State Ex Rel. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation

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: December 2 , 1 9 8 1

Decided: J u l y 9 1 1982

Filed: L7ji,jL - 1982
9

Clerk
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. ( 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

o f Lewis & 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

effective ~ p r i l
21, 1 9 7 5 , and became known a s t h e "Montana Major
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 sub-

s 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 , con-
s i s t i n g of the following:
a) 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 ;
b) 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) C l y d e P a r k to Bozeman--161 KV l i n e ;
d) Bozeman to Ennis--161 KV l i n e ; a n d
e) 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... _
- ,..
; w.....
:. :
-a
-
 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 pro-

p 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. Particularly,

t h e Board found t h e E n n i s - J a c k Creek-Big S k y c o r r i d o r to be p r e -

f e r a b l e to t h e Ennis-Cedar 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

U n l i m i t e d v. Morton ( C C A 9 , 1 9 7 4 ) , 509 F.2d 1 2 7 6 , f o r t h e asser-
- 1

t 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

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 environmen-
t 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. 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 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - -
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 prin-
c 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 admi-
n 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 admi-
n 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
- 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 ,
of
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 . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435

U.S. 5 1 9 , 98 S . C t . 1 1 9 7 , 55 L.Ed.2d 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 * - -
a
for that of
t h e environmental consequences -- actions." o f its
2
v a s to

[ 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
I
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.

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

decisions. 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

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 con-

t 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' r i g h t s being s u b s t a n t i a l l y

prejudiced .
 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. W e w i l l consider each i n t u r n .

Appellants 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 con-
s 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 per-
w 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
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
~e P

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 1.

b e t w e e n 1972 and 1 9 7 8 , a n d / t a b l e 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 , and

underground t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s . 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 suf-
f 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 develop-
m 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

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 . Accordingly,
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
' s u f f i c i e n t t o permit a reasoned choice.'
836."
-.
Id at

Xhile 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 ade-
q 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) 594 F.2d 742. S e c t i o n s 75-20-503 ( l ) ( a ) and

(f ) , MCA, 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 re-
v 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 add-
tional 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 Coor-
dinating 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 North-
west will have a considerable impact. This in-
formation 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 inde-
pendent 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 elec-
electrical
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 projec-
t 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
- - -OR
GAS
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

n 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 : popula-
E n T r o w t h : chanqes i n electrical -- house- u 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
-- a

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 .

"(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
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
' The
- 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
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 -
rom c
d

----ol r tl h c l u do p o s e d s c u s sl il o ny .of The
:inq t h e n e e d f
application sha l n
7
e pr
e a di
fa c E
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
p o l i c i e s and p r o g r a m s ; " ( ~ m p h a s i s dded. )
a

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:

- is n o
"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
t h e need f 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 gline 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 - - -
7.
-
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
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 . Table 2
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:

" '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
estimates p r e p a r e d by M r . H i l d r e t h ( o f MPC) were
.
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 The

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
- c e r t a i n t i e s . However. t h e maior con-
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
not -
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

needed."
to Bi
( ~ m p h a s i sa d d e d . )
-
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

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 - -
S k v !e ~ e p a r t m e n tm u s t recognize --- r
4 -
th
a t Big
t h e need f o
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
-7
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
would a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o . T h e i r implemen-
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

--- oneed p fpor r pt rhie t a da littei r n a tl i v rea, n shmwsesvieorn -
is t h e m st a
meet t h e
o a e
d ona t
o
i
, to
-----
capacity ( s e e S e c t i o n I .C. 3 . ) ." ( E m p h a s i s
added. )
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 . The p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n of t h 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 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 Springs substa-
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. 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
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 .
NRDC

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, s e c t i o n 36.7.304(1) ( b ) ( i i ) & (b)(B),

supra. 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 .

