Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC (I)

354 F.2d 608 (2nd Cir. 1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Consolidated Edison wanted to build a pumped storage hydroelectric project on the west side of the Hudson River at Storm King Mountain. Conservationists opposed its construction. Edison needed a license from the FERC, and after elaborate hearings, FERC granted the license. Under the relevant statute, FERC was required to consider, recreational and scenic factors and that there was no alternative to the Storm King plan that would be better adapted to the development of the Hudson River for all beneficial uses including scenic beauty. If FERC concluded that the Storm King plan was best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway, then it should grant the license. The license was granted. After the license was granted, Mr. Lurkis presented a detailed proposal for using gas turbines as an alternative that would save the consumer $132 million. The records contained only a 10-page discussion to explain why gas turbines would not work. Mr. Lurkis presented his plan two months after the license was granted, four months after final oral argument. However, the statute permits the court to require the FERC to consider additional evidence if it is material and there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce it earlier. This appeal resulted.