N o 14672
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
F
19 79
-
THE MONTANA P W R COMPANY, A Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ,
O E
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
L O CREMER,
E JR., et al. ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t and Weaver, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Lon Holden a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
For Respondent:
G r a y b i l l , O s t r e m , Warner and C r o t t y , Great F a l l s ,
Montana
Gregory Warner a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
W i l l i a m R M o r s e , Absarokee, Montana
For Amicus C u r i a e :
Donald McIntyre a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted: May 4 , 1979
Decided: JUN 2 2 1979
Filed:
JUN 2: 1379
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l by t h e Montana Power Company (MPC)
from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , s i t t i n g i n Sweet G r a s s County, d i s m i s s i n g a n
eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n .
MPC b r o u g h t a condemnation a c t i o n t o a c q u i r e a p e r -
manent easement a c r o s s a s t r i p o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' l a n d f o r t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s i x - i n c h g a s t r a n s m i s s i o n p i p e l i n e which
i n t o t a l would e x t e n d 3 8 . 3 m i l e s from MPC's p i p e l i n e s n e a r
G r e y c l i f f , Montana, t o i t s Big Coulee f i e l d l o c a t e d s o u t h -
e a s t of Ryegate, Montana.
A t t h e " n e c e s s i t y " h e a r i n g h e l d on October 1 8 , 1978,
r e s p o n d e n t s o b j e c t e d t o t h e t a k i n g of t e s t i m o n y on any need
f o r t h e proposed p i p e l i n e a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e p i p e l i n e i s a
" f a c i l i t y " under t h e Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g A c t and
t h e r e f o r e t h e Department of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and Conserva-
t i o n must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e 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 need f o r t h e p i p e l i n e . Testimony was t a k e n from John
R o b e r t s o n , M P C ' s g a s and o i l d e p a r t m e n t manager and John Van
G e l d e r , MPC's g a s p r o d u c t i o n and t r a n s m i s s i o n manager.
Robertson t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e proposed p i p e l i n e would
c o n n e c t M P C ' s t o t a l system o f g a s p r o d u c t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n
and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i t s Big Coulee g a s f i e l d s
and t h a t t h e g e n e r a l p u r p o s e of t h e c o n n e c t i o n was t o re-
p l e n i s h t h e d e p l e t e d Big Coulee r e s e r v e s f o r Lewistown,
Montana, consumption. H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e estimated c o s t f o r
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p i p e l i n e w a s $1,693,000, and t h a t i t
would be c a p a b l e of t r a n s p o r t i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8,500 m i l l i o n
c u b i c f e e t of g a s p e r d a y .
On December 28, 1978, t h e condemnation s u i t was d i s -
missed f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c o u r t found a s a
m a t t e r of l a w t h a t M P C ' s proposed p i p e l i n e was a " f a c i l i t y "
under t h e S i t i n g A c t s i n c e i t l e d "from o r t o " a " f a c i l i t y "
a s d e f i n e d by t h e S i t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n 75-20-104 ( 7 ) ( c ) MCA,
f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 7 0 - 8 0 3 ( 3 ) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947. The c o u r t a l s o
found t h e p i p e l i n e t o b e a n " a d d i t i o n t o " M P C 1 s p r e s e n t
n a t u r a l g a s system. The c o u r t concluded t h a t M C was b a r r e d
P
from c o n d u c t i n g eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a u s e i t had
n o t o b t a i n e d a c e r t i f i c a t e from t h e Montana Board of N a t u r a l
Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n .
MPC a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment d i s m i s s i n g
t h e a c t i o n f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n and p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n
o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t , v i z . :
Whether t h e MPC1s proposed g a s t r a n s m i s s i o n p i p e l i n e i s
a " f a c i l i t y " a s d e f i n e d by t h e Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g
A c t a t s e c t i o n 75-20-104 ( 7 ) MCA, f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 70-803 ( 3 ) ,
R.C.M. 1947?
