Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
354 F.2d 608 (1965)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Power Commission has an affirmative duty to consider non-economic factors, such as aesthetic and recreational values, and to investigate all feasible alternatives before licensing a project; furthermore, parties with a special interest in these conservation values have standing to seek judicial review even without personal economic injury.

Facts:

Consolidated Edison proposed constructing the world's largest pumped storage hydroelectric project at Storm King Mountain in the Hudson River Highlands, an area of unique scenic beauty and historical significance.
The project plan required a massive storage reservoir, a powerhouse, and overhead transmission lines running through 25 miles of scenic terrain in Westchester and Putnam Counties.
Conservationist organizations and local towns opposed the project, contending it would destroy the natural beauty of the gorge, inundate hiking trails, and damage the area's historical character.
An expert engineer, Alexander Lurkis, proposed using gas turbines within New York City as an alternative to the project, claiming this would meet power needs more cheaply while avoiding the environmental destruction of the mountain.
Fishery experts and government agencies raised concerns that the project's massive pumps would destroy eggs and larvae of striped bass, threatening the river's fishing industry.
Consolidated Edison estimated that placing transmission lines underground would cost significantly more than overhead lines, a claim the Commission accepted without independent investigation despite the aesthetic impact.

Procedural Posture:

Consolidated Edison applied to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for a license to construct the Storm King hydroelectric project.
Scenic Hudson and other petitioners sought to intervene in the FPC proceedings to present evidence on alternatives and environmental damage.
The FPC Examiner issued a report recommending the license, and the FPC subsequently issued orders granting the license to Consolidated Edison and denying motions to reopen hearings for new evidence.
The petitioners filed an application for rehearing with the FPC, which the Commission denied.
The petitioners filed a petition for review of the FPC's orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Power Commission have an affirmative statutory duty to compile a complete record considering environmental factors and alternative power sources, and do conservation organizations have standing to challenge licensing orders based on non-economic aesthetic and recreational interests?

Opinions:

Majority - Hays

Yes, the Commission failed its duty to protect the public interest, and the conservation groups have standing to sue. The Court first addressed standing, rejecting the argument that a party must suffer economic injury to be 'aggrieved' under the Federal Power Act. The Court reasoned that the Act explicitly requires the Commission to consider 'recreational purposes' in its comprehensive planning, which includes the preservation of natural beauty and historic sites. Therefore, those who exhibit a special interest in these values have a legal right to protect them. Regarding the license itself, the Court held that the Commission failed to discharge its affirmative duty to represent the public interest. The Commission cannot act merely as an umpire calling balls and strikes between private parties; it must actively ensure the record is complete. The Court found the Commission ignored relevant evidence regarding the feasibility of gas turbines as an alternative, failed to adequately investigate the costs of underground transmission lines, and did not sufficiently study the threat to fish populations. The licensing orders were set aside because the Commission did not fulfill its statutory planning function to consider the totality of the project's effects.

Analysis:

This is a seminal case in American environmental law, effectively establishing the doctrine of standing for environmental plaintiffs. Before this decision, standing was generally limited to parties suffering direct economic harm. By ruling that aesthetic, conservational, and recreational interests are sufficient to establish standing, the Second Circuit opened the door for citizen suits to protect the environment. Additionally, the case redefined the role of regulatory agencies, moving them from passive arbiters to active investigators responsible for weighing the public interest, including environmental impacts, against development needs. This judicial mandate for the consideration of alternatives foreshadowed the requirements later codified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"