The Honor able Sonia Sotomay or, orig inally a member

of the pa nel, was e levated to the * Sup re me Court

on Au g us t 8, 20 09 . T he tw o r e ma ini ngme mbe rs of the pa ne l, who are in ag ree ment, have de termined the matter. See28 U. S.C. § 4 6( b) ; L oc a l Ru le 0. 14 (2 ); United States v. De simone , 140 F.3d 457 ( 2d Cir. 1998). 07-1737-a g (L ), 07-2011- ag (Con), 07-5141- ag (Con) Gre en I sland Power Author ity v. Fe dera l Energy

Regulatory

Commi ssion U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS
F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT

______________ August Term, 2008 (Argued: Dec ember

19, 2008 Dec ided: August 10, 2009) Docke t Nos. 07-1737-a g (L ), 07-2011- ag (Con), 07-5141- ag (Con)

______________ G R EE N I S L AND P O WER A UT HO R I TY , A D I RON D A CK H YDR O D E VE L OP ME NT C OR PO R ATI ON , Pe tit ion e rs , —v.— F ED ER A L E NE R GY R EG UL ATOR Y C OMMI S S I ON , Respondent , E RI E B OUL EV AR D H YDROPOWER , L .P.,

Interve nor .

______________ B e f o r e : S A CK and K ATZ MANN , Circuit Judges
. *

______________2

Petition for reviewof seve ral orde rs and notice s issued by the Fe dera l Energy

Regulatory Commi ssion during the proce eding s to relicense the School Street Hydroele ctric Projec t. Adirondac k Hydro De velopment Corporation’s petitions are denie d on the g round that it lacks s ta n d in gto c h a ll e n g e an y

o f th e o r d e r s o r

n o ti c e s is s u e d

in th e a dmi n is tr ati v e p r o c e e d in g s . We g ra nt G re e n I sla

nd Pow e r Auth or ity ’s pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he or de r d e nyingits mot ion to int e rv e ne , v a c ate the lic e ns e or de r, and re mand the c a se fo r f

ur the r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w ith this opini on.

______________ F RA N CE S E. F RA N CI S ( W i l l i amS
. H u an gan d R e b e c c a J. Ba ldwin, on the brief

), Spi e g e l & Mc Di arm id, L L P, Washington, D.C., for Pe tit ion e rs . H OL L Y E. C AF ER (C y

nth ia A. Ma rl e tte , G e ne ra l Co un se l, and Robert H. Solomon, Solicitor, on the brief ), F eder al Energy Regulatory

Commi ssion, W ashing ton, D.C., for Respondent
. J OHN A. W HI TT AKER , Wins ton & Str awn , L L P, Washington, D.C. (Mel R. Ji g anti, U.S. L eg al Dire ctor, Br ookfield Power, Ma

rlboroug h, MA, on the brief ), for Interve nor . Marc S. Gerstman (Jennifer M. Wilson and J essica B acke r Br and, on the brief

), L aw Of fice s of Marc S. Gerstman, Albany , N.Y., for Amici Curiae Scenic Hudson, Inc., Capital District Reg ional Planning Commission, Vil lag e of Gr e e n I sla

nd , T own o f G re e n I sla

nd , Ci ty of Wat e rv lie t, Town of Water ford, Ne w York B icyclingCoalition, I nc., New Y ork Association of Publi c Power , Public Utili ty L aw Pr oje c t of Ne w Y or k, Inc ., and

F ri e nd s o f t

he F a lls , in support of

Pe tit ion e rs .

______________ K ATZ MANN , Circuit Judge : This case arises out of pr ocee dings be fore the Fe dera l Energy Regulatory

Commi ssion (“ F ERC ” ) t o r e lic e ns e the Sc ho ol S tr e e t H y dr oe le c tr ic Pr oje c t. It c a lls up on us pr inc ipa lly

to consider the validity

of the orde r deny

ing G ree n I sland Power Author ity ’s (“ Gre en I sland”)3

mot ion to i nte rv e ne , a

nd the or de r gra

nti nga ne w l ic e ns e to E ri e B ou le va rd Hydr op ow e r, L .P. (“Er ie”) to opera

te the School Street Hydroele ctric Projec t for a te rm of for ty y ear s. For the
rea sons stated below, we find that Adirondac k Hydro De velopment Corporation (“Adironda ck”) la c k s s ta n d in gto c h a ll e n g e an y

o f th e o r d e r s is s u e d

d ur in gth e a dmi n is tr ati v e p r o c e e d in g s . We fu rt he r f ind that F ERC a c te d a

rb itr ari ly and c a pr ic iou sly wh e n it de nie d G re e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

to intervene in the relice nsing pr ocee dings. B eca use we cannot c onclude that this err or wa s not prejudicia l, we vac ate the lice nse orde r and r emand the c ase f or fur ther proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion. B ACKG ROUND Th e Sc ho ol S tr e e t H y dr oe le c tr ic Pr oje c t ( “ Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t” or “ Sc ho ol S tr e e t” ) i s loc ate d o n th e Mo ha

wk Riv e r i n A lba

ny and Saratog a Counti e s in

Ne w Y or k St ate . It di ve rt s water from the r iver at a dam located nea rly 4000 fee t upstream fr om Cohoes Falls, Ne w York’ s second la rg est wate rfa ll. The water runs through a powe r ca nal that is 4400 fee t long a nd 150 fee t wide and ultimately

flows into a power

house conta ining f

ive g ener atingunits with a total installed elec trical c apac ity of 38.8 meg awatts (“MW”). The w ater flows throug h the power house and is re turned to the Mohawk River downstrea m from Cohoes Fa lls. I n total, water diverted f rom the river

by the School Street Project by passes a pproxi mately

4500 fee t of the riverbe d, including the water fall. The School Street Projec t dam was c onstructed in 1831, and the fac ility beg an to be utiliz ed to g ener ate e lectric al power in 1916. Niag ara

