Case Title: MONT BOARD OF NAT RESOURCES v MO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12889 IN T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F MONTANA M O N T A N A BOARD OF N A T U R A L RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and JOSEPH W. SABOL, Chairman, OWEN E. SOWERWINE, DR. WILSON F. CLARK, DEAN HANSON, RILEY OSTBY, CECIL WEEDXNG and DAVID G. DRUM, a s Members of the BOARD O F N A T U R A L RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and the M O N T A N A DEPARTMENT O F NAUTRAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and GARY J. WICKS, DIRECTOR O F T H E M O N T A N A DEPARTMENT O F N A T U R A L RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, T H E M O N T A N A P O W E R C O M P A N Y , a Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, Honorable P e t e r Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Doney, MacIntyre and Chronister, Helena, Montana Donald D. MacIntyre argued, Helena, Montana Robert T. Cummins argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Thomas Kelly argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana William Coldiron appeared and John Carl appeared, Butte, Montana Submitted: December 4, 1974 Decided : MR 3 1 196 F i l e d : @RR 9 1 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This i s an appeal by the Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County. The presiding judge Honorable Peter G. Meloy held t h e Montana Power Company exempt from section 70-811 (3), R. C.M. 1947. This matter was f i r s t before t h i s Court i n an o r i g i n a l pro- ceeding, Montana Board of Natural Resources v. The Montana Power Co., 31 St.Rep.930. The Board of Natural Resources and Conservation (hereinafter referred t o a s the Board) found t h a t t h e Montana Power Company (hereinafter referred t o a s t h e Power Company) must obtain a c e r t i - f i c a t e under the provisions of the Montana U t i l i t y Siting Act of 1973, sections 70-801 through 70-823, R.C.M. 1947, t o construct a transmission l i n e from Billings t o Great Falls,Montana. The Board f i r s t went t o the d i s t r i c t court and obtained a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order enjoining the Power Company from constructing t h e l i n e . The t r i a l court found t h e Power Company had commenced construction be- fore January 1, 1973, and entered judgmnt f o r the Power Company declaring it exempt from the provisions of section 70-811(3), R.C.M. 1947, and no c e r t i f i c a t e was required. That r u l i n g was appealed t o t h i s Court asking t h a t t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order be reinstated. After hearing, t h i s Court denied t h a t request. The Board now appeals from the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court declaring the Power Company exempt from section 70-811(3) and seeks a declaration by t h i s Court t h a t a c e r t i f i c a t e of environmental compatibility and public need i s required. The sole issue on appeal i s whether t h e Billings-Great F a l l s 230 KV u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y was under construction on January 1, 1973. The Power Company i s engaged i n the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of e l e c t r i c a l energy i n Montana. A t a hearing before the t r i a l court it was established by uncontradicted evidence t h a t f o r much of the period of i t s existence it has r e l i e d e n t i r e l y upon water power f o r the generation of i t s e l e c t r i c i t y and only i n recent years has the Power Company turned t o other forms of power generation. Because of the rapid increase i n demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y i n i t s service area i n recent years and the problems caused by low water and severe winter freezing t h a t have a r i s e n because of i t s dependence upon water power, the Power Company was faced with brown-out conditions unless improvements were made. For example: In the Billings service area there was a 69% increase i n demand from 1969 t o 1972; i n the Great F a l l s service area a 43% increase; and i n the Butte-Helena service area a 19% increase. It was obvious i n the l a t e 1960s t h a t the demands of the Power Company's customers were s t r a i n i n g the capacity of i t s e x i s t i n g transmission l i n e s and t h a t the future demands would be greater than the Company could handle on i t s exist- ing l i n e s . To meet t h i s increasing demand, the Power Company began building a 230 KV transmission l i n e loop, which when finished would encircle Butte, Anaconda, Helena, Great F a l l s and Billings and towns ser- viced within t h a t loop. I n addition, the Power Company b u i l t a steam production plant i n Billings and i s i n the process of completing two energy production plants i n Colstrip, Montana, which a r e due t o go i n t o production i n the years 1975 and 1976. One of the principal reasons f o r the construction of the loop i s t o be able t o rapidly t r a n s f e r energy t o where it i s needed and thus have a constant available source regardless of weather o r other factors. A s a f i n a l part of the completion of the loop, the Power Company i n 1968-69 constructed 18 s t e e l towers (about three miles), running north from the Corette Generating Plant i n Billings t o the v i c i n