75-20-201. Certificate required -- operation in conformance -- certificate for nuclear facility -- applicability to federal facilities. (1) Except for a facility under diligent onsite physical construction or in operation on January 1, 1973, a person may not commence to construct a facility in the state without first applying for and obtaining a certificate of compliance issued with respect to the facility by the department. (2) A facility with respect to which a certificate is issued may not be constructed, operated, or maintained except in conformity with the certificate and any terms, conditions, and modifications contained within the certification. (3) A certificate may only be issued pursuant to this chapter. (4) If the department decides to issue a certificate for a nuclear facility, it shall report the recommendation to the applicant and may not issue the certificate until the recommendation is approved by a majority of the voters in a statewide election called by initiative or referendum according to the laws of this state. (5) A person that proposes to construct an energy-related project that is not defined as a facility pursuant to 75-20-104(8) may petition the department to review the energy-related project under the provisions of this chapter. (6) This chapter applies, to the fullest extent allowed by federal law, to all federal facilities and to all facilities over which an agency of the federal government has jurisdiction. (7) All judicial challenges of certificates for projects with a project cost, as determined by the court, of more than $1 million must have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature pending in that court. If the court determines that the challenge was without merit or was for an improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to impose needless or increased cost in litigation, the court may award attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the action.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 327, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 494, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 70-804(1); amd. Sec. 3, I.M. 80, app. Nov. 7, 1978; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 167, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 329, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 217, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 361, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 337, L. 2005.
75-20-201. Certificate required -- operation in conformance -- certificate for nuclear facility -- applicability to federal facilities. (1) Except for a facility under diligent onsite physical construction or in operation on January 1, 1973, a person may not commence to construct a facility in the state without first applying for and obtaining a certificate of compliance issued with respect to the facility by the department. (2) A facility with respect to which a certificate is issued may not be constructed, operated, or maintained except in conformity with the certificate and any terms, conditions, and modifications contained within the certification. (3) A certificate may only be issued pursuant to this chapter. (4) If the department decides to issue a certificate for a nuclear facility, it shall report the recommendation to the applicant and may not issue the certificate until the recommendation is approved by a majority of the voters in a statewide election called by initiative or referendum according to the laws of this state. (5) A person that proposes to construct an energy-related project that is not defined as a facility pursuant to 75-20-104(8) may petition the department to review the energy-related project under the provisions of this chapter. (6) This chapter applies, to the fullest extent allowed by federal law, to all federal facilities and to all facilities over which an agency of the federal government has jurisdiction. (7) All judicial challenges of certificates for projects with a project cost, as determined by the court, of more than $1 million must have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature pending in that court. If the court determines that the challenge was without merit or was for an improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to impose needless or increased cost in litigation, the court may award attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the action.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 327, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 494, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 70-804(1); amd. Sec. 3, I.M. 80, app. Nov. 7, 1978; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 167, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 329, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 217, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 361, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 337, L. 2005.
75-20-201. Certificate required -- operation in conformance -- certificate for nuclear facility -- applicability to federal facilities. (1) Except for a facility under diligent onsite physical construction or in operation on January 1, 1973, a person may not commence to construct a facility in the state without first applying for and obtaining a certificate of compliance issued with respect to the facility by the department. (2) A facility with respect to which a certificate is issued may not be constructed, operated, or maintained except in conformity with the certificate and any terms, conditions, and modifications contained within the certification. (3) A certificate may only be issued pursuant to this chapter. (4) If the department decides to issue a certificate for a nuclear facility, it shall report the recommendation to the applicant and may not issue the certificate until the recommendation is approved by a majority of the voters in a statewide election called by initiative or referendum according to the laws of this state. (5) A person that proposes to construct an energy-related project that is not defined as a facility pursuant to 75-20-104(8) may petition the department to review the energy-related project under the provisions of this chapter. (6) This chapter applies, to the fullest extent allowed by federal law, to all federal facilities and to all facilities over which an agency of the federal government has jurisdiction. (7) All judicial challenges of certificates for projects with a project cost, as determined by the court, of more than $1 million must have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature pending in that court. If the court determines that the challenge was without merit or was for an improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to impose needless or increased cost in litigation, the court may award attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the action.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 327, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 494, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 70-804(1); amd. Sec. 3, I.M. 80, app. Nov. 7, 1978; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 167, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 329, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 217, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 361, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 337, L. 2005.