Mohawk Power

Corporation (“Niag ara Mohawk” ) filed a

n application for

an orig inal license to ope rate the School Street Project onAn “ or ig ina l li c e ns e ” is the ty pe of lic e ns e that F ERC iss ue s “ fo r a n unli c e ns e d p ro

je c t, 1 whether constructe d or unconstruc ted.” Consol. Hydro Me., I nc. , 81 F.E.R.C. ¶ 62,172, 64,372 n.17 (1997). An or igina l license is diffe rent fr om a “ne w license ,” which is “ any license, except an annua l license issued unde r sec tion 15 of the Fe dera l Power Ac t, for a w ater power projec t that is iss ued under the Fe dera l Power Ac t after the initial license for

that projec t.” 18 C.F .R. § 4 .3 0( b) (1 9) ; se e als o S. Cal. Edison Co. v. FERC , 116 F.3d 507, 509 ( D.C. Cir. 1997) (“The Fe dera l Power Ac t authorizes the Fe dera l Energy Regulatory

Commi ssion to is sue two so rt s o f l ic e ns e s f

or hydr op ow e r p ro

je c ts: ‘o ri g ina l li c e ns e s, ’ f or pr oje c ts that ha

ve y e t to be bu ilt , and ‘n e w l ic e ns e s, ’ f

or e xistin gpr oje c ts who se or ig ina l li c e ns e s h ave e xpir e d. ” ). A n e w l ic e ns e is issued at the conc lusion of a “r elicensingproce eding .” The F eder al Power A ct, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a–828c, c reated the F eder al Power 2 Commi ssion. FERC succee ded the F eder al Power Commission in 1977. See D iLaura v. Power Auth. , 982 F.2d 73, 75 n.1 ( 2d Cir. 1992). 4 August 20, 1965. The F eder al Power Commission issued such a lice nse to Niag ara Mohawk on 1 2 J une 11, 1969, for

a ter m to run from April 1, 1962 to Dec ember 31, 1993. Se e Nia

ga ra Mo ha wk Power Corp. , 41 F.P.C. 772, 773 (1969). Niag ara Mohawk he ld the license a nd operated the School Street Projec t for that entire term. Two year s prior to the end of the term, on De cembe r 23, 1991, Niag ara Mohawk filed a

n application for

a new license f or the School Street Projec t, pursuant to § 15(c) (1) of the Fe dera l Power Ac t (“F PA”). See16 U. S.C. § 8 08 (c )( 1) (“ Ea c h a pp lic atio n f

or a ne w l ic e ns e purs ua

nt t o this section shall be filed with the Commissi on at least 24 months befor e the e x piration of the te rm of the e xistin glic e ns e .” ). Th at a pp lic atio n p ro po se d to a dd a 21 -M W ca

pa c ity g e ne ra tor to the Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t, whic h w ou ld h ave inc re a se d it s to ta l e le c tr ic a l g e ne ratin gc a pa c ity to approximately

six ty meg awatts. In a dd iti on , th e a pp lic atio n p ro po se d r e c re atio na l, f ish e ri e s, his tor ic pr e se rv atio n, and wate r q ua lity e nh anc e me nts . Niag ara Mohawk wa s the only

entity to submitan application for the School Street Project by

the statutory

deadline of

Dec ember

31, 1991. In response , FERC issued public notice5

descr ibing in broa d terms the proposa l contained within that application and setting a deadline of Ap ri l 12 , 1 99 3, fo r t

he fi lin gof

c omm e nts , p ro te sts , a

nd mot ion s to int e rv e ne . T ime ly mot ion s to intervene wer e filed by

Americ an Whitewater

Affiliation, Amer ican Rivers, I nc., Ne w York Ri v e r s U n it e d , th e N atu

r a l H e r it a g e In s ti tute , th e N ati o n a l Au d u b o nSo c ie ty , R. Pi s an i a

n d W. Corrig an, the United States D epar tment of the Interior, a

nd Adirondac k Mountain Club. As pa rt of the re lic e ns ingpr oc e ss, Ni a g ara Mo ha wk wa s r e qu ir e d to re qu e st a
cer tification from the N ew Yor k State Depa

rtment of Environmenta l Conservation (“N YS DE C” ) t hat th e dis c ha

rg e fr om t he Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t into t he Mo ha wk Riv e r w ou ld c omp ly with applicable pr ovisions of the Clean Water Ac t. See33 U. S.C. § 1 34 1( a )( 1) . Ind e e d, F ERC was prohibited f

rom g rantinga license until thi s cer tification had be en provide d, unless NYS DEC waived the require ment, which it could do by failingor re fusingto act on Niag ara Mohawk’s c ertifica

tion request within “a r easona ble per iod of time (which sha ll not ex cee d one y ear) af ter re ceipt of suc h reque st.” Id. Niag ara Mohawk re quested this cer tification for the School Street Project, which N YS DEC denied in Novembe r 1992 without prejudice to rene wal. Niag ara Mohawk a

ppeale d that decision, and it and N YS DEC entere d into settlement neg otiations reg ardingthe ce rtification and lice nsing of School Street and nine othe r hy droele ctric pr ojects oper ated by Niag ara Mohawk. Those neg otiations continued into 2005; duringthat time period, F ERC iss ued annua l licenses, pursua nt to 16 U.S.C . § 808(a) (1), that allowed Nia g ara

