s u l a t i o n c o u l d c u t t h e h e a t i n g l o a d a t Big Sky i n h a l f . However, o n e w i t n e s s s t a t e d t h a t t h e Big Sky condominiums were b e t t e r i n s u l a t e d t h a n most Montana b u i l d i n g s . From the d e s i g n p l a n s o f B i g Sky, which were c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d r a f t E I S , t h e Board c o u l d h a v e r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n p r a c t i c e s a t Big Sky had p r o g r e s s e d t o s u c h a p o i n t t h a t more of s u c h p r a c t i c e s would n o t m a t e r i a l l y r e d u c e t h e need f o r more power. The Board made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e u s e o f w a s t e h e a t and o n - s i t e "20. e l e c t r i c a l generation: O n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n by a gas t u r b i n e Z g e n e r a t o r o r d i e s e l power g e n e r a t i o n w i t h u t i l i z a t i o n of w a s t e h e a t h a s b e e n p r o p o s e d b y t h e Montana W i l d e r n e s s ~ s s o c i a t i o na s a n a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a power l i n e to Big S k y . F u e l c o s t s f o r ona s much s i t e g e n e r a t i o n s would b e f o u r t e e n t i m e s - a s f u e l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h production of aectrl'cit a t a c e n t r a l s t a t i o n such a s Further, on-site generationwould not Co s t r r p re1 i e v e - t h e r e l i a b i l i t y p r o b l e m s w h i c h would be r e l i e v e d b y a l o o p s y s t e m coming i n from t h e E n n i s a r e a and c o n n e c t i n g w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e up t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon. Nor would :it h a v e t h e b e n e f i t of s e r v i n g t h e r e l a t e d d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e a r e a s u c h a s ICBI and o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a . A l t h o u g h u t i l i z a t i o n of w a s t e h e a t a p o e a r s - -b-e a t T r e t h a t t -o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i no f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s , sh the b e n e f i t s t o be d e r i v e d t h e r e f r o m i n connection w i t h- B l q he S oj t ar not i ni a - o t o u - g h k tyh p r a d e c n t-e-o-soe s eg e cft irc c n t as t twei e va ages -f th l i transmission line. -- - +-- L . a -- "21. I n view f - - -o-t h e in th e n e r g y c r i s i s - -e p e t r o - l e u m i n d u s t r v - - -t f e l t t h a t o n - s i t e it is n o -4 - g e n e r a t i o n would b e a f e a s i b l e l o n g - t e r m ~ a i =e m p h a s i s is b e i n q - l a c e d alternative. - p upon u t i l i z a t i o n - o f e l e c t r i c a l power w i t h o u t t h e undue c o n s u m p t i o n o f o u r n a t u r a l pe t r o l e u n r e s o u r c e s and o n - s i t e d i e s e l o r g a s t u r b i n e g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s would be . d e t r i m e n t a l to t h i s policy. C o a l would n o t s e r v e as a f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n d u e to t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d i n an area o f t h i s t y p e b y t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of c o a l f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of e l e c t r i c a l energy. No a v a i l a b l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e e x i s t s i n t h e g e n e r a l area." (Emphasis added. ) In f i n d i n g No. 28, t h e Board found t h a t , a l t h o u g h new t e c h - n o l o g i e s s u c h a s u n d e r g r o u n d i n g , solar and wind power m i g h t be used t o minimize adverse environmental e f f e c t s , t h e development o f t h e same had n o t r e a c h e d a p o i n t w h e r e t h e y p r e s e n t e d a v i a b l e e c o n o m i c a l t e r n a t i v e to MPC1s p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y . T h e s e f i n d i n g s were s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e o f f u e l costs from which t h e Eoard c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n was n o t a f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . Similarly, evidence t h a t w a s t e h e a t i n a t o t a l e n e r g y s y s t e m is used i n downtown M a n h a t t a n and i n s e v e r a l b u i l d i n g s i n M i s s o u l a d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e Board t o a c c e p t t h a t method as d e s i r a b l e a t B i g S k y and t h e r e f o r e reject t h e proposed t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . The same r e a s o n i n g o b t a i n s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s o f s o l a r and wind power as well. A p p e l l a n t s r e l a t e d a t t a c k o n the ~ o a r d ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t . * I I . \ t h e r e are no v i a b l e s o u r c e s o f e n e r g y to r e p l a c e t h a t which would b e p r o v i d e d by t h e e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e is d i s p o s e d of by t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l s o , i.e. t h e Board is n o t bound to recom- mend t h a t Big Sky u s e a l t e r n a t e s o u r c e s o f e n e r g y b e c a u s e o t h e r s h a v e used them s u c c e s s £ u l l y . A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r c h a l l e n g e t h e f i.- d i n g s r e l a t i n g to t h e n r o u t e f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e w i t h t h e l e a s t amount of a d v e r s e environmental impact. The Board found t h a t o n t h e Bozeman to E n n i s to D i l l o n s e g m e n t o f t h e l i n e , t h e p r e f e r r e d c o r r i d e r r o u t e was t h a t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s , w h i l e o n t h e Big Sky s e g m e n t o f t h e l i n e , t h e E n n i s - J a c k Creek-Big Sky c o r r i d o r was t h e most p r e f e r r e d r o u t e , t h e Ennis-Cedar Creek-Big S k y c o r r i d o r t h e n e x t n o s t p r e f e r r e d c o r r i d o r and t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon r o u t e , from aozeman t o B i g Sky, t h e t h i r d most p r e f e r r e d r o u t e . A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h a t such f i n d i n g s a r e e i t h e r unsupported by t h e e v i d e n c e o r e n t i r e l y c o n t r a r y to i t . W e disagree. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e Board had b e f o r e i t e v i - d e n c e showing t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a w a s more h i g h l y p o p u l a t e d t h a n t h e J a c k Creek o r C e d a r C r e e k a r e a . Thus a b i g g e r t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e t h r o u g h G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a would be viewed by more ,people and be a e s t h e t i c a l l y l e s s p l e a s i n g . The Board a l s o had b e f o r e i t c h a r t s and s t a t e m e n t s showing t h e number and d u r a t i o n o f o u t a g e s t h a t had o c c u r r e d a t Big S k y i n r e c e n t y e a r s and t h e f a c t t h a t a n y t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e t h r o u g h G a l l a t i n Canyon would p r o b a b l y u s e t h e Bozeman-Hot Springs substation. Thus a n o u t a g e a t t h a t s u b s t a t i o n would h a v e a c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r i m p a c t o n Big Sky t h a n i f t h e resort were s e r v e d by a n o t h e r energy resource a s w e l l , i.e. e l e c t r i c i t y coming from t h e D i l l o n / E n n i s a r e a t h r o u g h J a c k Creek o r Cedar Creek. The d r a f t . ETS c o n t a i n s a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e B o a r d 1 s c o n c l u s i o n f a v o r i n g MPC1s p r o p o s e d r o u t e from Bozeman to D i l l o n . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t a r g u e t h a t t h e B o a r d l s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s f a i l to comply w i t h s e c t i o n s 2 - 4 - 6 2 3 ( 1 ) , ( 3 ) , ( 4 ) , MCA, of YAPA which provide : "Final orders -- notification --availability. Findings of fact, if set forth in (1) , . statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. . "(3) Each conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or by a reasoned opinion. "(4) If, in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact, the decision shall include a ruling upon each proposed finding. " Appellants contend that the findings are in violation of section 2-4-623(4), MCA, because all parties here submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the Board did not explicitly rule on each finding and each conclusion. ment exalts form over substance. This argu- We do not construe the statutes so narrowly or technically. To do so would place an onerous burden on the Board, especially when it is remembered that usually these types of hearings involve multiple parties representing various interests and each party normally submits its own findings and conclusions. The findings and conclusions here implicitly rule on the findings and conclusions submitted by the parties and we find them to be sufficient in this case. Moreover we have previously held that section 2-4-623(4), MCA, does not require a separate, express ruling on each required finding as long as the agency's decision and order in such proposed findings are clear, Montana Consumer Counsel v. Public Service Commission and Montana Power Co. (1975), 168 Mont. 180, Appellants also claim that a number of the Board's findings merely "parrot" several sections of the Siting Act without setting forth the underlying facts, in violation of section 2-4-623(1), MCA, supra. We agree that some of the findings do track several statutes in the Siting Act. This alone does not - 0- ' . r e n d e r them i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o v i d e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t u a l b a s i s is apparent. W h i l e e a c h f i n d i n g is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d b y t h e s u p p o r t i n g u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s , when t h e f i n d i n g s and d e c i s i o n a r e viewed a s a w h o l e , i t w i l l be s e e n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s a r e adeq u a t e l y f a c t u a l l y supported. I t would b e a n u n n e c e s s a r y and i d l e a c t t o remand f o r c o r r e c t i o n of a n y t e c h n i c a l d e f i c i e n c y w h e r e p . t h e record d i s c l o s e s an underlying f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r each finding. The law d o e s n o t r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s . S e c t i o n 1-3-223, A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t e a c h o f t h e Board I s c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r b y r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n and t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e s e c t i o n 2-4-623(3), MCA, supra. We disagree. A g a i n , w h i l e i t is t r u e t h a t e a c h c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w e d by a n a u t h o r i t y o r o p i n i o n , s u c h is n o t r e q u i r e d . The c o n c l u s i o n s h e r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s u p p o r t e d b y r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n to r e n d e r t h e i r b a s i s r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e . conclusions These a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t which w e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y approved. A p p e l l a n t s 1 a l s o a r g u e t h a t t h e Board I s C e r t i f i c a t e of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Compa t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 75-20-303(3) , MCA, which p r o v i d e s : " ( 3 ) Any c e r t i f i c a t e i s s u e d b y t h e b o a r d s h a l l include the following : " ( a ) an environmental e v a l u a t i o n s t a t e m e n t r e l a t e d to t h e f a c i l i t y b e i n g c e r t i f i e d . The s t a t e m e n t s h a l l i n c l u d e b u t n o t b e l i m i t e d to a n a l y s i s of t h e following information: i ) t h e environmental impact o f t h e proposed facility; a ( " ( i i ) a n y a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s which c a n n o t be a v o i d e d b y i s s u a n c e o f t h e certificate; " ( i i i ) p r o b l e m s and o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by o t h e r f e d e r a l and s t a t e a g e n c i e s and i n t e r e s t e d groups; " ( i v ) a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e proposed f a c i l i t y ; " ( v ) a plan f o r monitoring environmental e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y and " ( v i ) a t i m e l i m i t as provided i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 1 , i u ' r i n g w h i c h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e f a c i l i t y m u s t be c o m p l e t e d ; " ( b . ) a s t a t e m e n t s i g n e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t showing a g r e e m e n t to comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s c h a p t e r and t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e