7. Commission Analysis

We will receive as the official record in this proceeding the following:

Exhibit 1 - Application by MFNS

Exhibit 2 - Applicant's PEA

Exhibit 3 - Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June 2000

Exhibit 4 - Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated August 9, 2000

In view of the recommendations of our environmental staff, as well as Applicant's response to third party objections and comments filed in response to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, we will grant Applicant's request to modify its CPCN to include the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and to authorize the construction set forth in the Application.

We recognize that our Stop Work Order has effectively shut this project down for many months, with attendant financial loss to Applicant. We also recognize that Applicant has taken steps to mitigate environmental damage. Nevertheless, we believe that further consideration must be given to whether this Commission should levy fines or other sanctions against Applicant and its officers.¹³ Our concern is that carriers may not have adequate incentives to comply with the law if the only penalty they face for non-compliance is the possibility of delays in construction. These delays would have occurred in the early stages of the Project anyway if MFNS had complied with the law and submitted to environmental review and mitigation.

Accordingly, we will keep this proceeding open to investigate whether and the extent to which fines or other sanctions should be imposed on MFNS. We direct the assigned Administrative Law Judge to issue a ruling setting a second phase of this proceeding to consider penalties and other sanctions.