Mohawk to continue to ope rate the School Street Project. See Table of Not ices of Authorizat ion for Cont inued Project Ope rations , 66 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,145, 61,279 (1994)
. Whil e the ne g oti atio ns be tw e e n N ia g ara Mo ha wk and NY S DE C w e re on -g oin g , F ERC continued to ana ly

ze the School Street license a pplication. In November 1995, FERC issued6

public notice that the School Stree t Project was r eady for a n environmenta l analy sis. I t stated that Niag ara

Mohawk intende d to add an a dditional ge nerator to increa se School Street’s installed capa city

to approxim ately

six ty meg awatts, which would require an expansion of the
e xistin gpo we rh ou se and

e xcavatio n o f t

he po we r c ana l. T he no tic e so lic ite d c omm e nts , r e ply comments, rec ommendations, terms and c onditions, and prescr iptions. See Notice of Application Re ad yfor En v iro nm e nta l A na ly

sis (Nov. 16, 1995). Niag ara Mohawk re sponded to this notice by informingFERC that it no longe r viewe d the ins ta llatio n o f t

he pr op os e d 2 1- MW g e ne ra tor a s e c on omi c a lly

fe a sib le , a

nd it a dv ise d F ERC that its environmental ana ly sis should consider, as an a lternative, r elicensingSchool Street without that additional ge nerating c apac ity
. SeeL etter f rom J err y L . Sabattis, Niag ara

Mohawk Hydro L icensingCoordinator, to J ohn H. Clements, Direc tor, FERC Off ice of Hydropowe r L ic e ns ing(D e c . 1 3, 19 95 ), at 2 ( statin gtha t N ia g ara Mo ha wk “ no lon g e r i nte nd [ed ] to i ns ta ll” the g ener ator). N otwithstanding Nia g ara Mohawk’s vie w that the re moval of the propose d g ener ator would “ materia lly aff ect[] Niaga

ra Moha wk’s fish prote ction/enhanc ement plan proposal,” id. , FERC did not issue any public notice of this cha

ng e. Instead, it issued a dra ft environmenta l assessment of the School Stree t Project in November 1996 that analy

zed the license a pplication both with and without the 21-MW gene rator, c oncludingthat it “d[i d] not
rec ommend [Niaga

ra Moha wk’s] proposed new[gene rator] and re lated improveme nts to the power cana l.” See Draft

En v iro nm e nta l A sse

ssm e nt f or Hy dr op owe r Lic e ns e (Nov. 1996), at 53. FERC issued public notice a nnouncingthe ava ilability of the dra ft environmenta l assessment and seekingcomments on it. See Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessme nt , 61 Fe d. Reg . 60,277 (Nov. 20, 1996).7

One of the par ties that filed comments wa s the NYSD L imited Partnership, the owne r of the New York State Da

m Hy droele ctric Projec t, which was loc ated on the Moha wk River approximately

one mile downstrea

m from the School Street Projec t. I n addition, Adirondac k, the manag ing g ener al par

tner of the NYSD L imited Partnership, filed a motion to intervene out-oftim e in t he Sc ho ol S tr e e t r e lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s o n M arc h 2 6, 19 97 ; it a sse rt e d th at it s inte re st in t he pr oc e e din g s d e ri ve d f

ro m it s o wn e rs hip int e re st i n th e Ne w Y or k St ate Da

m, whic h c ou ld be adve rsely

impacted by

FERC’s licensingorder

g iven (1) its location relative to School Street and (2) the fa ct that the School Street Projec t impacted downstre am flows on the Moha wk River. FERC g rante d Adirondac k’s motion to int erve ne on August 19, 1997. FollowingAdirondac k’s interve ntion, tim e passe d without much action in the re licensing proce eding s. In Fe bruar

y 1999, Niag ara

Mohawk a

nd Erie submitted a joint application see king approva l of, inte r a lia , (1) the tr ansfe r of School Stree t’s license f rom Niag ara

Mohawk to Erie , and (2) substitut ion of Erie in plac e of N iag ara Mohawk a s the applica

nt on the pendingSchool Street license application. F ERC iss ued public notice of this application and set a de adline of J une 9, 1999, for

filing c omments and motions to i nterve ne. See Noticeof Transf er of Licenses
an d S oli c iti ng Com me nts , M

oti on s to In te rv e ne

, a nd Prote sts (M ay 5, 19 99 ). F ERC
su bs e qu e ntl y

g ra nte d th e a pp lic atio n, the Sc ho ol S tr e e t li c e ns e wa s tr ans fe rr e d to Er ie , a nd Er ie was substituted on the pendinglicense a pplication. Se e Or

de r A pp ro v ing Tra ns fe rs o f Lic e ns es, Pa rti al T ra ns fe r o f Lic e ns e, a nd

