Scenic Hudson Pres. Conference v. Fed. Power Com. - 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965)

Rule:

In a licensing proceeding, the Federal Power Commission has an affirmative duty to inquire into and consider all relevant facts.

Facts:

Respondent Federal Power Commission issued an order granting the intervener, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., a license to build a hydroelectric project on a bank of the Hudson River. Pursuant to 16 U.S.C.S. § 825l(b), petitioners sought judicial review of the order, and of orders that denied rehearing and denied motions to consider the practicality of underground transmission lines and the feasibility of fish protection devices.

Issue:

In granting license to the intervener, did the respondent err in failing to consider petitioners’ motions to consider the practicality of underground transmission lines and the feasibility of fish protection devices? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court set respondent's orders aside. Petitioners had standing because they were "aggrieved" parties under 16 U.S.C.S. § 825l(b). To be licensed, a project had to be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. 16 U.S.C.S. § 803(a). Respondent had an affirmative duty to properly to weigh each factor in 16 U.S.C.S. § 893(a). Respondent ignored certain relevant factors, including alternative plans and the achievement of recreational purposes, and failed to compile a record that was sufficient to support its decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings at which petitioners could adduce additional evidence, and respondent was to reexamine all questions on which the court found the record insufficient.