certificate ." W h i l e t h e p a g e s of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e i t s e l f d o n o t comply w i t h t h e above s t a t u t e , w e n o t e t h a t , i n t h e second p a r a g r a p h , t h e C e r t i f i c a t e f u l l y i n c o r p o r a t e s b y r e f e r e n c e t h e Board 's f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r . Taken t o g e t h e r t h e s e t w o docu- m e n t s f u l f i l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n '75-20-303 ( 3 ) , MCA, supra. D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t h i r d i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e y were d e n i e d t h e due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e o f a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l b e c a u s e of S a b o l ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b o t h a s a b o a r d member and a - h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . A p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h a t S a b o l had a p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e o u t come o f t h e case b e c a u s e he w a s r e t a i n e d a s l e g a l c o u n s e l by S k i Yellowstone, Inc., d u r i n g h i s term of c h a i r r n a n of t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and C o n s e r v a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t s claim t h i s c r e a t e d a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t i n t h a t w h a t e v e r t h e Board d e c i d e d i n connection with providing additional e l e c t r i c a l transmission f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s to B i g Sky would e s t a b l i s h a p r e c e d e n t i n any f u t u r e f a c i l i t y s i t i n g r e q u e s t concerning Ski Yellowstone, Inc. A p p e l l a n t s ' second ground f o r S a b o l l s a l l e g e d b i a s i n v o l v e d a newspaper a r t i c l e o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1976. In t h e a r t i c l e S a b o l was q u o t e d as s a y i n g t h a t s o m e e n v i r o n m e n t a l g r o u p s were l o s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y b y o p p o s i n g a l l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s and MWA was s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n e d . The a r t i c l e a p p e a r s below: " SOME ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS LOSING CREDIBILITY, SABOL SAYS By L a r r y W i l l s C h r o n i c l e S t a f f Writer "The Chairman o f t h e Board o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s h a s charged t h a t s o m e environmental groups a r e ' l o s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y i n opposing a l l development projects. Joe S a b o l , a Bozeman a t t o r n e y , and head o f t h e v o l u n t e e r s t a t e b o a r d t h a t r e v i e w s a l l major u t i l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n c h a r g e d t h a t some g r o u p s a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y o p p o s e d to a l l d e v e l o p m e n t s no n a t t e r how good or bad t h e y may be. '1 t h i n k i t is t i m e t h a t t h e s e g r o u p s r e - a s s e s s t h e i r p o s i t i o n s o n some p r o p o s a l s , h e s a i d . 'Some p r o p o s a l s a r e g o o d , and some a r e n o t , b u t t h e y a r e opposed t o a l l p r o j e c t s , and a r e c r e a t i n g a p o l a r i z a t i o n of a t t i t u d e s , S a b o l charged. The a t t o r n e y s a i d t h e o p p o s i t i o n to a l l proj e c t s is a l o s s o f p e r s p e c t i v e and c o n c e n t r a t e s on the t r i v i a ' t h a t surrounds a p r o j e c t , S a b o l made h i s c h a r g e s d u r i n g a n i n f o r m a l p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e c o n c e r n i n g demands t h a t h e r e s i g n h i s r e s o u r c e b o a r d p o s i t i o n due to c o n f l i c t of interest. The c h a r g e s from t h e Montana W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n and t h e Nontana W i l d e r n e s s A s s o c i a t i o n stemmed from S a b o l ' s w o r k i n g f o r t h e S k i Y e l l o w s t o n e d e v e l o p m e n t , and also s i t t i n g a s c h a i rm a n of t h e r e s o u r c e b o a r d . S a b o l s a i d f l a t l y he saw no c o n f l i c t , and would n o t q u i t u n t i l h e b e l i e v e d t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t of interest. H e s a i d he d i d n o t t a k e t h e j o b as S k i Y e l l o w s t o n e a t t o r n e y u n t i l he was a s s u r e d t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n was n o t i n c o n f l i c t , and t h a t t h e p r o j e c t i t s e l f was s a t i s f a c t o r y i n h i s own mind. H e a l s o s a i d he r e c e i v e d a s s u r a n c e s from t h e g o v e r n o r t h a t t h e t w o p o s i t i o n s would n o t be i n conflict. Sabol a l s o s a i d the Ski Yellowstone issue has n e v e r come up a t b o a r d m e e t i n g s , and t h a t no S k i Y e l l o w s t o n e o f f i c i a l h a s e v e r a p p r o a c h e d him a s a member o f t h a t b o a r d . The to q u i t h i s post - a t t o r n e y was a s k e d ------ i n l e t t e r s t h a t t h e MWA a n d W i l d l i f e g r o u p --t o sent ----Gov. J u d g e . S a b o l defended t h e r e s o r t as o n e t h a t is b e t t e r t h a n most i n a l l e v i a t i n g bad environment a l e f f e c t s , and s a i d t h e p r o p o s a l s h o u l d be recognized f o r its accomplishments. Referring t o t w o environmental groups' opposit i o n of t h e resort, S a b o l s a i d , 'They c a n ' t f i n d a n y t h i n g wrong w i t h t h e merits o f S k i Y e l l o w s t o n e , s o t h e y a t t a c k t h e p e o p l e ,' The l e t t e r s were s e n t to J u d g e a f t e r S a b o l w r o t e t h e g o v e r n o r and Wes Woodgerd, head of t h e F i s h and Game Commission o b j e c t i n g to ' p r o p a g a n d a ' a g a i n s t t h e resort p l a n n e d on t h e n o r t h s h o r e o f Hebgen Lake. S a b o l o b j e c t e d to a g r i z z l y b e a r p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h t h e a t t o r n e y s a i d i m p l i e d t h e r e s o r t would i n t e r f e r e with the bears' h a b i t a t . Sabol c h a r g e d t h e r e is no p r o o f t h a t t h e Hebgen area is h a b i t a t f o r the b e a r . A l s o q u e s t i o n e d was a F i s h and G a m e e m p l o y e e ' s ' f r e e l a n c i n g ' a r t i c l e s w h i l e on t h e s t a t e payroll. The a t t o r n e y r e f e r r e d to a r t i c l e s p r i n t e d i n a Denver p a p e r a g a i n s t t h e resort. The n e t r e s u l t o f t h e t h r e e - y e a r d e l a y f o r t h e r e s o r t , S a b o l s a i d , is t h a t it is d r i v i n g o t h e r - d e v e l o p e r s o u t o f t h e s t a t e . The p r o p o s a l is s t i l l u n d e r s t u d y by t h e G a l l a t i n N a t i o n a l Fotes t . 