## Facts

- The Power Authority of the State of New York applied to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for authorization to construct a high-voltage transmission line in upstate New York, requiring a cleared corridor approximately 35 miles long and 150 feet wide.
- Pursuant to FPC regulations, the applicant submitted an environmental report asserting the project would not have significant adverse environmental impacts.
- The FPC reviewed the submission for sufficiency of form and circulated it to agencies and interested parties for comment.
- The FPC held public evidentiary hearings using the applicant’s environmental report as the principal environmental analysis during the hearing stage.
- The FPC planned to prepare and issue its own environmental impact statement (EIS) only after the hearings.
- Local governmental and citizen petitioners challenged the procedure as inconsistent with NEPA § 102(2)(C), which requires a federal agency to include a “detailed statement” of environmental impacts for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.
- The FPC denied petitioners’ motion demanding that the Commission itself prepare an EIS before hearings; petitioners sought appellate review under the Federal Power Act.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA § 102(2)(C) requires the FPC to prepare and circulate an agency draft EIS before evidentiary hearings, rather than postponing the EIS until after hearings or until a final decision.
2. Whether NEPA’s “detailed statement” requirement may be satisfied at the hearing stage by an environmental report prepared by the license applicant, rather than by the federal agency’s own evaluation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit set aside the FPC’s order to the extent it rested on NEPA-noncompliant procedures and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the FPC must prepare and make available a draft EIS before hearings so environmental impacts and alternatives can be tested through the hearing process.
- The court held NEPA places responsibility for the “detailed statement” on the federal agency; the agency may use applicant-supplied information but may not rely on the applicant’s report as the controlling environmental analysis.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA § 102(2)(C) requires a federal agency’s “detailed statement” on environmental impacts for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.
- The EIS must be prepared early enough to inform the agency process and build a record in which environmental consequences and alternatives are meaningfully examined.
- An applicant’s environmental report cannot substitute for an agency EIS; NEPA requires the agency’s independent analytical and evaluative judgment, even if it draws on data supplied by the applicant.
- Courts may not decide the merits of environmental policy choices, but they must enforce NEPA’s procedural requirements governing how agencies integrate environmental considerations into decision-making.

## Conclusion

The court required the FPC to restructure its licensing process so that an agency-prepared draft EIS is available before evidentiary hearings and reflects the Commission’s independent evaluation, ensuring environmental impacts and alternatives are fully developed in the administrative record before a final licensing decision.


Greene Cnty. Planning Bd. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 455 F.2d 412 (2d Cir. 1972)