Su bs tituti on of A

pp lic an ts , 88 F.E.R.C. ¶ 62,082, 64,159 (1999)
. Th e pr oc e e din g s th e n s at id le a g a in f or a lmo st two y e ars un til Ma y 20 01 , at w hic h ti me Erie se nt a letter notify

ing F ERC that Erie had re viewed the pendinglicense a pplication in light of the then- curr ent marke t conditions and conclude d that “the a ddition of a new [g ener ator]A “ no np ow e r l ic e ns e ” is a te mpo ra ry lic e ns e that c an b e iss ue d b y F ERC wh e ne ve r, in 3 its jud g me nt, a

lic e ns e d p ro

je c t “ sh ou ld n o lo ng e r b e us e d o r a da pte d f or us e fo r p ow e r p ur

po se s” and whe re “ a State, municipality , interstate a g ency , or anothe r F eder al ag ency is authorized and willing to assume r egulatory supervision of the lands a nd fac iliti es included unde r the nonpowe r license a nd does so.” 16 U.S.C. § 808(f)
. 8 would now appe ar to be economica lly fea sible.” L etter f

rom Wil liam J . Madden, Jr., Attorney for Er ie B oulevar d Hydropowe r, L .P., to David P. Boerg ers, Sec reta ry , Fe d. Energy

Regulatory Comm’n (May

30, 2001), at 1. Er ie there fore reque sted that FERC “e valuate the merits of the new lice nse proposa l as orig inally filed.” Id. FE R C d i d

n o ti s s u e p u

b l i c n o t i ce o f E ri e’ s ch an ge in positi on, nor did it seek motions to int erve ne. Instead, F ERC completed its final environmental a ssessment (“F EA”) of the School Street license application and issued public notice of its availability on September 28, 2001, setting a comment dea dline for f

orty -five da

y s later. See Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessme nt (Sept. 28, 2001). In the FE A, FE RC compared the School Street Pr oje c t a s p ro po se d in

the or ig ina l li c e ns e a

pp lic atio n ( wi th t

he 21 -M W g e ne ra

tor) w ithpo ssi ble alternatives, including ( 1) a pr oposal containingchang es re commended by FERC’s staff

and (2) r elicensingthe School Street Project without any chang es. More over, F ERC considered, but dismiss ed, the options of g rantinga “nonpow er lice nse” or re tiring School Stree t altoge ther, 3 beca use those options were “not re asonable in the circ umstances of this case.” Final Environmental Assessme nt (Sept. 2001), at 12- 13. Wit h respe ct to the proposed a ddition of the 21-MW ge nerator, FERC conc luded that “[w]hi le [Erie’s] moti vation for the pr oposal to construct the ne w unit which would produc e incre mental power

at cost more tha

n one-hundr ed-f

ifty perc ent more tha

n its curre nt value in the marke t is unclear, it should be g iven the opportunity to pursue the pr oject expansion, since the9

additional unit would have no sig nificant de trimental environmenta l impacts and would produc e more powe r fr om a re newa ble re source .” Id. at 72. In J uly 2004, Gre en I sland filed an a pplication (alongwith supporting c omments) for a preliminary

permit to study

the potential deve lopment of the Cohoes F alls Project, a pr oposed 100-MW capac ity

hy droele ctric pr oject to be located on the Mohawk River just downstream from the School Stree t Project. See Gree n Island Power Auth. , 110 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,034, 61,108–09 (2005). It followed this up on September 7, 2004, with a motion to intervene in the S ch o o l S tre etre l i ce n s i n g p ro ce ed i n gs , s t at i n g th ati tfi rs td ev el o p edan i n t er es ti nth e p ro ce ed i n gs in 2001 when it assisted the City of Cohoes in an e ffor

t to secure the School Street site from Er ie. I t did not seek to intervene until 2004, however, be cause it was not until t hat time that Gre en I sland had de veloped what it considered to be a better pr oposal for this stretch of the Mohawk River. Gre en I sland moved to intervene beca use it rec og nized that the Cohoes Falls Project
c ou ld b e de ve lop e d o nly

if the Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t da m w e re re mov e d a

nd the po we rh ou se decommissioned. F ERC de nie d G re e n I sla

nd ’s a pp lic atio n f

or a pr e lim ina

ry pe rm it, fi nd ingtha

t be c a us e the School Street and Cohoes F alls Projects could not co-e x ist, “any development a

pplication for the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t would be a r elicense application filed in c ompetition with t he School Street application.” Gree n Island Power Auth. , 1 10 F .E .R. C. ¶ 61 ,0 34 , at 61 ,1 10 . F ERC considere d such an a

pplication barr ed by

§ 15(c) (1) of

the FPA, be cause the “de adline for filing relice nse applications for the Cohoes F alls project f ell in 1991, two y ear s befor e the School Street license expired. Thus, any development a

pplication [Green I sland] mi g ht file would be more than 13 year s late.” Id. FERC found also that its own re g ulations barre d acc eptanc e of theGre en I sland soug ht rehe aringof F ERC’s decision, which F ERC denied. See G reen 4 Island Power Auth. , 110 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,331 (2005) . Gre en I sland filed a pe tition for reviewof that decision with the D.C. Circuit, but it later filed a voluntar y motion to di smiss t he petition, which wa s g rante d. See Green I sland Power Auth. v. FERC , No. 05-1170, 2005 WL3803356, 2005 U.S. App. L EXI S 27787 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 14, 2005)
. 10 preliminary

permit application. Id. at 61 ,1 11 . It di d n ot a c t on Gr e e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

to intervene at this tim e. 4 In M arc h 2 00 5, Er ie fi le d a n o ff e r o f s e ttl e me nt ( the “ Of

fe r o f S e ttl e me nt” ) w ithF ERC pursuant to Rule 602 of F ERC’s regulations. See18 C.F .R. § 3 85 .6 02 . T he Of fe r o f S e ttl e me nt, which wa s signe d by