- h a s b ne nd f o
"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
t
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
the
e
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. )

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 bene-
f 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 main-
tenance and enhancement of the long-term produc-
tivity of the environment;"
MPC argues that MEPA does not require a formal and mathe-
matically 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. In
sum, ue
l 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 fin-
d 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 stan-
d 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 func-
t 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 sup-

p 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 evi-

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
r
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
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
-
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
,
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
- -
2 -
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
with population growth - i n c r e a s e d electrical
and
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 comple-
t 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

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 bene-
f 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
h a v e b e e n s o l d or a r e i n u s e . I n a d d i t i o n , Big
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
-- Skye c o n oimii t ym-edt e c f iunt e d e c g r o wdte r acbaln -b e
t h e Big
d u e- -h e
to t
fac l
c
has
ark ,
l
ur
onsi
h --
y
-
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
to T -
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 s - r e s i d e n t l a l condominiums, t o g e t h e r
a n d-a s a n o p t i o n 7- a c r e s ---
pl
h-
200
o n 111 n e a r B i g Sky
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. )
In finding No. 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 e l e c t r i c a l generation:

"20. 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 on- --
-
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 much

+--
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 -
aectrl'cit a t a c e n t r a l s t a t i o n such a s
Co s t r r p Further, on-site generationwould not
of

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
sh
-
-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 , -
L .
a
t
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
-
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
- 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
w i t h- B l q -
he S oj t ar not i ni a
as -
- t twei
transmission line.
- e va ages -- f th l i

"21. - - -o-t h e
I n view f e n e r g y c r i s i s - -e p e t r o -
in th
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
- - --
4
it is n o
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
alternative. ~ a i =e m p h a s i s is b e i n q - l a c e d
- 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.
(1) , . . Findings of fact, if set forth in
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 pro-
posed 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. This argu-

ment exalts form over substance. 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 pro-

posed 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 find-
ings 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 ade-
q 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 . These
conclusions 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:
a i ) t h e environmental impact o f t h e proposed
(
facility;
" ( 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 pro-
j 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 .
- a t t o r n e y was a s k e d ------ i n l e t -
The - to q u i t h i s post
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 environmen-
t 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' opposi-
t 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
TA

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. 35, 95

S.Ct. 1 4 5 6 , 43 L.Ed.21 712, 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
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 . I t is
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 con-
d u c t of t h e i r h e a r i n g s . " S t a t e e x r e l . F i s h v.
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
-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 error-
f a l t o see h e
reach d - f at
d ffe e
e ee
ould be
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
cerned.
-
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 con-
sF---
( 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 him-

s e l f a s hearings o f f i c e r with Andriolo being s u b s t i t u t e d f o r

him. 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 sub-

m 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
75-20-220(9).
."Section

"75-20-301. decisionof board--findings necessary
for certification. (1) W i t h i n 6 0 d a y s after
s u b m r s s l o n o f t h e recommended d e c i s i o n by t h e
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 complete
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 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 to
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 exa-

m 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-exam-
i 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--
duties. (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
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
t o have been f i l e d on J u n e 6 , 1 9 7 4 .
. . .. .
b e deemed
[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. 1 9 7 5 L a w s , Ch. 494,

25. 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 ? Is
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$ T h a t is
correct..
"HEARINGS EXAMINER: And how a b o u t you, J i m ? Is
t h a t a g r e e a b l e to you?
"MR. MOORE [ 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] :
Yes.
 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 :
R H E A R I N G S EXAMINER: 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 ."
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 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 .
Affirmed.

~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 75-
1-201, 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 compati-
bility 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 environ-
mental 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 75-20-
216(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. A 161 KV line has a carrying capacity of 200
megawatts. The Department's draft environmental impact
statements accept Montana Power Company's load growth projec-
tions 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. Such an analysis
is critical. 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

- be needed.
not 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 omis-
sions, its impact statement should be consi-
dered sufficient because 'at every step of
the way, from preauthorization studies
through detailed project planning, which in-
cludes recent environmental and mitigation
studies, the voices of fish and wildlife in-
terests have been heard, considered and report-
ed 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 alterna-
tives. '

"A statement which includes a detailed discus-
sion of all reasonable alternatives to a pro-
posed 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 al-
ternatives 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.
k
I reqister a strenuous dissent.
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 environ-

mental impact statement so glaringly deficient.