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found a s a m a t t e r o f law t h a t M P C 1 s
p i p e l i n e i s a f a c i l i t y under t h e A c t b e c a u s e i t l e d t o o r
from a f a c i l i t y a s d e f i n e d by t h e S i t i n g A c t . The c o u r t
d e s i g n a t e s MPC1s " g a s g a t h e r i n g " , " t r a n s m i s s i o n and d i s t r i -
b u t i o n p i p e l i n e system" a s a " f a c i l i t y " t o which t h e pro-
posed l i n e would c o n n e c t and t h e r e f o r e t h e l i n e becomes
a f a c i l i t y o r associated f a c i l i t y . W disagree.
e
Both p a r t i e s t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n have a g r e e d t h a t t h e
i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c a n be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n
meaning of t h e words used i n t h e s t a t u t e s and it f o l l o w s
t h a t t h e p l a i n meaning r u l e c o n t r o l s . T h i s l e a v e s no neces-
s i t y t o examine l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y . However, t h e p a r t i e s
have n o n e t h e l e s s been v e r y g e n e r o u s i n f u r n i s h i n g t h e C o u r t
w i t h claimed evidence of l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n . NO one
r e a l l y g o t t o o c l o s e t o Laws of Montana 1979, C h a p t e r 527,
which amended s e c t i o n 75-20-104 MCA, t h e s t a t u t e under
c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e , and s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e s n a t u r a l g a s
p i p e l i n e s from t h e S i t i n g Act. T h i s b i l l w a s s i g n e d by t h e
Governor and became e f f e c t i v e immediately on A p r i l 1 0 , 1979.
T h i s would seem t o l i m i t c o n s i d e r a b l y t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a
l o n g and i n v o l v e d d i s c u s s i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y
c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s Opinion.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e Montana Department of 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 a r e d by b r i e f and a r g u e d on
b e h a l f of t h e s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n urged by a p p e l l a n t .
The Department h a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d g a s t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s
c o n n e c t i n g o t h e r g a s t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s l e a d i n g t o o r from
g a s w e l l s o r f i e l d s a s a f a c i l i t y under t h e A c t . This Court
h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t i n s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n problems
g r e a t d e f e r e n c e must b e shown t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g i v e n t o
t h e s t a t u t e by t h e agency o r o f f i c e r s c h a r g e d w i t h i t s
administration. Department of Revenue v . P u g e t Sound Power
and L i g h t Co. (1978), Mont. , 587 P.2d 1282, 1286,
35 St.Rep. 1368, 1372. T h i s h a s more t h a n
u s u a l i m p o r t h e r e a s t h e d i s m i s s a l below was based on t h e
g a s l i n e being a " f a c i l i t y . "
The development o f t h e c a s e law i n Montana w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n may b e summarized i n
t h e following analysis: (1) Is t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n s i s -
t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e a s a whole? ( 2 ) Does t h e i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n r e f l e c t t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
p l a i n l a n g u a g e of t h e s t a t u t e ? ( 3 ) Is t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
r e a s o n a b l e s o a s t o a v o i d a b s u r d r e s u l t s ? and ( 4 ) Has a n
agency charged w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e p l a c e d
a c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e s t a t u t e ? Dunphy v . Anaconda Co.,
(19681, 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 80, 438 P.2d 660, 662; Home B u i l d i n g &
Loan A s s o c i a t i o n v. F u l t o n ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 113, 1 1 5 , 375
P.2d 312, 313; Teamster L o c a l #45 v . Cascade County School
Dist. #1 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 277, 280, 511 P.2d 339, 341;
S t a t e e x r e l . Cashmore v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 175,
1 8 4 , 500 P.2d 921, 926-27; P u g e t Sound Power & L i g h t Co.,
supra.
For t h e p i p e l i n e i n q u e s t i o n t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e param-
e t e r s of t h e S i t i n g A c t , i t must b e a p i p e l i n e d e s i g n e d f o r
o r c a p a b l e of t r a n s p o r t i n g g a s from o r t o a major f a c i l i t y .
S e e s e c t i o n 75-20-104(7) ( c ) MCA, f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 70-
803 ( 3 ) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s :
"Each p i p e l i n e and a s s o c i a t e d f a c i l i t i e s de-
s i g n e d f o r o r c a p a b l e of t r a n s p o r t i n g g a s ,
w a t e r , o r l i q u i d hydrocarbon p r o d u c t s from o r
t o a f a c i l i t y l o c a t e d w i t h i n or w i t h o u t t h i s
s t a t e of t h e s i z e i n d i c a t e d i n s u b s e c t i o n
( 7 ) ( a ) of t h i s s e c t i o n . "
The f a c i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d s u b s e c t i o n i n -
clude f a c i l i t i e s capable o f : (1) g e n e r a t i n g 50 megawatts of
e l e c t r i c i t y ; ( 2 ) p r o d u c i n g 25 m i l l i o n c u b i c f e e t of g a s p e r
day; ( 3 ) p r o d u c i n g 25,000 b a r r e l s o f l i q u i d hydrocarbon
p r o d u c t s p e r day; ( 4 ) e n r i c h i n g uranium m i n e r a l s ; (5) u t i -
l i z i n g , r e f i n i n g o r c o n v e r t i n g 500,000 t o n s of c o a l p e r
year. F o r t h e g a s p i p e l i n e t o b e a f a c i l i t y under t h e
S i t i n g A c t , t h e p i p e l i n e must come from o r go t o one of
t h e s e t y p e s of f a c i l i t i e s .