Erie, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Se rv ic e , N YS D EC, Ne w Y or k Po we r Auth or ity , N e w Y or k Ri ve rs , N e w Y or

k St ate Conservation Council, and Renssela er County Conservation Alliance , proposed, inte r a lia , that Er ie wo uld : ( 1) op e rate the Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t in ru n- of -r ive r m od e ; ( 2) e ns ur e c e rt a in minimum flows of water to the by passed stre tch of the Moha wk River, includinga 500 cubic fee t per se cond ae sthetic flow over Cohoes Fa lls during da

ylight hours on we ekends a nd fede ral holiday s from May

15 to October

31; (3) install cer

tain fish protec tion mechanisms; and (4 ) c on sid e r i ns ta lli nga

ne w t ur bin e -g e ne rator

un it a nd po we rh ou se a dd iti on

tha t w ou ld i nc re a se the e le c tr ic a l g e ne ratin gc a pa c ity of Sc ho ol S tr e e t by

a pp ro ximate ly

e le ve n me g awatts . With respe ct to the proposed 11- MW gene rator, which would re place the proposed 21- MW gene rator in t he lic e ns e a

pp lic atio n, the Of

fe r o f S e ttl e me nt p ro vid e d th at “ wi thi n f ive y e ars of

lic e ns e iss ua nc e , E ri e B ou le va

rd c ou ld i ns ta ll a

nd op e ra te a ne w ‘ fi sh -f

ri e nd ly ’ t ur bin e g e ne rator

un it i n
a new power house or powe rhouse a ddition . . . .” Order on Offer of Settleme nt and Issuing New Lic e ns e , 118 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,101, 61,514 (2007) . As part of the Off er of Settlement, NYS DEC iss ue d a dr a ft wate r q ua lity c e rt if ic ate in a c c or da

nc e wi th § 40 1 o f t

he Cle an Wate r A c t.11

FERC issued public notice of the Offe r of Settlement on Mar ch 24, 2005, and, pur suant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.602(f)( 2), noted that the de adline for filing c omments was twenty day s from that date. See Not ic e of S e ttle me nt A gr e e me nt A c c e pte d fo r F

ili ng an d S oli c iti ng Com me nts (M ar. 24 , 2 00 5) . G re e n I sla nd fi le d e xten siv e c omm e nts in o pp os iti on . It a lso re ne we d it s mot ion to i nte rv e ne , whic h h a d b e e n p e nd ingsin c e the mid dle of 20 04 , a sse rt ingtha

t F ERC should have solicited interve ntions because the Off er of Settlement constituted a materia l amendment to the School Stree t license a pplication. Fur thermore , on May

15, 2006, Gre en I sland, Adirondac k, and amici curiaeCapital District Reg ional Planning Commission, New York Assoc iation of Public Power, and F riends of the Fa lls submi tted what they labeled a n “Alter native Of fer of Settlement” for

FERC’s consideration. The Alternative Offe r of Settlement propose d to resolve the School Stree t
re lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s b y pe rm itt ingEr ie to c ho os e be tw e e n tw o o pti on s: ( 1) the imm e diate termination of Erie ’s license ; or (2) the issuance of a conditional license to Erie. Onc e Erie had selec ted one of

the proposed options, Gre en I sland planned to submit an applica tion to li cense the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t; that application was attached to the A lternative O ffe r of Settlement. Gr een I sland, howeve r, re cog nized that FERC was statutorily barr ed fr om consideringthe application as a compe ting lice nse applica tion for the School Street site. Consequently , it included the application with the Alter native Of fer of Settlement “for

informational purpose s only ,” ar g uing that F ERC c ou ld c on sid e r t he inf or matio n c on ta ine d in

the a pp lic atio n whe n d e c idi ngwh e the r t o g ra nt a lic e ns e to t

he Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t. On that sa me da y , th e Ne w Y or

k A sso c iatio n o f P ub lic Pow e r, the F ri e nd s o f t he F a lls , and the Capital District Reg ional Planning Commission all filed (1) motions to i nterve ne out-of-Th e Al lia nc e fo r E c on omi c Re ne wa l a pp are ntl y fi le d a mot ion to i nte rv e ne out- of

-t ime 5 on April 13, 2005. 12 time in the School St ree t relice nsing pr ocee dings a nd (2) c omments in support of the Alternative Offe r of Settlement. The New Y ork B icyclingCoalition, t he City of Watervliet, the Town of Gre en I sland, the Villag e of G ree n I sland, the Prese rvation L eague of N ew Yor k State, and the Public Utili ty

L aw Projec t of NewYork, Inc. all filed similar motions and comments on June 2. Additionally , the Town a nd Villag e of G ree n I sland, the Ne w York B icyclingCoalition, t he Pr e se rv atio n L e a g ue of

Ne w Y or k St ate , th e City

of Wat e rv lie t, a

nd the Al lia nc e fo r E c on omi c Re ne wa l signe d o n to the Al te rn ativ e Of fe r o f S e ttl e me nt. 5 F ERC re je c te d th e Al te rn ativ e Of fe r o f S e ttl e me nt a

nd the atta c he d p ro po se d li c e ns e application as simply

“anothe r attempt to place Gre en I sland’s untimely competitive proposal befor e the Commission.” Notice Rejec ting Pleading (May 24, 2006). In response , Gre en I sland and Adironda ck filed a

