Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission

Last updated
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameScenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission
ArguedOctober 8, 1965
DecidedDecember 29, 1965
Citation(s)354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965)
Holding
Court granted standing to Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference on the basis of aesthetic or environmental benefits
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Stanley H. Fuld, J. Edward Lumbard, Sterry R. Waterman, Leonard P. Moore, Henry Friendly, J. Joseph Smith, Irving Kaufman, Paul R. Hays, Robert P. Anderson
Laws applied
Standing, §10(a) & §313(b) Federal Power Act
USA New York location map.svg
Red triangle with thick white border.svg
class=notpageimage|
Location of Storm King Mountain in New York State.

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965) is a United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals case in which a public group of citizens, the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, organized and initiated legal action after the Federal Power Commission approved plans for Consolidated Edison to construct a power plant on Storm King Mountain, New York. The federal regulatory agency had denied that the environmental group could bring action, but the court disagreed, ruling that Scenic Hudson had legal standing because of their "special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects" of the mountain. [1]

Contents

In order to insure that the Federal Power Commission will adequately protect the public interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development, those who by their activities and conduct have exhibited a special interest in such areas must be held to be included in the class of 'aggrieved' parties under s. 313 (b). We hold that the Federal Power Act gives petitioners a legal right to protect their special interests.

— Circuit Judge Paul R. Hays, in the court's decision for Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission [1]

This was the first decision of a court to grant standing on such terms, and established a precedent to allow similar public-based environmental groups to engage in legal processes. As Justice Hays stated, "the cost of a project is only one of several factors to be considered" in addition to "the preservation of natural beauty and national historic sites" as a basic concern. [1] This 1965 ruling helped to establish the legitimacy of environmental issues and paved the way for lawyers and the courts to play a significant role in all manner of land-use and environmental battles. [2] [3]

Background

Storm King from the Breakneck Ridge train station across the Hudson Storm King from across Hudson.jpg
Storm King from the Breakneck Ridge train station across the Hudson

This case is part of a 17-year (1963–1981) dispute. In September, 1962, Consolidated Edison announced plans to build the country's largest pumped-storage, [4] 2,000-megawatt (MW) hydroelectric power plant on Storm King Mountain at a cost of $234 million. [5] The proposed project also required that Con Edison buy about three hundred acres of the Black Rock Forest owned by Harvard University, which was unwilling to sell. [6] In response to the proposal, by November 1963 [4] citizens had formed the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference to provide a stronger unified voice against the project. [7] Despite its opposition, the Federal Power Commission granted Consolidated Edison the right to proceed. The Commission's decision was immediately appealed and the matter was sent to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The timeline below provides a more thorough context of the different cases and significant decisions.

Parties involved

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference was a collection of concerned citizens and other local interests. Several towns joined Scenic Hudson as plaintiffs. The towns were located along both banks of the Hudson River within the vicinity of Storm King Mountain. These surrounding local governments felt as though the development of the storage facility along with the additional transmission lines would adversely affect them. Among them were Phillipstown, Putnam Valley, Cortland, and Yorktown, [8] all on the opposite bank and concerned about the visual impact of the project.

Consolidated Edison was, and as of 2013 still is, a large investor-owned utility in New York. It was seeking a reliable source of energy to meet the needs of a then growing population.

Appeals court

This case was tried in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. It was argued on October 8, 1965 and decided on December 29, 1965. The case was remanded to the Federal Power Commission in the lower courts. The decision was the beginning of what was to become environmental law. [8] The case was presented before Chief Judge J. Edward Lumbard and Circuit Judges Sterry R. Waterman and Hays. [9] The innovative decision was written by Justice Hays. [10]

Issues

The main issue presented in this case is whether aesthetic harm can suffice as an injury-in-fact in order to establish standing. The "injury in fact" test requires both an "injury to a cognizable interest" and that "the party seeking review be himself among the injured." [11]

The Storm King project was to be located in an area of unique beauty and major historical significance. The highlands and gorge of the Hudson offer one of the finest pieces of river scenery in the world. The great German traveler Baedeker called it "finer than the Rhine." Petitioners' contention that the Commission must take these factors into consideration in evaluating the Storm King project is justified by the history of the Federal Power Act. Prior to this case, aesthetics were not considered worthy of standing in court. Environmental groups had to demonstrate a harm to a person or people (typically economic harm) before they could be allowed to challenge development in court and be heard.

