Opinion ID: 1284866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ambient Air Quality Standards

Text: Section 116C.61, subd. 3, states that [n]o site or route shall be designated which violates state agency regulations. Appellants contend that this section precludes the approval of the route because of the existence of the following factors: (1) The PCA has a regulation prohibiting the presence in the air of more than 0.07 parts per million of ozone for more than one hour per year. (2) Expert testimony was introduced that a segment of the area was once in violation of the regulation. (3) HVTLs emit some ozoneestimated to be, in some situations, .005 parts per million. Although the records suggest the possibility, urged by appellants, that MEQC confused the ambient air quality standard, which fixes the maximum permissible ambient air level of an air pollution agent, with source pollution standards, which fix the maximum permissible contribution to air pollution from any given pollution source, we do not think that the inaccurate expressions sometimes employed in the hearing transcripts should be taken as proof that MEQC overlooked a distinction so elementary and obvious. Rather, we believe that MEQC concluded that the level of source pollution of ozone that would be caused by the presence of the power line was so minimal, the likelihood that this contribution would increase the ambient air levels above permissible maximums was so remote, and the continuing authority of MEQC to prohibit source emissions was so extensive that denial of the permit on this ground would be unreasonable. We agree. We would like to emphasize, however, that in issuing the construction permit, MEQC was proceeding on the assumption that construction of the HVTL was justified by the evidence before it. To say that the utilities can install a power line is not to say that they are authorized to create conditions that might be damaging either to human or animal life or to vegetation in respects not presently anticipated. Thus, both MEQC and the utilities have an obligation to monitor the line [35] to ensure that if effects are produced that were not anticipated at the time the HVTL was approved, modifications will be introduced to protect the public interest. Moreover, because this HVTL was sought by the utilities, they, and not the public, should have to bear the risk that such modifications might be necessary.