“Joi nt Motion t o Present Evidenc e or, in the A lternative, O ffe r of Proof” (the “ J oint Moti on to Present Evidenc e”) on J une 5, 2006, in which they explained that the Alternative Offe r of Settlement wa s not a competinglicense a pplication but rather

was submitted to provide helpful e vidence to demonstrate that Er ie’s license application and O ffe r of Settlement
wer e not best ada

pted to a compr ehensive plan for the Mohawk River. F ERC re je c te d th is m oti on

a s w e ll, a g a in o n th e g ro un d th at th e fi lin gwa s a n “ atte mpt

to place Gre en I sland’s untimely competitive proposal be fore the Commiss ion.” Notice Rejec ting Motion (June 28, 2006). On that same da y , FERC also denied G ree n I sland’s motion to int erve ne out-of-time. See Notice Deny ing Late Intervention (June 28, 2006). In doing so, F ERC noted that G re e n I sla

nd ha d d e ve lop e d a

n inte re st i n th e pr oc e e din g s in 20 01 but ha d im

pe rm iss ibl yFERC later grante d two motions t o intervene out-of-time, one eac h filed by NYS DEC 6 and the National Marine F isheries Servic e on May 3, 1995, and January

16, 1996, respe ctively
. In g rantingthose motions, FERC noted that (1) it inadverte ntly had fa iled to gr ant them at the time they wer e filed, a

nd (2) grantingthe motions at that point would notunduly delay or disrupt the proc eeding s. See Notice Granting Late Interventions (Aug . 8, 2006). 13 “[sat] on its rights” f

or three y ear s befor e filingits mot ion to intervene in 2004. Id. at 1. Fur ther, F ERC c on c lud e d th at G re e n I sla nd ’s “ pr ima

ry int e re st” in t

he pr oc e e din g s, i.e ., “ havin gits proposed Cohoes F alls Project consider ed as a n alternative to the School Street Project,” w as not a suff icient re ason for

FERC to g rant interve nor status, bec ause F ERC was statutorily barr ed from conside ringuntimely license a pplications. Id. at 2. In addition, FERC denied the motions to intervene filed by all of the other

parties that ha d expressed support for

the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t proposal, bec ause ( 1) no par ty had shown g ood
cause as to why

it had waited so longto seek lea ve to interve ne, and ( 2) ea ch par ty ’s primary interest – supportingthe Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t as an a lternative to the School Stree t Project – was ins uf fi c ie nt t o w arr ant i nte rv e no r s tatus at th at st a g e of the pr oc e e din g s. 6 Gre en I sland and Adironda ck re quested re hear ing of FERC’s orde rs deny

ing the Alternative Offe r of Settlement and the J oint Moti on to Present Evidenc e, and G ree n I sland and all of the other

parties that ha d soug ht to intervene out-of -time reque sted rehe aringof F ERC’s denial of those motions. FERC denied a ll of these re quests. See O rder Deny ing Rehearing , 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,189 (2006) (the “ Novembe r 16 Order De nying Rehe aring ” ). At the outse t of

thi s order , FERC reiter ated its view that Gr een I sland could not file an a pplication for the Cohoe s F a lls Pr oje c t pr op os a l “ be c a us e that pr oje c t w ou ld c omp e te wi th S c ho ol S tr e e t and a lic e ns e application for

Cohoes Fa lls was not filed within the statutory window for c ompetition in t he School Street proce eding .” Id. at 61 ,9 31 . F ur the rm or e , F ERC state d th at it “ loo k[e d] w ith14

extreme disfavor on [Gre en I sland’s] repeated ef forts to obtain approva l of that which is bar red by law, and c onsider[ed] it s eff orts to cloak its proposal in various diff ere nt guise s as an a

buse of proce ss.” Id. Turn ingto t

he sp e c if ic or de rs fo r whic h r e he ari ngwa s so ug ht, F ERC fi rs t a dd re sse d it s denial of the various motions to int erve ne, tre atingeac h as untimely and thus eva luating the m p ur s u an tt o th e f

a c t o r s d e l i n e at e d

i nR u l e 2 1 4 ( d ) o f

i t s r e g u l at i o n s , 1 8 C
. F
. R
. § 3 8 5
. 2 1 4 ( d )
. It de nie d r e he ari ngof

Gr e e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

to i nte rv e ne be c a

us e Gr e e n I sla

nd “ ha [d] f a ile d to demonstrate e ither a c og nizable interest in the proc eedingor any justification for the late ness of its attempted intervention.” Novembe r 16 Order De nying Rehe aring , 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,189, at 61 ,9 32 . F ERC sim ila

rl y de nie d r e he ari ngof

the oth e r m oti on s to int e rv e ne , c on c lud ingthat a ll of those par

ties simply

intended to express support for the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t. Id. at 61,933 (“ [T]ho se e nti tie s are e ng a g e d in a c ampa ig n to c onvin c e the Commis sio n to c on sid e r t he me ri ts of the Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t, n otw ith sta nd ingour f

ina l or de rs c le arl y

ho ldi ngtha

t to do so wo uld be contr ary

to the dictates of the FPA and of our re g ulations.”). F ERC did not e, howe ver, that the intere sts of Gree n I sland and these other e ntities could be repr esente d by Adirondac k. Id. FERC denied r ehea

