| OCR Text |
Show an GREENE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N 413 Cite a s 455 F.2d 412 (1972) mission's process. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). Circuit Judge, held that by substi- ,g statement prepared by Power Au- *~:i'- v of s t a t e o f N e w Y o r k a s t o im &°rl y proposed pump storage power F*c. . o n environment, FPC abdicated ***** ificant part of its responsibility to * t ^ i n e such impact, and that objec- T -* to construction of pump storage pow- %l".-oject were not entitled to reimburse-lf, S t of their attorney fees and expenses 7\m state power agency which sought J^nse or FPC. petitions granted in part and denied « ••art, and case remanded. t Health and Environment ©='25.10 In considering granting of license for r u m P storage power project, Federal IVwer Commission may draft its environmental impact statement on basis of h.-irings but statement must be circuited by Commission for comment before iVrnmission reaches final decision. Na-j-. n;d Environmental Policy Act of 1969, i 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) ;C>; Federal Power Act, § 4(e), 16 I'S.CA. § 797(e). 2. Health and Environment <§=»25.10 Provision of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requiring govern-rn< -ntal agencies to make in connection with actions significantly affecting qual- ;•;•• of human environment a detailed statement, to use systematic, interdisciplinary approach in planning and to *tudy, develop, and describe alternatives to recommended courses of action where ; !•>>;tosal involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses, of available resources is mandate to agency to consider environmental values at every distinc- Uve and comprehensive stage of its proc- *-*-\ National Environmental Policy Act ' ' 1969, § 102(2), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2). 3 Hralth and Environment <§=>25.5 In determining whether to grant li- "rn-;e for pump storage power project, '' PC had primary and nondelegable re- *:--risibility for determining environmental impact of project at every dis-tiRclive and comprehensive stage of Com- 4. Health and Environment <£=>25.10 By substituting statement prepared by Power Authority of State of New York as to impact of proposed pump storage power project on environment, FPC abdicated a significant part of its responsibility to determine such impact. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332 (2) (C). 5e Health and Environment <§=25.10 Written testimony of FPC's staff could not substitute for single coherent and comprehensive environmental analysis required to be prepared by Commis-. sion in connection with granting license for pump storage power project. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). 6. Health and Environment <2=>25.10 By conducting hearings prior to preparation by its staff of Commission's own statement as to impact of pump storage power project on environment, FPC violated provisions of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). 7. Health and Environment <S=>25.10 FPC is not required to adopt position in environmental impact statement until record is completely developed and it is sufficient for purposes of NEPA if statement at decision making stage is prepared by Commission's staff on basis of staff's investigations. Federal Power Act, § 308, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825g; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(1), (2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(1), (2) (C); 5 U.S.C.A. § 557. 8. Health and Environment <S=>25.10 To insure that policies of NEPA are implemented in FPC's proceedings on permitting construction and operation of pump storage power project, Commission's staff should prepare detailed statement before Presiding Examiner issues his initial decision, objectors to project |
