## Facts

- Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. applied to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for a license under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to build a pumped-storage hydroelectric project at Storm King Mountain on the Hudson River in Cornwall, New York.
- The project included a high-elevation storage reservoir, a powerhouse connected by a large tunnel, and transmission lines; Con Edison estimated total cost at about $162 million.
- Petitioners included Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference (a conservationist association) and the Towns of Cortlandt, Putnam Valley, and Yorktown, New York, which opposed the project based on scenic, recreational, and conservational impacts.
- After hearings, the FPC issued orders (1) granting the license and (2) denying rehearing and requests to reopen or expand proceedings to take additional evidence.
- Petitioners sought judicial review under FPA § 313(b), challenging both standing and the adequacy of the FPC’s public-interest determination under FPA § 10(a).

## Issues

1. Whether petitioners were “aggrieved” parties under FPA § 313(b) and therefore had standing to obtain judicial review.
2. Whether the FPC complied with FPA § 10(a) by determining the project was best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the waterway and the public interest, including aesthetic, conservational, and recreational values.
3. Whether the FPC unlawfully granted the license on an inadequately developed record by failing to examine reasonable alternatives and environmental consequences (including alternative locations or generation methods, underground transmission, and fish protection).

## Decision

- The court held petitioners had standing as “aggrieved” parties because their demonstrated special interest in the area’s aesthetic, conservational, and recreational values fell within the interests protected by the FPA.
- The court set aside the FPC orders granting the license and denying rehearing.
- The court remanded to the FPC for further proceedings because the Commission had not adequately developed the record or weighed relevant factors and alternatives required by FPA § 10(a).

## Legal Principles

- Under FPA § 313(b), standing is not limited to economic or proprietary injury; parties with a demonstrated special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational values may be “aggrieved.”
- FPA § 10(a)’s “comprehensive development” and public-interest standard requires the FPC to weigh environmental, scenic, and recreational considerations alongside power needs and cost.
- The FPC has an affirmative duty to inquire and to compile a complete record on material issues before licensing, including reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures where environmental values are implicated.
- A licensing order cannot stand where the agency’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence because the record omits analysis of key impacts and feasible alternatives.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit recognized standing for aesthetic and environmental interests under the Federal Power Act and vacated a hydropower license because the Federal Power Commission failed to develop an adequate record and to evaluate environmental consequences and reasonable alternatives as part of its public-interest determination.


Scenic Hudson Pres. Conf. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965)