ringof the Joint Motion to P rese nt Evidence as we ll, ag ain stating that
a lth ou g h it

wo uld c on sid e r c omm e nts fi le d in the pr oc e e din g s, the re wa s n o r e a so n f or it t o “ac cept what purports to be a c omplete application for a pr oposal that is statutorily barr ed, no matter in what guise it is presented.” Id. at 61,936. Fur thermore , FERC reje cted Gr een I sland and Adironda ck’s c ontention that it was require d to compare the School Street Project with the “lar g ely hy pothetical Cohoes F alls Project, which is bar red by the statute,” r easoningthat [t ]o conclude that an e ntity can ignore the statutory

and re g ulatory

para meters thatGre en I sland and Adironda ck re quested re hear ing of the orde r deny

ing r ehea ring , which 7 was de nied. Se e Or

de r R e je c ting R e qu est f

or Re he ar ing

, M oti on for Cla rif ic ati on , a nd

Re qu est for Reconsideration , 118 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,196 (2007)
. 15 g overn hydropowe r licensingproce eding s by makinga complete ly

new pr oposal at the ele venth hour, a

nd that the par

ties must then respond to it, and the Commis sio n mu st c on du c t an e xten siv e ne w a na ly sis , in c lud inga

c omp le te e nv ir onme nta l and

e ng ine e ri ngre vie w, wo uld be e xce e din g ly

un fa ir , a nd wo uld mean that a

ny one could de lay

the completion of a

licensingproce edingsimply by postulating a

supposed alter

native at a

ny time. This would make a mocke ry of the regulatory

proce ss and we w ill not countenance such a notion. Id. at 61,936–37. And fina lly , FERC denied r ehea ringof its decision reje ctingthe Alternative Offe r of Settlement, statingthat (1) it was “ unilatera l and . . . a se ttlement offer in name only ,” and (2) althoug h FERC was r equire d to consider a lternatives to the School Stree t Project, “[d] isguisinga late- filed compe titive proposal as an e nvironmental alter native d[id] not cre ate a

n obligation that the Comm ission ex amine it, or empowe r the Commission t o do that which the FPA for bids.” Id. at 61,937–38.

7 Whil e F ERC wa s c on sid e ri ngthe se va ri ou s mo tio ns fo r r e he ari ng , th e NY S DE C f ina lly issued a water qua lity

cer tification for the School Street Project. Consequently , on Fe bruar y 15, 2007, FERC approve d the Off er of Settlement and issued a f orty -y ear license f or the School Street Project. Se e Or

de r o n O ffe r o f Se ttle me nt a nd

Is su ing Ne w Lic e ns e , 118 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,101 (2007). Gr een I sland and Adironda ck re quested re hear ing of the license order , arguing, inter ali a , that FERC had violated its re g ulations, which requir ed it to solicit m otions to i nterve ne any time a license applicant mate rially amende d its application for a new lice nse. See18 C.F .R. § 1 6. 9( b) (3 ), (d )( 1) (r e qu ir ing“ no tic e of the a pp lic atio n a

nd of the date s f

or c omm e nt, intervention, and pr otests” if an a pplication for a

new lice nse is materia lly amende d by

the applicant) . The pe titioners identified three points in t ime when they believed that the SchoolBy contra st, FERC indicated that if Nia g ara Mohawk “ had wa

nted to incre ase the 8 number of pr oposed g ener atingunits at the site, it could not have done so without filing a n amende d application to re flec t the incre ased c apac ity .” Id. 16 Str e e t li c e ns e a

pp lic atio n h a d b e e n mate ri a lly ame nd e d w ith out a

c or re sp on din gop po rt

un ity to intervene : (1) in 1995, when N iag ara Mohawk notified F ERC that itintended not to install the 21 -M W g e ne rator ; ( 2) in 2 00 1, wh e n E ri e no tif ie d F ERC that it

pla nn e d to ins ta ll the 21 -M W g ener ator; and ( 3) in 2005, when Er ie submitted the Offe r of Settlement indicatingthat it was not g oing to install that g ener ator, but rather that it might install an 11-MW g ener ator instead. FERC reje cted Gr een I sland’s re quest for r ehea ringof the lice nse orde r on the g round that
on ly a “ pa rt y ” to t he re lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s – a status Gr e e n I sla

nd ha d n ot a tta ine d – c ou ld make suc h a re quest. Se e Not ic e Re je c ting R e he ar ing

Re qu est , 1 1 9 F
. E
. R
. C
. ¶

6 1 , 0 3 8 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. It de nie d A dir on da c k’ s r e qu e st f or re he ari ngon

the g ro un ds tha

t ( 1) Ad ir on da c k f

a ile d to de mon str ate ho w i t ha d b e e n a g g ri e ve d b y the lic e ns ingor de r, and

(2 ) A dir on da c k’ s a

rgume nts
on re he ari ngla c ke d me ri t. See O rder Deny ing Rehearing , 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,267, 62,183 (2007) (“ Septembe r 21 Order De nying Rehe aring ”). I n rele vant par

t, FERC disag ree d that any of the chang es to the license application wa rra nted the solicitation of motions to i nterve ne. Spe c if ic a lly , it state d th at N ia g ara

