Court Opinion

ID: 9714128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:31:23.80577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:23.658690
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.
dissenting:
I dissent because, in my opinion, the majority of the Court has construed too narrowly the words “begin construction. . .of a generating station” in the Act of 1968, Ch. 498, now Art. 78, § 54A of the Maryland Code, effective July 1, 1968, and has applied inappropriate criteria in reaching that narrow construction, thus misconstruing the legislative intent in regard to the applicability of § 54A.
*425It is apparent that the word “construction” has a broad and varied meaning. In Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd ed. 1949), p. 572, the noun “construction” is defined as having six general groups of meanings, two of which are relevant here:
“1. Process or art of constructing; act of building ; erection; act of devising and forming; fabrication ; composition; also a thing construed; a structure.”
❖ * *
“3. Form or manner of building or putting together the parts of anything; structure; arrangement.”
It is interesting to observe that in 8A Words and Phrases, Permanent Ed., 1951, under the heading “Construct; Construction” there are 16 pages (pp. 471-486) of annotations of cases construing these words in various factual situations.
The word “station” is also a word of broad meaning. It has some 16 general groups of meaning. See Webster’s, op. cit., p. 2462. The fourth meaning is:
“4. The spot or place where anything stands, especially where a person or thing habitually stands, comes to a stand or is appointed to remain for a time; * * *”
Courts have held that the word “station” when used in reference to railway “stations”, not only includes the building used by the patrons of the railway, but also the railway yards or ground adjacent to the buildings. See Hall v. Chicago B. & N. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 439, 49 N. W. 239 (1891) and Morisette v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 76 Vt. 267, 56 A. 1102 (1904).
In some statutes, the word “construction” or the words “beginning of construction” are defined in the statutes themselves, thus relieving the Courts of the obligation to ascertain in what sense these words are used. See, for example, the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1701 q. *426(d) (7) defining “construction” as the “erection of new structures or rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, or improvement of existing structures”; 12 U.S.C. § 1749 c (g) in regard to Educational Institutions, with the same definition as set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 1701 q. (d) (7), supra,; 38 U.S.C. § 5031 (c) in regard to Nursing Facilities with the definition that “construction” means “the construction of new buildings, the expansion, remodeling, modification, or alteration of existing buildings, and the providing of initial equipment for any such buildings”; 42 U.S.C. § 292 a (2) in regard to the Public Health Service, that “[t]he terms ‘construction’ and ‘cost of construction’ include (A) the construction of new buildings and the expansion, remodeling and alteration of existing buildings, including architects’ fees, but not including cost, of acquisition of land or offsite improvements, and (B) equipping new buildings and existing buildings, whether or not expanded, remodeled or altered”; 42 U.S.C. § 295 (e) in regard to Research Facilities, containing the identical definition set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 292 a (2), supra, and in the regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission, 10 C.F.R. § 50.10 (b) where the term “construction”' shall be “deemed to include pouring the foundation for, or the installation of, any portion of the permanent facility on the site; but does not include :
“1) Site exploration, site excavation, preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including the driving of piles, and construction of roadways, railroad spurs and transmission lines;
“2) Procurement or manufacture of components of the facility;
“3) Construction of non-nuclear facilities (such as turbo-generators and turbine buildings) and temporary buildings (such as construction equipment storage sheds) for use in connection with the construction of the facility; and
*427“4) With respect to production or utilization facilities, other than testing facilities, required to be licensed pursuant to section 104 a. or section 104 c. of the Act, the construction of buildings which will be used for activities other than operation of a facility and which may also be used to house a facility. (For example, the construction of a college laboratory building with space for installation of a training reactor is not affected by this paragraph.) ”
(All emphasis supplied.)
It is significant, I think, in seeking to ascertain the legislative intent that the General Assembly did not place in the statute a definitive and restrictive definition of the words “begin construction. . .of a generating station.” This is particularly significant in the light of the fact that such a definitive and restrictive definition toas contained in the regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission, as we have seen, these regulations having been promulgated on September 9, 1960, long before the passage of the Act of 1968, Ch. 493. By not using a definition which restricts the meaning of “begin construction” of a facility on the site, I conclude—contrary to the suggestion in the majority opinion—-that the General Assembly did not intend the words “begin construction. . .of a generating station” to have a restricted meaning.
