Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, Town of Cortlandt, Town of Putnam Valley and Town of Yorktown, Petitioners, v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Intervener

Court name: United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
Judge: Lumbard
Waterman
Hays
Reference number: 354 F.2d 608
Language: English
Subject: Energy
Keyword: Energy conservation/energy production Renewable energy Authorization/permit

Abstract: The Petitioners sought orders to set aside a license to construct a pumped storage hydroelectric project on the Hudson River. Under the Federal Power Act, in order to be licensed by the Federal Power Commission a prospective project had to meet the statutory test of being “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway.” The Commission therefore had to compare the project with available alternatives and only grant the application if no better adapted alternatives were available. The Court held that for the Commission to discharge its duty properly the record on which it based its decision had to be complete. In this case the Commission had failed to compile a record which was sufficient to support its decision. It had ignored relevant factors and failed to conduct a thorough study of the possible alternatives to the project. The Commission’s order was therefore set aside.
Full text: Jud.Dec.Nat.pre.pdf
Available in: UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 136