The New York Court of Appeals set aside the Storm King license and remanded to the Federal Power Commission in a decision marking the birth of environmental law. The court stated that "The Commission's renewed proceedings must include as a basic concern the preservation of natural beauty and national historic sites, keeping in mind that in our affluent society, the cost of a project is only one of several factors to be considered." In addition, the court ruled that "On remand, the Commission should take the whole fisheries question into consideration before deciding whether the Storm King Project is to be licensed." [12]

This also helped to establish some of the largest environmental organizations today. See "Catalyst for other action," below.

Opinion of the Court

Presented by Justice Hays on behalf of Chief Justice Lumbard and Justice Waterman.

Standing

In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." [13]

This case was significant because the court decided the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference was an aggrieved party [14] under § 313(a) of the Federal Power Act and thus "has standing to challenge the Commission's order." [12] They were determined to be an "aggrieved party" because of their "special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development." [12]

This was the first example of granting standing on the basis of aesthetic or environmental benefits.

Commission

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held the following:

Remand

The licensing order of March 9 and the two orders of May 6 were set aside, and the case was remanded for further Federal Power Commission hearings.

Judicial timeline

The Storm King Decision incorporates 15 years of legal challenges, beginning with the first case in 1965. Below is the timeline:

Catalyst for other action

The Court's decision to grant standing to the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, a conservation group with local members, established an important legal precedent for similar groups to be able to take legal action to protect the public interest. This case has been attributed as the birth of environmental law, which is now so firmly established, it is taught as a separate branch of legal studies at most law schools today.

This case sets a precedent for "attainment of standing to sue than for justiciability of aesthetic issues on their merits." [15] Within each case, it is important that aesthetic conditions be specifically mentioned within the applicable statutes. In the case of Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission case, this was the Federal Power Act.

Policy change

Though a powerful tool for environmental action, private litigation does not replace the proactive approach of states and the federal government establishing environmental standards.[ citation needed ]

Environmental organizations

The Natural Resources Defense Council started in 1970 from a partnership including attorneys of the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, led by Stephen Duggan.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Independent agency of the United States federal government

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the United States federal agency that regulates the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce and regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects.

Natural Resources Defense Council Non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a United States-based 501(c)(3) non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Chicago, Bozeman, and Beijing. Founded in 1970, as of 2019, the NRDC had over three million members, with online activities nationwide, and a staff of about 700 lawyers, scientists and other policy experts.

Storm King State Park State park in Orange County, New York

Storm King State Park is a 1,972-acre (7.98 km2) state park in Orange County, New York. The park is in the southeast part of the Town of Cornwall, next to the Hudson River. A central feature of the park is Storm King Mountain.

Remand is when higher courts send cases back to lower courts for further action.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

United States environmental law

United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, and over-regulation, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience.

Storm King Mountain (New York) Mountain in New York, United States

Storm King Mountain is a mountain on the west bank of the Hudson River just south of Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York. Together with Breakneck Ridge on the opposite bank of the river it forms "Wey-Gat" or Wind Gate, the picturesque northern narrows of the Hudson Highlands. Its distinctive curved ridge is the most prominent aspect of the view south down Newburgh Bay, from Newburgh, Beacon, and the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. It can also be seen by southbound travelers on nearby sections of the New York State Thruway. This view was a popular subject for early artists of the Hudson River School.

David Sive American lawyer

David Sive was an American attorney, environmentalist, and professor of environmental law, who has been recognized as a pioneer in the field of United States environmental law.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which determined that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to take lands owned by the Tuscarora Indian tribe by eminent domain under the Federal Power Act for a hydroelectric power project, upon payment of just compensation.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.

Lloyd Kirkham Garrison was an American lawyer. He was Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School, but also served as chairman of the "first" National Labor Relations Board, chairman of the National War Labor Board, and chair of the New York City Board of Education. He was active in a number of social causes, was a highly successful attorney on Wall Street, and for a short time was a special assistant to the United States Attorney General.

