| OCR Text |
Show 414 455 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES must have reasonable opportunity to comment on statement, and objectors must be given opportunity to cross examine state Power Authority and Commission witnesses in light of statement. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). 9. Health and Environment €=>25.o Spectre of power crisis must not be used to create blackout of environmental consideration in agency review process. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332 (2) (C). 10c Health and Environment <§=»25.10 FPC did not err when it did not require state power authority to supplement its statement as to environmental impact of proposed pump storage power project by adding to statement plans it had with respect to future power projects and transmission lines notwithstanding project under consideration was part of an overall plan. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). 11. Health and Environment €=>25-5 FPC in determining whether to issue license for pump storage power project should consider all available and relevant information including impending plans for further power development. Federal Power Act, § 10(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 803(a); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S. CA. § 4332(2) (C). 12. Health and Environment <S^25.5 NEPA applies to all major federal actions taken after January 1, 1970 even though construction of project may have commenced prior to date but court would not apply Act retroactively to licensing of basic pump storage power project which became final nearly six months prior to effective date of Act. Federal Power Act, § 313(b), 16 U.S.C.A. § 8251 (b). 13. Electricity <S=>2 Whether or not FPC would entertain renewed motions by objectors for payment of attorney fees and expenses court on petition for review of FPC or-, ders had jurisdiction to review Commission's denial of such motion. Federal Power Act, § 313(b), 16 U.S.C.A. § 8251 (b). 14. Electricity <3=>2 Objectors to construction of pump storage power project were not entitled to reimbursement of their attorney fees and expenses from state power agency which sought license or from FPC. Federal Power Act, §§ 309, 334(c), 16 U.S. CA. §§ 825h, 825m(c); National Envir. onmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(1). *" Neil E. Needleman, Glens Falls, N. y. (Robert J. Kafin, Kafin & Needleman, Glens Falls, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioner Greene County Planning Board. Barry H. Garfinkel, New York City (Kurt Koegler, Robert Hermann, New York City, Charles R. Halpern, Geoffrey Cowan, Washington, D. C, of counsel), for petitioners Town of Durham and Association for Preservation of Durham Valley. Piatt W. Davis, HI, Atty., Washington, D. C. (Gordon Gooch, Gen. Counsel, Leo E. Forquer, Sol., J. Richard Tiano, First Asst. Sol., of counsel), for respondent Federal Power Commission. Scott B. Lilly, New York City (Thomas F. Moore, Jr., John R. Davison, New York City, John C. Mason, Washington, D. C, of counsel), for intervener Power Authority of State of New York. Alfred S. Forsyth, New York City, for intervenor Sierra Club. Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges. IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge: We are called upon to assess the licen* ing procedures of the Federal Power Commission in a proceeding upon the ap- |