i t y of Alkali Creek. Tower No. 18 was t o serve a s a junction t o the l i n e going north t o Great F a l l s and the l i n e going west t o Butte- Anaconda. From tower No. 18 t o Great F a l l s it i s approximately 180 miles and since the completion of tower No. 18 i n 1969 the Power Company has acquired some 117 miles of right-of-way and i s involved i n , o r has completed, several condemnation actions f o r the remainder. In addition, a number of administrative matters have occurred concerning the l i n e . Cost estimates have been made f o r budgetary purposes; some of the wooden poles, known a s "H Structures",have been ordered and many have been delivered t o specified s i t e s ; insulators have been ordered and delivered; an engineering firm, referred t o a s MAIN-STR was hired and has made an environmental impact study of the area between Great F a l l s and Billings and has made a report on a preferred route; and, contracts were l e t i n e a r l y 1974 t o the Montana Line Contractors Association f o r t h e sum of $1,600,000 t o f i n i s h t h e l i n e , In 1973, the 43rd l e g i s l a t u r e passed what i s known a s the Montana' U t i l i t y Siting Act, e f f e c t i v e March 16, 1973, t o be adminis- tered by the Board. Shortly a f t e r the passage of the Act o f f i c i a l s of the Power Company met with the Board t o discuss how the Act would a f f e c t a number of i t s projects and t o a l s o give t h e Board a long range construction plan of the Power Company. A t t h i s meeting, held March 16, 1973, t h e Power Company gave the Board a memorandum which purported t o specify the projects t h a t it had under construc- t i o n and those t h a t it i n t m d d t o apply f o r c e r t i f i c a t e s f o r , under the new Act. The Billings-Great F a l l s 230 KV l i n e was not l i s t e d a s under construction but was l i s t e d a s a project f o r which a c e r t i f i c a t e would be applied for. O n May 11, 1973, t h e Power Company applied f o r such a c e r t i f i c a t e and paid an application fee of $90,250 a s an estimate on the t o t a l cost of $7,025,000. The cost t o build the 18 towers, a sum of $300,000, was not included. As a r e s u l t of the f i l i n g f o r the c e r t i f i c a t e the Board began i t s environmental studies, but a s of the time of the f i l i n g of t h i s cause the c e r t i - f i c a t e had neither been granted nor denied. Approximately one year a f t e r f i l i n g i t s application f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e the Power Company determined t h e Billings-Great F a l l s l i n e c e r t i f i c a t e should not have been requested due t o the f a c t t h a t under the Siting Act t h a t l i n e was under construction p r i o r t o January 1, 1973. The Board argues the Power Company i s estopped, even though the project was under construction prior t o January 1, 1973, by reason of having represented t o the Board t h a t the l i n e was not under construction a s of January 1, 1973, and therefore, having applied and paid the f e e f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e , the Board i n r e l i a n c e upon t h a t representation by the Power Company acted t o i t s detriment. The Board further argues t h i s Court should i n t e r p r e t sections 70-804 and 70-811(3), R.C.M. 1947, t o require a c e r t i f i c a t e f o r the Great Falls-Billings f a c i l i t y . The two sections of t h e Siting Act involved provide i n per- t i n e n t p a r t : "70-804, R.C.M. 1947. N o person s h a l l commence t o construct a u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y i n the s t a t e without f i r s t having obtained a c e r t i f i c a t e issued with respect t o such f a c i l i t y by the board. * * A-" "70-811 (3), R. C.M. 1947. * * A c e r t i f i c a t e i s not required under t h i s a c t f o r f a c i l i t i e s under construc- t i o n o r i n operation on January 1, 1973. However, a c e r t i f i c a t e must be obtained f o r associated f a c i l i t i e s upon which construction has not commenced before January 1, 1973 * * *.If Before discussing the two s t a t u t e s we note t h a t p r i o r t o t h i s three d i s t r i c t judges have rejected t h e interpretation urged by the Board. Our task i s t o construe what the l e g i s l a t u r e intended by the words " f a c i l i t i e s under construction * * * on January 1, 1973" a s they appear i n section 70-811(3), R.C.M. 1947. This Court has long established s e t r u l e s of construction t o be followed i n ascertaining and interpreting l e g i s l a t i v e purpose and i n t e n t . In 1921, i n Wilkinson v. La Combe, 59 Mont. 518, 522, 197 P. 836, t h i s Court held: "Of two admissible constructions, the courts a r e never j u s t i f i e d i n adopting the one which defeats the manifest object of the s t a t u t e involved ik * *." In 1948, i n S t a t e Board of Equalization v. Cole, 122 Mont. 9, 20, 195 P.2d 989, the Court said: "Statutes 'should be so construed a s t o give a sensible and i n t e l l i g e n t meaning t o every part and avoid absurd and unjust consequences. Section 516, ~ e w i s ' Sutherland Stat.Const.(Zd ~ d . ) ' State v. Redmond, 73 Mont. 376, 380, 237 Pac. 486, 488." In r e 3 s t a t e a f Aarans, 143 idont. 