'The l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s h a v e d o n e what t h e y s e t o u t to d o , m i n i m i z e development, ' he s a i d ." (Emphasis added. ) A p p e l l a n t s a l s o c l a i m t h a t d u r i n g a recess i n t h e Board h e a r i n g on September 2 4 , 1976, Sabol i n s t r u c t e d t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and C o n s e r v a t i o n n o t tso cross-examine t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r MWA b e c a u s e i t s c o u n s e l was t r y i n g to make a r e c o r d f o r a p p e a l . Appellants argue t h i s ? . d e m o n s t r a t e s a c t u a l b i a s on t h e p a r t o f S a b o l , W e note t h a t Sabol p a r t i c i p a t e d a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r f o r t h e Board from A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 7 6 , to S e p t e m b e r 1, 1976. During t h i s p e r i o d t w o p r e c o n f e r e n c e h e a r i n g s were h e l d o n A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 7 6 , and Nay 1 2 , 1976. A t t h e second p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e , Rick A p p l e g a t e , a MJ and E I C member, f i l e d a n a £ f i d a v i t s e e k i n g T A d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f S a b o l a s a h e a r i n g o f f i c e and member o f t h e Board c o n s i d e r i n g MPCvs a p p l i c a t i o n . On S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 9 7 6 , S a b o l removed h i m s e l f a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r b u t d e c l i n e d to remove h i a s e l f as a member of t h e Board. The Board v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y to deny the attempted d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t c i t e s Withrow v , L a r k i n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 4 2 1 U.S. S.Ct. 1 4 5 6 , 43 L.Ed.21 35, 95 712, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e s a p p l y to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a s w e l l as t h e c o u r t s . W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t l a n g u a g e s u p p o r t i n g t h a t p r e m i s e a p p e a r s i n Withrow, t h e a c t u a l h o l d i n g o f t h a t case i n v o l v e s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e Wisconsin D o c t o r s Examining Board had t h e power to i n v e s t i g a t e u n p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d u c t a s w e l l a s a d j u d i c a t e it. Nowhere i n Withrow d o w e f i n d a n y f a c t s s i m i - l a r to t h e c a s e a t b a r , i . e . , where t h e a l l e g e d b i a s of o n e of t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s is a t i s s u e . A p p e l l a n t a l s o c i t e s T a y l o r v , Hayes ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 418 U.S. 488,94 S.Ct. 2697, 4 1 L.Ed.2d 897, for authority that actual bias i s u n n e c e s s a r y and t h a t t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f b i a s i s s u f f i c i e n t . he f a c t s i n T a y l o r were t h a t a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f a K e n t u c k y m u r d e r t r i a l , t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e s e n t e n c e d o n e o f t h e l a w y e r s to f o u r and o n e - h a l f y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r n i n e c o u n t s of c o n t e m p t o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and b a r r e d him from p r a c t i c i n g b e f o r e t h a t court. The Supreme C o u r t found t h a t to so r u l e w i t h o u t a n o t i c e and h e a r i n g v i o l a t e d t h e l a w y e r ' s p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s rights. The c o u r t a l s o found t h a t t h e l a w y e r ' s c o n t e m p t t r i a l s h o u l d be b e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t judge because t h e o r i g i n a l t r i a l j u d g e had become e m b r o i l e d i n a r u n n i n g c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h t h e C . lawyer. T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d i t s p o s i t i o n c l e a r l y w i t h r e g a r d to b i a s e d d e c i s i o n makers: " [ I t i s ] t h i s c o u r t ' s d e s i r e to z e a l o u s l y g u a r d I t is t h e r i g h t to E a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g s . n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e f a c t of b i a s t h a t concerns u s b u t t h e possibili-hat b i a s might e x i s t .. ... " [W]e d o w a r n a l l administrative boards and t r i b u n a l s t h a t t h e y s h o u l d z e a l o u s l y guard a g a i n s t a n y a p p e a r a n c e o f u n f a i r n e s s i n t h e conS t a t e e x r e l . F i s h v. d u c t of t h e i r h e a r i n g s . " I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 3 9 Mont. 2 4 6 , 248-49, 251, 362 P.2d 8 5 2 , 8 5 3 , 855. Inc A c c o r d , Graham v. Tree F a r m e r s / ( l 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 2 Mont. 4 8 3 , 3 8 5 . Nonetheless, t h e h o l d i n g s b o t h i n Graham and F i s h , s u p r a , s t a t e t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e aggrieved p a r t y must have been p r e j u d i c e d b e f o r e the c o u r t w i l l c e n s u r e an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d f o r the c o n d u c t o f a h e a r i n g . The Supreme C o u r t i n Graham, supra, stated : "We are c o n s t r a i n e d h e r e , w h i l e d i s a p p r o v i n g t h e u s e o f M r . wood as a h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r , i n v i e w o f t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f p r o o f i n t h i s r e c o r d , to f a l t o see h e d ffe e ould be -i-e-a n d wo r r te hanyr e ai s o n r w n t f r e sl utlht e c errorreach d - f at e ee to --be s u c h t h a t i t d o e s n o t c a l l f o r a r e v e r s a l and E r E h e a r i E 7 - f F a Z T E e c l a i m a n t i s consF--cerned. ( Emphasis added. ) 1 4 2 Mont. a t T 9 r 385 p . 