Discussion
Because the PEA has never been deemed complete, A.07-10-005 has remained open for more than 17 months during which time no Commission action could take place. Environmental review cannot proceed on the application until the application is deemed complete. Substantial time and other resources have been expended by Staff, consultants, and interested parties in evaluating these incomplete documents. In addition, as the Project description has evolved, it appears that the Project has changed to include additional facilities not specifically set forth in the original application.
In deeming the supplemental PEA filed with A.09-02-012 as incomplete, several previously-identified deficiencies remain uncorrected. Most importantly, as Staff noted on March 12, "the Project description provided in the PEA lacks sufficient detail regarding critical project elements to allow a clear and comprehensive understanding of all aspects of the proposed Project." Without this detailed Project description, we cannot move forward with the environmental scoping process. Again, substantial time and other resources have been expended. We decline to continue to expend our resources on this particular application in efforts which have not led to fruitful results.5 Moreover, substantial amounts of money have been spent on these efforts.
As the assigned ALJ stated in her ruling of December 30, 2008, "[s]hould Staff determine that Nevada Hydro's amended application and PEA remain seriously deficient in the description of the Project such that environmental review cannot be reasonably initiated, the Administrative Law Judge shall respond with a proposed decision to dismiss the application without prejudice." We affirm that ruling here and we now dismiss A.09-02-012 and A.07-10-005 without prejudice. We recognize the potential benefits of this Project and urge Applicant to take the time and invest the necessary resources to ensure that any future applications brought before us are updated and complete and comply with all required statutes, rules, and General Orders.
Pursuant to Rule 2.5, Nevada Hydro paid a deposit of $714,000 to reimburse the Commission and its consultants for the expenses associated with environmental review. We direct Staff to refund any remaining monies from the deposit of $714,000, collected in October 2007.
5 We note that parties to this proceeding also must use resources to review the amended application and PEA carefully and determine whether and how to respond or intervene. For example, the California Unions for Reliable Energy filed a reply to the amended application on February 26, 2009.