To arrive at the legislative intent in the use of the general word “construction,” with the many meanings that may be attributed to that word, one must look carefully at any modifying words and the general legislative setting in which the word and the modifying words appear. It is significant to me that nowhere in § 54A does the General Assembly use the word “building” or “structure.” It did not say “begin the construction of ‘any building or structure to be used in connection with’ a generating station,” so that I conclude that it intended to use the phrase “construction. . .of a generating station” in its broad, sweeping meaning and not in a narrow, restricted meaning confined to a building or structure at the *428site of the generating station. Indeed, as has been already observed, the word “station” in one of its generally accepted meanings refers to the site or place on which a “thing,” e.g. a building or structure, stands. The use of this word, in itself, excludes the notion that the construction is limited to a building or structure. Then, too, the word “generating” with the word “station” indicates a broad and comprehensive meaning for the word “construction.” These words include the steam engines, generating dynamos and indeed all of the real property, fixtures and personal property used in connection with the generation of electricity; and, all of these elements make up a “generating station.” See Todd v. McCloy, 196 Ark. 832, 120 S.W.2d 160 (1938); Fisher Elec. Co. v. Bath Iron Works, 116 Mich. 293, 74 N. W. 493 (1898); and John A. Roebling’s Sons Co. v. Humboldt Elec. L. & P. Co., 112 Cal. 288, 44 P. 568 (1896).
In short, as I see it, the “beginning of construction” of a “building or structure” is quite different indeed from the “beginning of construction” of a “generating station,” and the majority, in my opinion, has applied a narrow and limited meaning to the words contrary to the broad and inclusive meaning intended by the General Assembly.
I do not challenge or impugn in any way our holdings and those of our predecessors, as well as holdings of the highest Courts of our sister States, in the cases cited in the majority opinion in the various mechanics’ lien cases and zoning cases. Those holdings, in my opinion, simply do not apply to the language involved in the instant case. Those decisions had to do with the beginning of construction of “buildings” and “structures” used in statutes having quite different purposes than those involved in § 54A. In the mechanics’ lien and zoning cases, the “construction” concept was concerned only with buildings and structures. The purpose of the applicable statutes in those cases was to insure that there had been a definite commitment to the erection of that particular building or structure and that the public would be put on notice by *429the overt act of construction of the building or structure on the site. Not only must there be a bona fide intention to begin and complete the building or structure, but the overt act at the site must indicate a commitment to complete that particular building or structure. Where a building is involved, the mere incidental grading of the site, the removal of trees, etc., is not a commitment to erect that particular building, but these activities could be equally useful for some other purpose or activity. Hence, the requirement that the foundation of that building be begun to evidence to the public the bona fide intention to complete that building. How different is the situation in the present case!
The evidence before the Public Service Commission (the Commission) and its findings indicate that there is no challenge to the good faith of the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (Company) in beginning construction of a generating station at the Calvert Cliffs site. Indeed, as the majority opinion points out, this is not challenged in the instant case. The Company’s commitment (as distinguished from any preliminary negotiations, ideas or plans) to constructing a generating station at Calvert Cliffs was established on December 23, 1966, when the Company agreed to purchase for $25,000,000 from the General Electric Company a turbine generator for Unit No. 1. This was some 18 months prior to the effective date of § 54A. On May 18, 1967, the Company and Combustion Engineering, Inc. signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the construction and fabrication of the nuclear steam supply system. On May 26, 1967, the Company received delivery of a deed to the site, the Company necessarily having had to purchase the generators substantially in advance of their projected delivery to the site because of the long time required for their manufacture.
Most importantly, the Company made its first public announcement of its intention to construct its two unit Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant on May 29, 1967. Immediately following this public announcement, the Com*430pany began preliminary physical operations at the site by drilling core borings to be used in the design of the foundation of the Plant.
On June 26, 1967, the Company placed its order for its Unit No. 2 generator from the Westinghouse Electric Company at a cost of some $25,000,000. This generator and the one already purchased from General Electric Company were specifically designed to complement the nuclear steam supply system previously purchased from Combustion Engineering, Inc. and could only be reasonably used at the Calvert Cliffs site.
Bechtel Corporation was engaged on July 31, 1967, as the general contractor for the Company with responsibility for the engineering and construction of the Nuclear Power Plant. Dames & Moore were employed by the Company in August of 1967 to make seismological studies at the Calvert Cliffs site to determine the suitability of the ■site for a nuclear power plant with particular reference to the ability of the land to withstand earthquakes.
Also prior to July 1, 1968, when § 54A became effective, the Company had begun to make monthly progress payments to Combustion Engineering, Inc., and by July 1, 1968, had paid that corporation in excess of $4,000,000 for the completion of approximately 20% of the engineering necessary for the nuclear steam supply system and for such fabrication and assembly of supporting Unit No. 1 as had been completed. In December 1967, Bechtel — the general contractor—had prepared a bar chart scheduling excavation at the site for June 1968. A master flow chart in February 1968 had estimated that excavation would commence on or about June 1, 1968. On January '26,1968, the Company filed with the Atomic Energy Commission an application for a construction permit and operating license which was accompanied by the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report indicating that the plant design had so progressed as to proceed with actual physical work on the plant site.