2 d a t 90. - I n t a k i n g a closer l o o k a t t h e p o s s i b l e i n £ l u e n c e o f S a b o l ' s a c t i v i t i e s on the Board's u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n , we f i n d t h e following : Sabol presided a t the f i r s t p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e on A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 7 6 , a t which t i m e t h e r o u t i n g and need f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s as w e l l as w i t n e s s e s and d i s c o v e r y were d i s c u s s e d among t h e v a r i o u s l a w y e r s . S a b o l also p r e s i d e d over t h e s e c o n d p r e n e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e o n May 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 . A t t h i s con- f e r e n c e t h e l a w y e r s e x c h a n g e d w i t n e s s l i s t s and d i s c u s s e d depositions, t h e o r d e r o f a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s and d e a d l i n e s f o r e x c h a n g i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s . During t h e summer o f 1 9 7 6 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t moved to b i f u r c a t e t h e h e a r i n g i n t o two h e a r i n g s . A l s o , b o t h MWA and MPC.moved to h a v e t h e B o a r d v i e w t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a and MWA a d d e d t h e E n n i s t o B i g Sky r o u t e as w e l l . All t h r e e m o t i o n s were a r g u e d a t t h e S e p t e m b e r I , 1 9 7 6 , h e a r i n g and t h e m o t i o n s to v i e w were g r a n t e d b u t t h e m o t i o n to b i f u r c a t e was d e n i e d . I t was a t t h i s S e p t e m b e r 1 h e a r i n g t h a t S a b o l removed hims e l f a s hearings him. o f f i c e r with Andriolo being s u b s t i t u t e d f o r The a c t u a l h e a r i n g s o n t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e C e r t i f i c a t e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o m p a t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need t o o k p l a c e o n S e p t e m b e r 23 and 2 4 , 1 9 7 6 . I t was d u r i n g a recess a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 24 h e a r i n g t h a t S a b o l a l l e g e d l y t o l d t h e D e p a r t m e n t a t t o r n e y n o t to cross-examine t h e MWA w i t n e s s e s . S a b o l t s term a s a Board member e x p i r e d o n December 3 1 , 1 9 7 6 . On F e b r u a r y 9 , 1 9 7 7 , A n d r i o l o i s s u e d a n o r d e r t h a t a l l p a r t i e s ' p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w b e subm i t t e d by March 1, 1 9 7 7 , w i t h a r g u m e n t s t h e r e o n o n A p r i l 2 1 , 1977, b e f o r e t h e Board. On S e p t e m b e r 1 6 and O c t o b e r 2 8 , 1 9 7 7 , t h e Board d i s c u s s e d . and a p p r o v e d A n d r i o l o t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions. The s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g to t h e B o a r d ' s and h e a r i n g s examiner's d u t i e s are s e t o u t below: " ( 9 ) A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g , t h e h e a r i n g examiner s h a l l d e c l a r e t h e hearing c l o s e d and s h a l l , w i t h i n 6 0 d a y s o f t h a t d a t e , p r e p a r e and s u b m i t to t h e b o a r d and i n t h e case o f a c o n j u n c t i v e h e a r i n g , w i t h i n 90 d a y s to t h e b o a r d and t h e b o a r d o f h e a l t h o r d e p a r t m e n t o f h e a l t h proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , and a recommended d e c i s i o n Section 75-20-220(9). ." "75-20-301. decisionof board--findings (1) W i t h i n 6 0 d a y s for certification. s u b m r s s l o n o f t h e recommended d e c i s i o n h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r , t h e b o a r d s h a l l make f i n d i n g s , i s s u e a n o p i n i o n , and r e n d e r necessary after by t h e complete a d e c i s i o n upon t h e record, e i t h e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n q t h e a p p l i c a t i o n as f i l e d or g r a n t i n g i t upon s u c h terms, c o n d i t i o n s , o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o p e r a t i o n , o r m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e f a c i l i t y a s t h e board c o n s i d e r s appropriate " . While w e d o n o t approve of t h e a l l e g e d d i r e c t i o n s n o t t o cross-examine t h e MWA w i t n e s s e s , w e f a i l to see how, o n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , t h e Board would h a v e r e i c h e d a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t had S a b o l removed h i m s e l f e n t i r e l y from t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , Graham, supra. H d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e B o a r d ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n or e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n , a s e v i d e n c e d by sections75-20-220(9) and 7 5 - 2 0 - 3 0 1 ( 1 ) , s e t o u t above. Under t h e s e s t a t u t e s t h e B o a r d ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n s o c c u r a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g s exam i n e r s u b m i t s h i s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and a r e c a n mended d e c i s i o n . T h i s was d o n e i n 1 9 7 7 , a f t e r S a b o l l s term o n t h e Board e x p i r e d . The B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n w a s n o t r e n d e r e d u n t i l O c t o b e r 26, 1 9 7 7 , and c a r r i e d w i t h f o u r Board members v o t i n g i n f a v o r o f MPC1s a p p l i c a t i o n , o n e member a g a i n s t i t , and t h e c h a i r m a n d i d not vote. W e f a i l to see how S a b o l ' s a l l e g e d b i a s p r e j u d i c e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t . S i m i l a r l y , w e f a i l to see how S a b o l l s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S k i Y e l l o w s t o n e , I n c . r e s u l t e d i n t h e a p p e l l a n t s 1 r e c e i v i n g any l e s s t h a n a f a i r h e a r i n g and d e c i s i o n . The a r g u m e n t t h a t a " p r e c e - d e n t " w i l l be s e t by g r a n t i n g MPC i t s t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s to Big Sky is t e n u o u s a t b e s t and t h e f a c t t h a t a d e v e l o p e r m u s t b e a r t h e f i r s t cost of c o n s e r v a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s i n l i e u of a d d i t i o n a l electrical transmission f a c i l i t i e s x does not persuade us t h a t S a b o l had a p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e n t p r o c e e d i n g s . W i t h r e g a r d to t h e n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e a p p e a r i n g i n t h e Bozeman D a i l y C h r o n i c l e , w e n o t e t h a t n o n e