Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Action by Default

Text: First, BASF contends the Commission chose Variation 1 in the Amending Order simply because it determined that Variation 4 was unavailable due to the EDA's failure to provide the necessary easement. In doing so, the Commission, according to BASF, arrived at Variation 1 by default. BASF argues that the Commission stated that it met the requirements of the statute in a conclusory manner and failed to rely on any actual analysis to determine whether Variation 1 would in fact reasonably minimize the adverse impacts as required under Code § 56-46.1(B). The statute requires that the Commission determine that the variation reasonably minimizes adverse impacts. Code § 5646.1(B). In the context of this statute, the Court has 21 previously quoted Webster's New International Dictionary to define determine as to fix conclusively or authoritatively . . . to settle a question or controversy about . . . to come to a decision concerning as the result of the investigation or reasoning . . . to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities. Board of Supervisors v. Appalachian Power Co., 216 Va. 93, 103, 215 S.E.2d 918, 925 (1975) (emphasis added). Had the Amending Order provided merely a conclusory recitation of the statutory language, absent investigation or reasoning, BASF would undoubtedly have grounds for complaint. This, however, is not the record before us. The Amending Order includes factors considered by the Hearing Examiner in comparing Variation 1 to Variation 4.1, not Variation 4, indicating that the Commission indeed undertook a comparison between Variation 1 and the new route. The Commission expressly considered many of the same factors enumerated by the Hearing Examiner: [T]he Commission agrees . . . that Variation 1 will have less visual impact than Variation 4.1 on certain historic resources, including Carter's Grove. . . . Variation 1 would be located farther than Variations 4.1 and 4.2 from Carter's Grove and from other, more distant historic resources. On the other hand, an environmental advantage of Variations 4.1 and 4.2 is that these variations avoid certain environmental remediation areas on the BASF property which Variation 1 would cross. The Commission ultimately weighed these competing claims differently than the Hearing Examiner, granting visual impact 22 and construction schedule more relative weight. This is not error as a matter of law, however. The Commission clearly engaged in reasoning on the record evaluating relevant factors, and concluded that [b]ased on the record, the Commission finds that the Certificated Project using Variation 1 would reasonably minimize adverse impact to the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment of the project area.