New York Public Service Commission

The New York Public Service Commission is the public utilities commission of the New York state government that regulates and oversees the electric, gas, water, and telecommunication industries in New York as part of the Department of Public Service. The department's regulations are compiled in title 16 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The current chairman of the Commission and chief executive of the Department is Rory M. Christian. His term began on June 10, 2021 and runs through February 1, 2027.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

Whitney North Seymour Jr., known to friends as Mike Seymour, was an American politician and attorney from New York City. Born to a prominent family, Seymour graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School and served in the United States Army during World War II. He served in the New York State Senate from 1966 to 1968 and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1970 to 1973.

Natural Gas Act of 1938

The Natural Gas Act of 1938 was the first occurrence of the United States federal government regulating the natural gas industry. It was focused on regulating the rates charged by interstate natural gas transmission companies. In the years prior to the passage of the Act, concern arose about the monopolistic tendencies of the transmission companies and the fact that they were charging higher than competitive prices. The passage of the Act gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) control over the regulation of interstate natural gas sales. Later on, the FPC was dissolved and became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC continues to regulate the natural gas industry to this day.

Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Federal Power Act (FPA) as permitting the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to modify a rate specified in a contract between an electric utility and distribution company only upon a finding that the contract rate is unlawful because it adversely affects the public interest. Sierra Pacific and its companion case United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. established the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which holds that an electricity or natural gas supply rate established resulting from a freely negotiated contract is presumed to be "just and reasonable" and thus acceptable under the FPA or Natural Gas Act (NGA).

Scenic Hudson is a non-profit environmental organization in New York that protects land, creates, and enhances parks, and advocates for environmentally responsible policies and development practices.

Robert H. Boyle Author, envrionmentalist and conservationist

Robert Hamilton Boyle Jr. was an environmental activist, conservationist, book author, journalist and former senior writer for Sports Illustrated. In 1966, Boyle founded the Hudson River Fishermen's Association (HRFA) with its members serving as sentries to protect the river and its inhabitants, help reverse the deterioration caused by river pollution, and bring polluters to justice. The organization grew over the years, and in 1986, was officially renamed Riverkeeper after being merged with HRFA's Riverkeeper program. It was the first "keeper" group in the global Waterkeeper Alliance movement.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354F.2d608 (2nd Cir.1965).
  2. ↑ "E-law: What Started It All?". NRDC. Retrieved 2013-05-10.
  3. ↑ Lifset, Robert (August 5, 2014). Power on the Hudson: Storm King Mountain and the Emergence of Modern American Environmentalism (1st ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 328. ISBN   9780822963059.
  4. 1 2 "On the Hudson Valley's Legacy of Environmental Activism". The River. Retrieved 2020-03-17.
  5. ↑ Madden, Richard L. (August 20, 1970). "F. P. C. Authorizes Con Ed to Build Storm King Plant". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  6. ↑ Meislin, Richard J. (April 16, 1974). "Con Ed Begins Building Its Storm King Facility". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  7. ↑ "Our History". Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  8. 1 2 "Marist Environmental History Project". library.marist.edu. Retrieved 2020-03-17.
  9. ↑ "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". www.ecolex.org. Retrieved 2020-03-17.
  10. ↑ Zygmunt, J.B.; Plater, Robert H.; Abrams, Robert L.; Graham, Lisa (2016). Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. ISBN   978-1454880141.
  11. ↑ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504U.S.555 , 563( U.S. 1992).
  12. 1 2 3 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied. Sub nom. Consolidated Edison v. Hudson River Preservation Conference, 384 U.S. 941 (1966).
  13. ↑ Warth v. Seldin , 422U.S.490 , 498( U.S. 1975).
  14. ↑ Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 1 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 170. ISBN   9780787663742., a party that is entitled to commence a lawsuit against another because its legal rights have been violated
  15. 1 2 3 Smardon, R.C. (April 1979). "The interface of legal and esthetic considerations" (PDF). Proceedings of Our National Landscape. National Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resources. Incline Village, Nevada. pp. 676–685. Retrieved 22 October 2014.
  16. ↑ Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair, 313F.Supp.1312 ( D. Minn. 1970).
  17. ↑ Parker v. US, 448F.2d793 ( 10th Cir. 1971).
  18. ↑ Sierra Club v. Morton , 405U.S.727 ( U.S. 1992).
  19. ↑ Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 485F.2d1 (10th Cir.1793).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.