o f t h e cases cited by a p p e l l a n t s ( w h i c h d e a l w i t h a member o f a h e a r i n g p a n e l c r i t i c i z i n g a p a r t y a l r e a d y b e f o r e i t ) a r e on p o i n t i n t h e i n s t a n t case. Here S a b o l ' s comment a p p e a r e d F e b r u a r y 15, 1 9 7 6 , and t h e . C s f i r s t p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e was n o t u n t i l A p r i l 10, a l m o s t ~ t w o months l a t e r . They d o n o t r e f l e c t a n y p r e j u d g m e n t o f t h e i s s u e s , p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e Board i n t h i s c a s e . Appellants argue t h a t Sabol improperly i n t e r f e r e d with t h e - c o n d u c t o f t h e September 2 4 , 1976, h e a r i n g by t h e a l l e g e d e x p a r t e c o n t a c t i n t h e l o b b y d u r i n g o n e o f t h e recesses w i t h D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and C o n s e r y a t i o n a t t o r n e y MacIntyre. However, t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f Doug M a c I n t y r e and A p p l e g a t e i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s wanted t h e DNRC t o c o n d u c t " f r i e n d l y cross-examination", i.e. t h e MWA and DNRC o c c u p i e d s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and were a l i g n e d on t h e c o r r i d o r issue--50th a d v o c a t e d t h e e x i s t i n g G a l l a t i n Canyon c o r r i d o r r a t h e r t h a n t h e J a c k Creek/Cedar Creek r o u t e . W e have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t no s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s are p r e j u d i c e d by a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n to l i m i t c r o s s - e x a n i n a t i o n to t h o s e i s s u e s on which r o u t e s a r e a d v e r s e , b e c a u s e t h e "cross-exami n a t i o n " o f n o n a d v e r s e p a r t i e s i n r e a l i t y becomes j u s t more d i r e c t examination. Northern P l a i n s , supra. A l t h o u g h n e i t h e r p a r t y h a s r a i s e d the i s s u e , s e c t i o n 75-20-220(1), MCA, m e r i t s some d i s c u s s i o n . That s t a t u t e provides i n part: "75-20-220. Hearing examiner--restrictions-(1) I f t h e b o a r d a p p o i n t s a h e a r i n g duties. e x a n i n e r to c o n d u c t any c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r may n o t b e a member o f t h e b o a r d , a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t , o r a member or employee o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f h e a l t h or board of h e a l t h . " Under t h i s s t a t u t e , a h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r may n o t b e a member o f t h e Board and S a b o l was c h a i r m a n o f t h e Board a t t h e t i m e he w a s appointed hearing examiner. However, close e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e above s t a t u t e and t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case r e v e a l t h a t the s t a t u t e did not apply to t h i s proceeding. MPC f i l e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o n J u n e 6 , 1 9 7 4 , f o r a 1 6 1 KV l i n e from C l y d e P a r k t o D i l l o n . On J u n e 30, 1 9 7 5 , MPC f i l e d a n amended a p p L i c a t i o n i n c r e a s i n g . t h e t o t a l m i l e a g e o f t r a n s m i s s i o n -- e u n d e r t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n , l i n e s r e q u e s t e d a n d / t h e l i n e was t o c o n s i s t o f t h e f i v e s e g m e n t s s e t o u t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h i s o p i n i o n . The D e p a r t m e n t , b y l e t t e r d a t e d May 30, 1 9 7 5 , a g r e e d to t r e a t t h e amended a p p l i c a - t i o n a s r e l a t i n g b a c k to t h e o r i g i n a l ( J u n e 6 , 1 9 7 4 ) a p p l i c a t i o n . That letter contained the following s t a t e m e n t s : . . .. . "The p r o j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l b e deemed t o have been f i l e d on J u n e 6 , 1 9 7 4 . [TI h e Department w i l l n o t t r e a t thez+amended applications as constituting a substantial change and, t h e r e f o r e , w i l l not t r e a t t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n s a s a new a p p l i c a t i o n . ... . ." S e c t i o n 75-20-220(1) was i n c l u d e d a s p a r t o f t h e amend- m e n t s to t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t and it was e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h o s e amendments would o n l y a p p l y to a p p l i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 1975. 25. 1 9 7 5 L a w s , Ch. 494, MPC's a p p l i c a t i o n was f i l e d on J u n e 6 , 1 9 7 4 , a n d , d u e to t h e r e l a t i o n b a c k d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n w a s deemed t o have b e e n f i l e d o n t h a t d a t e a l s o . T h u s t h e s t a t u t e is n o t applicable to the proceedings here, F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p a r t i e s and t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r a g r e e d t h a t t h e y were o p e r a t i n g u n d e r t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t and n o t t h e amendments t h e r e t o , I n t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e t h i r d p r e c o n f erecce h e a r i n g conducted September 14, 1976, we f i n d t h e following interchange : "HEARINGS EXAMINER: ... " N o w t h e f i r s t t h i n g , i t is my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t e v e r y b o d y is a g r e e d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g w i l l be c o n d u c t e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t o f 1 9 7 3 r a t h e r t h a n t h e Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g A c t which was e n a c t e d i n 1 9 7 5 , I believe. Is t h a t c o r r e c t ? "MR. WALSH [ r e p r e s e n t i n g MPC] : T h a t i s correct. "HEARINGS EXAMINER: And how a b o u t you, B i l l ? t h a t a g r e e a b l e to you? "MR. MADDEN [ r e p r e s e n t i n g M A : W$ Is T h a t is correct.. "HEARINGS EXAMINER: And how a b o u t you, J i m ? t h a t a g r e e a b l e to you? "MR. Yes. MOORE Is [ r e p r e s e n t i n g A m e r i c a n F o r k Ranch] : I n the t r a n s c r i p t of t h e S e p t e m b e r 23 h e a r i n g we a l s o f i n d t h i s : Thank y o u , M r . S a b o l . T h i s is a hearing under t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t of 1 9 7 3 , and the p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h i s , a t t h i s h e a r i n g will a l l be i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h a t p a r ticular Act R H E A R I N G S EXAMINER: ." F o r t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , i t is o u r o p i n i o n t h a t s e c t i o n MCA , 75-20-220(l) , / d i d Affirmed. n o t a p p l y to t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . t . ~Chlef Justice ~ We concur H Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate. . Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The draft environmental impact statements are grossly inadequate for failure to analyze need and explore alternative sources for satisfaction of need. Montana's Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), section 751-201, MCA, 1981, requires preparation of an environmental impact statement concerning the following matters: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed actions; (2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; ( 5 ) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The Montana Major Facility Siting Act recognizes that certain utility "facilities," as defined by the Act, have an effect upon the environment to the extent that construction is prohibited "without a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need" acquired pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Section 75-20-102, MCA, 1981. Section 75-20- 301(2), MCA, of the Act provides that a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need may not be approved by the Board of Natural Resources, except upon a finding and determination by the Board of, among other things: (1) the basis of need for the facility; (2) the nature of the probable environmental impact; (3) that the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives; (4) each of the criteria listed in 75-20-503. Section 75-20-503, MCA, enumerates more than 60 environmental factors to be studied in determining whether a proposed facility should be approved. That section requires, in part, that the following be considered: energy needs including growth in demand and projections of need; availability and desirability of alternative sources of energy in lieu of the proposed facility; conservation activities which could reduce the need for more energy. The Facility Siting Act imposed upon the Department of Natural Resources the responsibility for undertaking technical studies and evaluations of the statutorily mandated environmental factors. Section 75-20-503 and 75-20-216(4), MCA, 1981. The Department of Natural Resources has the responsibility to formalize its technical studies in an environmental impact statement which it must file with the Board, to be used by the Board in making findings and determinations required under section 75-20-301, MCA. The "report" required of the Department of Natural Resources under the Facility Siting Act, section 75-20216(4), MCA, serves as the basic technical and evidentiary document upon which the Board must rely in making its findings and determinations under section 75-20-301, MCA, as to whether a certificate should be granted or denied. Any substantial deficiencies in the required documents should invalidate the Board's findings and decision. Both the Siting Act and MEPA require the Department's draft and final environmental impact statements to consider the need for alternatives to the proposed facility. In this case, the environmental impact statements make no attempt to consider either the need for or alternatives to a 161 KV facility to service Montana Power Company's projected electrical demands in the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys. The DEIS did not adequately study the need for, and alternatives to, a 161 KV facility at Big Sky, Montana. The existing 69 KV line servicing Big Sky has a capacity of 9 megawatts which could, with modification, be increased to a maximum capacity of 12-15 megawatts. In its application for a certificate to construct the 161 KV transmission line to Big Sky, Montana Power Company submitted that such a facility was needed to serve projected electrical loads at Big Sky of 30 megawatts. megawatts. A 161 KV line has a carrying capacity of 200 The Department's draft environmental impact statements accept Montana Power Company's load growth projections without question. Neither document makes any attempt to evaluate the basis of the projected load. There is no analysis of the types of energy demands at Big Sky which are expected to increase and, therefore, which could justify additional electrical transmission service. is critical. Such an analysis Energy demands for heat are not constant. They occur only during the winter and are heaviest only at certain times of the day. Furthermore, energy demands for heat do not require electrical service in that they can be met through other lower grade energy sources, including better conservation practices. These matters were not studied. The evidence produced at the hearing before the ~ o a r d of Natural Resources disclosed that all but 5 megawatts of required electrical power could be met through conservation alternatives not requiring additional electrical service. 5 megawatts is well within the capacity of on-site diesel generation or a smaller transmission line. A 161 KV line, with a carrying capacity of 200 megawatts, 195 megawatts in excess of that actually needed at Big Sky, seems clearly to not - be needed. The failure of the draft environmental impact statements to address the actual need and existing alternatives renders them totally deficient. The District Court recognized the gross inadequacies in the draft environmental statements but held such deficiencies to not constitute a basis for reversal of the Board's decision. The District Court said "that the entire siting act process and the Board's decision based upon the entire record is the functional equivalent of an environmental impact statement." No authority is cited for this proposition. The Facility Siting Act requires that "the Department shall make a report to the Board which shall contain the Department's studies, evaluations, recommendation and other pertinent documents resulting from its study and evaluation . . ." Section 75-20-216(4), MCA, 1981. The function of the statement is to perform technical analysis and provide expert documentation to the Board because the Board lacks technical expertise to perform this function itself. The Federal Courts have refused to adopt the rationale here adopted by the trial court. In Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke (8th Cir. 1972), 473 F.2d, 346, the Corps. of Engineers argued that although discussion of alternatives in its EIS was deficient, the EIS should be considered sufficient when viewed against