As early as February 1968, three lumber companies undertook selective tree cutting on the site and in April 1968 *431C. J. Langenfelder & Sons, Inc. (Langenfelder) began mass clearing and grubbing activities at the site. Bechtel first proposed that excavation begin on May 28, 1968, orally contracted for it with Langenfelder on May 31 and confirmed the agreement by letter on June 3, 1968. Langenfelder began excavation on June 6,1968.
The agreement with Langenfelder in regard to excavation was formalized on June 10, 1968, by a written contract which would require ultimately “unclassified excavation” of in excess of 1,500,000 cubic yards of earth down to an elevation of Plus 1; such excavation has been defined as “easily removed material.” In accordance with this contract, Langenfelder removed 104,000 cubic yards of earth at the site for which Bechtel was billed $100,000. This excavation was for the purpose of establishing the level on which the nuclear reactor vessel foundations were to be constructed and excavation continued without interruption until it was completed near the end of 1968.
Subsequent to July 3, 1968, i.e. on July 17, 1968, the Company filed—as required by the Commission’s regulations—-a report written within a month after the beginning of construction, which indicated that the construction period would be from June 1968 to December 1974. The work on the site and plant has continued without interruption since June 6,1968.
Fred Stern, Project Manager of the Calvert Cliffs project for Combustion Engineering, Inc., testified that Combustion began work on the nuclear steam supply system in June 1967 and the work had continued to the time of the hearing before the Commission. Mr. Stern is a well qualified expert in his field, having received a Bachelor’s Degree of Mechanical Engineering from City College of New York in 1956 and a Master’s Degree in Nuclear Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1960. He testified that all of the major items of materials for the two units had been ordered prior to July 1, 1968. The following testimony was given by Mr. Stern on cross-examination by People’s Counsel:
“Q. Now, this same system that you design *432could have been placed in New York or North Carolina, could it ? A. No, sir, not quite. A similar steam could and is, not the same one. There are always the particular requirements for a site and for a utility which go into the detail design of a piece of equipment like that.
“Q. Depending upon how much electricity you want to generate, is that right? A. No, not how much electricity you want to generate, necessarily, but for example, each site has a particular set of seismic requirements. So, you would have to design your structural steel in accordance with those seismic requirements, or a particular utility—”
In its opinion in this case, the Commission stated, in part, the following:
“It is perfectly clear that the Company has been proceeding with the construction of this station with all deliberate speed and under a time table that has required it to order certain component parts six to eight years in advance of the actual date on which the station will become operational, to begin physical activities at the site including among other things excavation work, core boring, clearing and grubbing, that occurred prior to July 1,1968, and that the combination of the outside fabrication and the physical work performed at the site prior to July 1, 1968, coupled with a demonstrated continuation of this work, is construction within the meaning of the term ‘begin the construction’ in Section 54A.
“Moreover, the Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by this Commission for electric companies, which has been in effect for many years, requires electric companies to include in Account 321, Structures and Improvements for nuclear production, a Balance Sheet Account, the cost *433of excavation including shoring, bracing, bridging, refill and disposal of excess excavated material as well as the grading and clearing when directly occasioned by the building of a structure. Accordingly, from the viewpoint of accounting treatment the clearing and excavation performed during the month of June 1968 at the site of the plant constitutes a part of the structure and improvements of the facility.
“Accordingly, it is the opinion and finding of the Commission after a full consideration of all the evidence in this case, and the review of the briefs and oral argument of counsel, that the beginning of fabrication of the major component parts of the generating station and the excavation and other physical activity at the site, coupled with the preparation and development of complete plans and entering into a contract with the general contractor and a substantial amount of performance under that contract by the general contractor, constituted the beginning of construction prior to July 1,1968, within the meaning of Section 54A of The Public Service Commission Law; and, accordingly, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is not required to appty to this Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under Section 54A of The Public Service Commission Law for the construction of its nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs, Calvert County, Maryland.”
Judge Melvin, in affirming the Commission’s order dismissing the petition of People’s Counsel, filed a carefully considered opinion in which he stated:
“[I]t is the court’s opinion that the Commission applied the correct legal test and that its order of July 31, 1969, was not clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.”