S e c t i o n 75-20-102 MCA, f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 70-802, R.C.M.
1947, e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e S i t i n g A c t i s aimed a t t h e " l o -
c a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of power and e n e r g y
conversion f a c i l i t i e s . " Likewise, t h e f a c i l i t i e s d e s c r i b e d
i n s e c t i o n 75-20-104 ( 7 ) ( a ) MCA a l l c l e a r l y c o n t e m p l a t e t h e
s i t i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a r t i f i c i a l (man-made) f a c i l i t i e s
t o a i d i n t h e c o n v e r s i o n of a r a w m a t e r i a l t o a commercial
energy product.
S e c t i o n 75-20-102 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( i )MCA c o n c e r n s t h e g e n e r a t i o n
of e l e c t r i c i t y . This s e c t i o n contemplates t h a t t h e energy
p r o d u c t , e l e c t r i c i t y , d o e s n o t occur commercially i n t h e
natural state. Clearly, t h e S i t i n g A c t contemplates t h a t
a r t i f i c i a l f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be constructed t o convert a
n a t u r a l resource, such a s c o a l o r w a t e r , t o an energy
product such a s e l e c t r i c i t y .
I n a s i m i l a r v e i n s e c t i o n 7 5 - 2 0 - 1 0 4 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( i i i ) recog-
n i z e s t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n of l i q u i d hydrocarbon p r o d u c t s
r e q u i r e s t h e involvement o f a s i t i n g a u t h o r i t y . The e x t r a c -
t i o n o r g a t h e r i n g of t h e l i q u i d hydrocarbon p r o d u c t i s n o t
the determinative c r i t e r i o n . The d e t e r m i n a t i v e c r i t e r i o n
i s t h e production of a n energy product through a conversion
process. Under s e c t i o n 7 5 - 2 0 - 1 0 4 ( 7 ) ( a ) MCA, o i l and g a s
r e f i n e r i e s are exempted from t h e S i t i n g A c t . Consequently,
t h e S i t i n g A c t i s concerned o n l y w i t h t h o s e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t
a r e needed t o c o n v e r t a raw m a t e r i a l , s u c h a s c o a l , t o a
l i q u i d hydrocarbon product. F a c i l i t i e s t h a t a r e needed t o
s e p a r a t e n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g p r o d u c t s which may b e found
t o g e t h e r , s u c h a s c r u d e o i l and a s s o c i a t e d n a t u r a l g a s , and
f a c i l i t i e s which p e r f o r m t h e m e c h a n i c a l a c t i o n o f e x t r a c t i n g
l i q u i d h y d r o c a r b o n p r o d u c t s from t h e e a r t h a r e n o t w i t h i n
t h e s c o p e of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n .
S e c t i o n 75-20-104 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( i v ) MCA c o n c e r n s t h e e n r i c h i n g
o f uranium m i n e r a l s . I t i n v o l v e s t h e conversion of t h e
i s o t o p i c r a t i o of uranium t o a n o t h e r i s o t o p i c r a t i o .
Simply s t a t e d , t h e p r o c e s s i n v o l v e s t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f
uranium i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e t o a n e n e r g y p r o d u c t form which
i s n o t commercially a v a i l a b l e i n t h e n a t u r a l s t a t e . As in
t h e c a s e s of t h e o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s d e s c r i b e d above, t h e
common t h r e a d l i n k i n g t h e d e f i n e d f a c i l i t i e s t o g e t h e r i s t h e
p r o d u c t i o n by a r t i f i c i a l methods o f a n e n e r g y p r o d u c t
through a conversion process.