the entire record. In rejecting this argument, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said: "The Corps. argues that despite these omissions, its impact statement should be considered sufficient because 'at every step of the way, from preauthorization studies through detailed project planning, which includes recent environmental and mitigation studies, the voices of fish and wildlife interests have been heard, considered and reported to Congress.' We disagree. Nothing less than a complete impact statement can serve the important purposes of section 102 (c)(iii) of MEPA. As the District of Columbia Circuit Court stated in Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1972), 'it is the essence and thrust of EPA that the pertinent Statement serve together in one place a discussion of the relative environmental impact of alternatives. ' "A statement which includes a detailed discussion of all reasonable alternatives to a proposed project and their effects [case citation omitted] insures that agency officials will be acquainted with the tradeoffs which will have to be made if any particular line of action is chosen." The rationale adopted by the District Court to render the DEIS deficiencies harmless error, has the effect of nullifying the statutory requirement for environmental impact study. Unlike the District Court, the majority here attempts to defend the DEIS as adequate. Not even the Department which prepared the statements can defend them. The majority admits: "The Department, in its briefs to the District Court and to this Court, acknowledges that the EIS's contain no adequate consideration of alternatives to a 161 KV line serving the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys. The Department justifies this omission by stating that MPC failed to comply with the Siting Act and the rules adopted pursuant thereto in identifying in MPC's application the need for a facility to serve the demand in the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys." The majority then proceeds to gloss over the deficiencies in a style that approaches advocacy. Apparently, the law now will forgive and approve the Department's deficiencies that result from omissions in the Utility's application. The decision here has established a precedent which substantially weakens the Facility Siting Act and tends to judicially erode the environmental protection assurances afforded by the Montana Legislature. I view the course of action now being taken by this Court to be premised upon expediency. It is true that the process is cumbersome but had the Montana Power Company made a complete application, and had the Department of Natural Resources thereafter rendered draft environmental impact statements in conformity with law, these problems would not have arisen. By this decision we reward the wrongdoers. I reqister a strenuous dissent. k Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, dissenting: I join in the dissent of Justice Morrison. Because of time exigencies, I am unable to write a more detailed dissent at this time, other than what I state below. Time permitting, I will add a more detailed statement of why I dissent. The situation is that MPC has been permitted, without a showing of need or of alternatives, to expand the power available to Big Sky from a 69 KV line to a 161 KV line, in a situation where even in the untested application, the MPC has projected that Big Sky will need only 3 0 KV. The current 69 KV line to Big Sky has a capacity of 9 megawatts. With modification, this line could be increased to a maximum capacity of 12-15 megawatts. The application of the MPC, accepted without question by the agency responsible for the environmental impact study (the DNRC), projects a need at Big Sky of 3 0 megawatts. This 3 0 megawatt projection was not substantiated by the MPC application, nor did the environmental impact study make any attempt to justify the load growth projection to 3 0 megawatts. Yet the MPC application is for a 161 KV line--which has a carrying capacity of 2 0 0 megawatts, or almost five times the projected load growth stated in the application. As stated by Justice Morrison, all but 5 megawatts could, as disclosed in the hearing, be met through application of conservation alternatives which do not require additional electrical services. How, then, can the environmental impact statement be sufficient when it fails to address the need and the existing alternatives to the projected energy demand of Big Sky? It was error, as Justice Morrison points out, for the District Court to hold that the environmental impact statement could be given life by instead looking to the "Board's decision on the entire record," including the deficient environmental impact statement. Justice Morrison correctly concludes, on the other hand, that the environmental impact statement must stand on its own, and here it cannot stand. Nor can I understand the total failure of the DNRC to demand from MPC, that it comply with the information required to be in an application for a permit. Here the DNRC admitted that the MPC application was deficient, and that it did nothing to make the application sufficient. Rather, the DWRC proceeded with the environmental impact study without ever obtaining and evaluating either the need for the 161 KV line or the alternatives to supplying power for the projected needs of Big Sky. The fault in not making an adequate application can be laid directly at the doorsteps of the MPC. But the DNRC should not have started its environmental impact study until it had a complete or substantially complete application. Furthermore, if the study was started without noticing this rather glaring omission, once noticed, it was the duty of the DNRC to notify the MPC to complete its application and to further notify the MPC that the study could not be finished until the application was complete and the DNRC had evaluated the additional information provided in the application. Here that was not done. Rather, the DNRC proceeded with the study without ever compelling the MPC to comply with the clear directives of the Montana Environmental protection Act as to alternatives (section 75-1-201 (3) , MCA) and need (section 75-20-102(1), MCA). The DNRC can hardly be said to have been protecting the constitutional rights of Montana citizens to a clean and healthy environment when it made its impact study without directing the MPC to comply, and without itself complying with these statutes. Nor did the District Court or this Court fulfill its duty by approving an environmental impact statement so glaringly deficient.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
