From a Char-O editorial:
"The Legislature could not have intended for companies to build a project, receive previously committed public grant money, and only then conduct the SEPA review of the project's potential environmental impact and proposed alternatives. An environmental review prepared after a project has been completed and begun operation would fail to meet the Act's stated purpose of informing the State's decision."
Exactly. The next question is: Why does it take a judge to explain something to our state officials that's already so glaringly obvious?