L i k e w i s e , t h i s common t h r e a d i s found i n s e c t i o n 715-20-
1 0 4 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( v ) which c o n c e r n s t h e u t i l i z i n g , r e f i n i n g o r
converting of coal. A s i n t h e above-described s i t u a t i o n s ,
a raw m a t e r i a l , c o a l , i s c o n v e r t e d by a r t i f i c i a l methods t o
a n e n e r g y p r o d u c t i n t h e form of h e a t , e l e c t r i c i t y , g a s ,
hydrocarbon p r o d u c t s o r e n e r g y i n any form f o r u l t i m a t e
p u b l i c use. I t i s t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e raw m a t e r i a l t o a
commercial p r o d u c t t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h e S i t i n g A c t .
T h e r e f o r e , i f s e c t i o n 75-20-104 ( 7 ) ( a ) ( i i ) i s t o be con-
s i d e r e d c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g s u b s e c t i o n s of s e c t i o n
75-20-104(7) ( a ) , a s i t must be i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t a t u t e a s
a whole, t h e g a s p r o d u c i n g f a c i l i t y must b e l i m i t e d t o t h o s e
t y p e s of f a c i l i t i e s t h a t c o n v e r t n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g mate-
r i a l t o an e n e r g y p r o d u c t . Gas w e l l s and f i e l d s , a s de-
s c r i b e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g f o r l a c k of
j u r i s d i c t i o n , a r e n o t t h e t y p e of f a c i l i t i e s t h a t c o n v e r t
n a t u r a l l y occurring g a s t o an energy product. Rather, t h e
f a c i l i t i e s a r e g a t h e r i n g and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of a n a t u r a l l y
o c c u r r i n g energy p r o d u c t . Such f a c i l i t i e s a r e n o t s u b j e c t
t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e S i t i n g A c t .
A s n o t e d above, t h e S i t i n g Act i s c l e a r l y aimed a t t h e
" l o c a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f power and e n e r g y
conversion f a c i l i t i e s . " The key p h r a s e i s " c o n v e r s i o n
facilities." Nowhere i n t h e S i t i n g A c t i s t h e r e e x p r e s s
a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e S t a t e t o s i t e t h e mining o r g a t h e r i n g
a c t i v i t i e s of a p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a n t , e x c e p t i n t h o s e cases
where t h e a c t u a l mining a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e s t h e c o n v e r s i o n of
t h e e n e r g y form. The e x t r a c t i o n o f n a t u r a l g a s and t h e
u l t i m a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e g a s from i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e t o
t h e u l t i m a t e consumer d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a c o n v e r s i o n p r o c e s s
s u b j e c t t o t h e S i t i n g Act. Although t h e g a s may b e sweetened,
c l e a n e d , p r e s s u r i z e d o r o t h e r w i s e p r o c e s s e d t o make i t
s u i t a b l e f o r b u r n i n g , i t i s n o t c o n v e r t e d t o some o t h e r form
by p r o c e s s i n g t h r o u g h any "power o r e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n f a c i -
lity."
The judgment and o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s re-
v e r s e d and v a c a t e d , and t h i s m a t t e r i s remanded t o t h e t r i a l
c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o proceed e x p e d i t i o u s l y w i t h t h e
eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g s .
W e concur:
7h-&A$ f
Chief J u s t i c e
Justices
Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy, deeming h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d ,
did not participate.
No. 1 4 6 7 2
MONTANA POWER COMPANY
VS .
L E O CREMER
-----------------
D I S S E N T
ELERKOFSUPREMECOURI.
&TATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissents:
I dissent because this natural gas pipeline plainly
and properly comes within the definition of a "facility"
under the Montana Major Facility Siting Act.
Section 70-803 (3)(c), R.C.M. 1947, now section 75-20-
104(7) (c) MCA provides:
"'Facility' means:
" (c) each pipeline and associated facilities
designed for, or capable of, transporting gas,
water, or liquid hydrocarbon products from or
to a facility located within or without this
state of the size indicated in subsection ( 3 )
(a) of this section; . . ."
Section 70-803(3) (a)(ii), R.C.M. 1947, now section 75-20-
104 (7)(a)(ii) MCA provides:
"'Facility' means:
"(a) each plant, unit, or other facility and
associated facilities, except for oil and gas
refineries,
"(ii) designed for, or capable of, producing
twenty-five million (25,000,000) cubic feet
of gas per day or more, or any addition thereto
having an estimated cost in excess of two hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), or . . ."
The question, then, is whether the pipeline to or from which
the pipeline would lead is designed for or capable of "producing"
25 million cubic feet of gas per day or more. The Greycliff
connection is tied in with MPC's total gas production system
which is capable of producing approximately 290,000 million cubic
feet of gas per day. Therefore, the proposed pipeline leads
from or to a facility capable of producing in excess of 25
million cubic feet of gas per day.