388, 395, 390 P.2d 443 ( L 3 6 4 ) , t h e Court s a i d : It* * ; c I n s h o r t , we do not impute t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e the i n t e n t t o give and take away i n one s t a t u t o r y pronouncement . 'ice ~ X s o : Helena Valley I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t v. S t a t e Highway Comm'n, L j O Mont. 192, 433 P.2d 791 (1967); S t a t e v. Holmes, 114 Mont. 372, 3 1 6 , 136 P.2d 220 (1943). 11 The very reading of s e c t i o n 70-811(3), A c e r t i f i c a t e i s n o t required under t h e a c t f o r f a c i l i t i e s under construction o r i n aperation on January 1, 1973." i n d i c a t e s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e was aware chat on some construction p r o j e c t s work was underway and t h i s work begun before January 1,*1973 w a s t o be excluded o r exempt. Here, t h e r e i s no dispute t h a t work had been done i n 1968 on t h e heginning of t h e Billings-Great F a l l s l i n e ; 18 towers were b u i l t from t h e point of power generation t o a point some 3 miles t o t h e north. I n 1969, the s t e e l s t a t i c w i r e , a p a r t of t h e l i n e , was laced on t h e 18 towers. Other a c t s followed which a r e considered 11 c o n s t r u ~ t i o n ~ ~ such a s t h e ordering of t h e H poles, a very special item t h a t takes considerable time t o obtain and which comes from several r a t h e r than one bidder; the stockpiling of t h e poles near the construction s i t e s ; t h e budgeting f o r and obtaining of wire; the purchase of much of t h e right-of-way; and, the l e t t i n g of t h e 3nvironmental study contract. While t h e obtaining of "right-of-way1' by condemnation a c t i o n was ~ i o t a f a c t o r t o be considered i n determining t h e " f a c i l i t i e s under construction" i t i s of i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e 1974 l e g i s l a t u r e amended s e c t i o n 70-803, R.C.M. 1947, t o include a d e f i n i t i o n of I f i-he phrase commence t o construct". Subsection (5)(a) of t h a t jection provides: I I any c l e a r i n g of land, excavation, construction, o r o t h e r a c t i o n t h a t would a f f e c t t h e environment of t h e s i t e o r coute of a u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y , b u t do not include changes needed f o r temporary use of s i t e s o r r o u t e s f o r n o n u t i l i t y , ~ u r p o s e s , o r uses i n securing geological d a t a , including necessarv borings t o a s c e r t a i n foundation conditions. - The words do include the commencement of eminent domain pro- zeedings under T i t l e 93, chapter 99, R.C.M. 194/, f o r land o r r i g h t s of way upon which a u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y may be con- ;tructed. " (Emphasis supplied). The Board argues t h a t the word "construction" i s not defined i n the Act a s passed, therefore, the Court must look t o the r e s t r i c - tions placed on the word o r phrase t o ascertain the i n t e n t of the O l e g i s l a t u r e a s the the word "construction". Further, t h a t we must I/ carefully look to modifying words and the general l e g i s l a t i v e s e t t i n g i n which the word and the modifying words appear. It f u r t h e r argues t h a t t h e phrasing of section 70-811(3), R.C.M. 1947, i s narrow and r e s t r i c t i v e , t h a t is, t h a t the f a c i l i t y must be under construction on January 1, 1973. The Board further argues t h a t a l l the condemnation actions f i l e d by the Power Company were i n s t i t u t e d p r i o r t o the 1974 amendment t o section 70-$03 and it i s not applicable here; and t h a t we must look t o the law a s i t stood a t t h e time the eminent domain proceedings were i n s t i t u t e d . W e agree. Here, land was cleared, excavation and construction of t h e 18 towers affecting t h e environment of the s i t e and route had begun. W e find there was a commencement of construction p r i o r t o January 1, 1973. W e do not find, a s t h e Board argues, t h a t the f i l i n g of the application and paying the $90,250 f i l i n g f e e puts the Power Company i n such an inconsistent position a s t o bring the case within the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In e f f e c t , what t h e Board argues i s t h a t f a i l u r e of the Power Company t o l i s t the Billings-Great F a l l s l i n e a s one under construction and i n requesting a c e r t i f i c a t e , the Power company's l a t e r position t h a t the project was under construction gave j u r i s d i c t i o n to the Board t o a c t . Not so! J u r i s - diction cannot be acquired by estoppel. 73 C.J.S., Public Adminis- t r a t i v e Bodies and Procedure 5 116, p. 435: "A public administrative body has such adjudicatory jurisdiction a s i s conferred on it by s t a t u t e . It may not acquire j u r i s d i c t i o n by estoppel o r consent, and, where i t a c t s without jurisdiction, i t s orders a r e void. 9 : 9 : +c" See: 2 Am Jur 2d Administrative Law, 5 331, p. 152; Grubb v. Public U t i l i t i e s Commission of Ohio, 50 Sup.Ct. 374, 281 U.S. ( , - $ 7 0 , 74 L ed. 972; ~ ~ r i n g f - i e k d tommunity School Dist. v. Lowa 3 e p t . of Pub. I n s t . , 252 Iowa 907, 109 N.W.2d 213; Rosenberry v. i i l l a n Bros., 130 Pa.Super. 469, 197 A. 523. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. I Justice. C W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e