VII. Comments on Proposed Decision

Under Rule 14.6(c)(9), the Commission may reduce time for comment on a proposed decision where public necessity so requires. The Commission may also reduce the comment period where all parties so stipulate pursuant to Rule 14.6(b). In this case, counsel for PacifiCorp and the Mackintoshes (one Homeowner) have so stipulated. The pro per Homeowners have not responded to the stipulation request. Thus, we must reduce the comment period based on public necessity. We agree that the First Project/Northern Portion is necessary, and are persuaded that in order to finish that project before the high demand period next summer, PacifiCorp must begin construction shortly. We therefore find that public necessity warrants a reduction in the comment period. Comments will be due on or before October 13, 2006, and no reply comments will be allowed.

PacifiCorp and the Mackintoshes filed comments. No reply comments were permitted, as the time for comments was reduced on the ground of public necessity.

PacifiCorp urges no changes to the Proposed Decision. The Mackintoshes 1) ask that the Commission require an Environmental Impact Report rather than an MND; 2) state that the record was left open to receive additional evidence and thus that it is premature to certify the MND; 3) state that public necessity does not necessitate a reduction of time for comments on the Proposed Decision; and 4) urge other, miscellaneous changes to the language of the Proposed Decision. We address each argument in turn.

A. Environmental Impact Report vs. Mitigated Negative Declaration

We do not believe that certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration is improper under the narrow circumstances presented here. We are only approving the Northern Portion of the route, north of the area in dispute among the parties. The MND does not analyze that Northern Portion separately from the rest of the proposed route, so it is essential to certify the MND to allow construction to begin on that portion. However, we are aware that hearings on the disputed portions of the route occurred October 5-6, 2006, and that the Commission will be issuing a subsequent decision on that portion. That decision may necessitate additional analysis of environmental impact along the portions of the route not addressed here.

None of the Mackintoshes' argument relates to the Northern Portion of the route. Indeed, in their comments, they concede that there "are no issues currently in dispute" as to the Northern Portion.¹⁵ Thus, we believe we may certify the MND without ruling out further consideration of routing and other issues when we take up whether and how PacifiCorp may take action with regard to the Southern Portion.

B. Whether Record Was Held Open, and Effect of Such Action

During the hearing regarding the Southern Portion, the Mackintoshes filed a motion asking to submit additional evidence into the record. That evidence would consist of soil data related to the Southern Portion of the route. The Administrative Law Judge did not rule on that motion, but ordered the parties to meet and confer first, and then, if necessary, to schedule a hearing.

The claim the Mackintoshes raise about the hearing record on the Southern Portion has nothing to do with whether this decision on the Northern Portion of the route is appropriate. Moreover, the motion is still pending. Therefore, the Mackintoshes' desire to submit additional soil data does not preclude approval of the Northern Portion of the line in this decision.

C. Public Necessity

The Proposed Decision finds that the Northern Portion is necessary, and that construction must begin before the winter 2006 rains for the first project to be completed before summer 2007. The Mackintoshes claim that information submitted during the October 5-6, 2006 hearing on the Southern Portion established that none of the line is needed. However, later in their comments, they urge that we change this Proposed Decision to state that there "are no issues currently in dispute" as to the Northern Portion. Thus, the Mackintoshes do not adequately rebut the Proposed Decision's finding that public necessity requires a reduced comment period.

D. Miscellaneous Wording Changes

Most of the wording changes would have us delay certification of the MND, and we reject those changes. As noted, we are only approving the Northern Portion, and nothing in this decision should be construed to have any impact on the Southern Portion. We do make other minor changes the Mackintoshes urge, as noted in the text of this decision.

¹⁵ Mackintosh comments at 6 (Appendix A).