Preliminarily, the majority opinion noted that section
70-20-104 MCA was recently amended so as to exclude natural
gas pipelines from the Siting Act. This fact, according to
the opinion, "would seem to limit considerably the necessity
for ... statutory construction." In this case, we are
concerned with the Act as it existed before the 1979 amendment.
If anything, the amendment indicates that the legislature
sought to change existing law (Tuttle v. Morrison-Knudsen
Co. (1978), Mont. , 580 P.2d 1379, 1382, 35 St.Rep.
864, 869; Montana Milk Control Bd. v. Community Creamery Co.
(1961), 139 Mont. 523, 526, 366 P.2d 151, 152), and the
change is effective only after the date of the amendment.
Section 43-510, R.C.M. 1947, now section 1-2-203 MCA.
The opinion regards the fact that the Department has
not considered gas lines connecting other gas lines to be
"facilities" as deserving of "great deference". Dept. of
Rev. v. Puget Sound Power and Light Co., supra. The cited
case stated, but did not apply, this notion of statutory
construction. However, Doe v. Colburg (1976), 171 Mont. 97,
100, 555 P.2d 753, 754 did, stating:
"This Court has on several occasions considered
the interpretative regulations by administrative
agencies charged with the duty of administering
and enforcing a legislative act, for an under-
standing of the provisions that must be carried
out. (Cites omitted. )
"While such administrative interpretations are
not binding on the courts, they are entitled
to respectful consideration." (Emphasis added.)
Here, no interpretive rulings on the Department's treatment
of pipeline-to-pipeline facilities exist. Surely, the
Department's inaction cannot be viewed as the legal equivalent
to the promulgation of an interpretive ruling.
The opinion then declares that Montana's rules of
statutory construction may be summarized in a four-part
analysis. This analysis neglects to mention the fundamental
rule that legislative intent must first be determined from
the plain meaning of the words used. Section 93-401-15,
R.C.M. 1947, now section 1-2-101 MCA; Dunphy, supra; Teamsters
Local #45, supra; Cashmore, supra. Instead, the opinion
reverses the inquiry and asks, "does the interpretation
reflect the intent of the legislature considering the plain
language of the statute?" In short, does our opinion find
support in the statute?
Turning to the legislative policy statement in section
70-802, R.C.M. 1947, now section 75-20-102 MCA, the opinion
seizes upon the "key phrasew--"conversion facilitiesw--as a
statement of the Act's limited coverage. Even a cursory
reading of the provision demonstrates that the legislative
concern was not restricted to energy conversion facilities, but
was generally aimed at furthering this State's policy of
maintaining and improving "a clean and healthful environment
. . . to protect the environmental life support system from
degradation and prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation
of natural resources." Section 70-802, supra. It is not
inconsistent with this policy to impose siting requirements
regulating the location, safety, construction and maintenance
of gas pipelines. Indeed, the need for such legislation has
prompted enactment of similar laws both by the United States
Congress (49 U.S.C. 51671, et seq.) and by our sister states
(See e.g., Wash.Rev.Code 580.50.010, et seq., and 0r.Rev.Stat.
5757.039.)
To bolster its decision the Court attempts to trace a
"common thread linking the defined facilities together" and
determines that the common denominator is the conversion process
necessary to produce the other enumerated energy forms. It
appears the Court went too far in its search for commonality.
For example, in discussing the definition of liquid hydrocarbon
producing facilities, section 75-20-104 (7)(a)(iii), it is stated
that only such facilities that convert a raw material, such as
coal, to a liquid hydrocarbon product are included. This
totally unsolicited statement is not supported by the
legislative history of section 75-20-104 (7)(a)(iii). The
1975 Legislature specifically deleted any reference to
gasification or liquefaction facilities for the obvious
purpose of broadening the scope of the definition.
If there is a "common thread" linking the facilities
subject to the siting requirements of the Act, it is simply
the potential environmental impact posed by each of the
enumerated facilities.
The District Court ruled correctly that the proposed
gas pipeline is a "facility" and therefore subject to the
requirements of the Major Facility Siting Act. Under the
Act, the utility cannot conduct eminent domain proceedings
until it has obtained a certificate of environmental compatibility
and public need from the Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation. Therefore, I would affirm the District Court
order dismissing eminent domain prosedings.