*434As has been pointed out, the definition of “construction” -may include “fabrication” so that the large contracts for -the various units, etc., already mentioned, on which fabrication had begun for facilities for the generating station would bring the activity of the company within that "broad definition. But there is much more. If notice to the -public is one of the elements to be considered, the Company made a public announcement of its intention to pro-need with the construction of a generating station at the Calvert Cliffs site on May 29, 1967, some 13 months prior -to the effective date of § 54A—July 1, 1968. Commitment to the project is an element for consideration. There can "be little doubt from the facts above recited that the Com-pany was irrevocably committed to the construction of a .generating station at the Calvert Cliffs site well in advance of July 1, 1968. If overt acts at the site are required, the evidence indicates that they too occurred. There were removal of trees, mass clearing, grubbing and the excavation of a very large amount of soil—104,000 ■cubic yards—done for the explicit purpose of establishing the level on which the nuclear reactor vessel foundations were to be laid. If continued and uninterrupted work on 'the project be required, this also has occurred.
In Slapnicka v. City of Cedar Rapids, 258 Iowa 382, 139 N.W.2d 179 (1965), preliminary engineering services consisting of studies, designs, traffic data, soil tests, ■estimates for the right-of-ways and construction costs -were held to be road construction expenses and thus pay.able from a tax fund limited solely for the construction of roads.
I do not understand that the Company “really relied ■ only on the moving of the earth to level the site as the ■ evidence of the beginning of construction,” as the majority states. On the contrary, as I understand it, the -Company’s position is that all of the preliminary steps ..already mentioned including the moving of the earth evidence the “beginning of construction. . .of a generating ¡.-station,” as these words were intended to mean by the ■General Assembly as already indicated. In my opinion, *435this position is correct. Many of the acts prior to the excavation work are evidence of the beginning of such construction and firmly committed the Company to the construction of a generating station at the site as all concede was its bona fide intention to do and this intention has been, and continues to be, carried out.
In summary, all of the elements required for the beginning of construction of a generating station were present and found by the Commission to have been present prior to July 1, 1968, the effective date of § 54A, within the broad and inclusive language used by the General Assembly. The Commission is by its very nature and by its particular relationship to the legislation in question especially qualified to aid the Courts in the discovery of the legislative intent. Its contemporary construction of the legislation is entitled to great weight by us if it be thought that the language is ambiguous, which I do not consider it to be. Department of Tidewater Fisheries v. Sellers, 201 Md. 603, 615, 95 A. 2d 306, 311 (1953). See Department of Motor Vehicles v. Greyhound Corp., 247 Md. 662, 669, 234 A. 2d 255, 258 (1967).
The majority, in my opinion, has placed this Court in the curious position of forcing jurisdiction upon a regulatory Commission which the Commission itself abjures. This is novel, to say the least.
I would affirm.
I am authorized to state that Judge McWilliams concurs in the views herein expressed.
ON MOTION FOE CLAEIFICATION
Per Curiam.
The Company has filed a motion that the Court “clarify” the opinion filed herein October 23, 1970, holding that construction of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Generating Station had not begun on July 1, 1968, and remanding the case to the Commission for further proceedings. The Commission then moved that the Court rule as soon as possible upon the Company’s motion so that it would be known whether the Commission must order that further construction of the generating station cease until the Commission has determined whether a permit should *436or should not be issued under § 54A of Art. 78 of the Code.
The question of whether further construction must or should cease if this Court should decide that construction had not begun by July 1, 1968 was not presented to or decided by the lower court and was not argued, in the briefs or orally, or otherwise presented to this Court for decision, and was not decided by us. There is nothing in the opinion or mandate that requires expressly or by implication that construction must or should halt, or that it can or should continue.
This Court does not give advisory opinions and will not undertake to tell either the Commission or the Company what to do or not to do except to the extent that the record requires or makes it appropriate to do so. The Commission should hold the hearing and make the determinations specified by § 54A of Art. 78 as soon as reasonably possible and the Company should facilitate the fastest progress reasonable under the circumstances.
When the Company originally determined on its own that it did not need a permit from the Commission to begin and to continue construction of the generating station, it proceeded at the risk that the determination might eventually be judicially held to have been wrong, and at the further risk that a permit might never be granted or be granted so as to require modification of the plans for the station. These risks continued after the Company persuaded the Commission to rule that the Company’s original determination that no permit was needed was correct, since the Commission’s order was subject to reversal in the Courts. If construction is now continued, pending action by the Commission under § 54A, the risk that what has been constructed cannot be used as a generating station because no permit will be granted or a qualified permit issued is clearly on the Company. We offer no judicial estimate of what the proper odds should be that no permit be granted or that the permit issued will require modification of plans, suggesting only that it is up to the Company to make this forecast.