Mo ha wk did no t ame nd

its lic e ns e a

pp lic atio n in

19 95 be c a

us e “it took no steps to alter the orig inal application. B y not requiringthat a for

mal amendment
a pp lic atio n b e fi le d, the Commis sio n p re se rv e d th e po ssi bil ity of lic e ns ingthe a dd iti on a l c a pa c ity if ec onomic conditions improved.” Id. at 62,184. FE RC concluded, howe ver, that even ha d Niag ara Mohawk amended the a

pplication in 1995, the amendment would not have been material beca use “omitting the additional g ener atingunit would not si g nificantly aff ect the pr oject’s f

low reg ime.” Id. ; see18 C.F .R. § 4 .3 5( f) (1 )( i) . F ERC of fe re d s imi lar r e a so nin gwi th r e sp e c t to 817

Erie’ s 2001 reque st to reinstate the 21-MW g ener ator. See Se ptember 21 O rder Deny ing Rehe aring , 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,267, at 62,185. FERC provided a

differ ent re ason for

why the Marc h 2005 Offe r of Settlement did not require the solicitation of motions t o intervene . Adirondac k had ar g ued that by filing the Offe r of Settlement, Erie had w ithdrawn the 1991 lice nse application and repla ced it with a diff ere nt application. F ERC rejecte d that argument, instead cha rac terizing the r ole of a

settlement ag ree ment as “suppleme nt[ ing] rathe r than super sed[ing] the license a pplication.” Id. Fur

ther, FERC asser

ted that the Of

fer of Settlement did not significa ntly aff ect a ny interests in a manne r not contemplated by

the initial license application. Id. at 62,186. And fina lly , FERC explained that the Off

er of Settlement had bee n rea ched a fter c onsultation with resource ag encie s and contained c hang es re sponsive to reque sts from those ag encie s. Id. at 62,185. In FERC’s view, its re g ulatio ns e xemp te d s uc h c ha ng e s f ro m th e int e rv e nti on

re qu ir e me nt, e ve n if

the y mate ri a lly amende d the license application. Id. at 62,185–86 & n.26 (citing18 C.F.R. § 4.35(e) (4))
. Con se qu e ntl y , F ERC c on c lud e d th at it did no t ha ve to s oli c it m oti on s to int e rv e ne in r e sp on se to the fi lin gof

the Of fe r o f S e ttl e me nt. Gre en I sland and Adironda ck filed pe titions for r eview of the followingFERC order s and notices: (1) the Marc h 15, 2007 Orde r Rejec ting Reque st for Rehea ring , Motion for Clarification, and Reque st for Reconside ration, 118 F .E.R.C. ¶ 61,196; (2) the Nove mber 16, 2006 Or der Deny ing Re hear ing, 117 F .E.R.C. ¶ 61,189; (3) the June 28, 2006 Notice Rejec ting Motion; (4) the June 28, 2006 Notice D enying L ate Interve ntion; (5) the May 24, 2006 Notice Reje cting Pleading ; (6) the F ebrua

ry 15, 2007 Orde r on Off

er of Settlement and I ssuing Ne w L icense , 118 F .E .R. C. ¶

61 ,1 01 ; ( 7) the Ap ri l 12 , 2 00 7 N oti c e Re je c tin gRe he ari ngRe qu e st, 11 9 F .E .R. C.18

¶ 6 1 , 0 3 8 ; a n d ( 8 ) th e Se p te mb e r

2 1 , 2 0 0 7 O r d e r

D e n y in gRe h e ar in g , 1 2 0 F
. E
. R. C. ¶ 6 1 , 2 6 7
. We have c on so lid ate d a ll o f t he se pe tit ion s into t

his a pp e a l. D I S CUS S I ON This Court’s reviewof the instant petitions is gover ned by the judicial re view provision of the F PA, which provides that FERC’s finding s of fa ct, “if suppor ted by substantial evidence , shall be conc lusive.” See 16 U.S.C. § 825 l (b). Sec tion 825 l (b), howe ver, doe s not set forth a separ ate standa

rd of r eview f

or F ERC’s actions. We theref ore must eva luate F ERC’s orders under the standard e stablished by the Administrative Proce dure A ct. See LaFleur v . W hitman , 300 F.3d 256, 267 ( 2d Cir. 2002) (citing5 U.S.C. § 706). Those orde rs must be upheld if they
are not “ar

bitrary , capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in ac corda nce w ith law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
. In evaluating whe ther a

n ag ency decision is arbitra

ry or ca pricious, we “ ‘must consider whether the dec ision was based on a consideration of the rele vant fa ctors and whether there has be e n a c le ar e rr or

of jud g me nt. ’ T his inq

uir y mus t ‘ be se arc hin gand

c are fu l,’ but ‘ the ult imate standard of

revie w is a nar

row one .’” Ma rsh v . O r. Natural R es. Cou nc il , 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1 9 8 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Citi

zens to Pres. Ov erton Park, Inc . v. Volpe , 4 0 1 U
. S. 4 0 2 , 4 1 6 ( 1 9 7 1 ) )
. “ We may set aside a

n ag ency deter mination as arbitra

ry and ca pricious if we conclude that the ag ency ‘re lied on fac tors which Cong ress ha s not intended it to consider, entire ly failed to c onsider an important aspec t of the problem, of fer ed an e x planation for its dec ision that runs counter to the
e vid e nc e be fo re the a g e nc y , o r i s so imp la us ibl e that it

c ou ld n ot b e a sc ri be d to a dif fe re nc e in view or the product of a g ency expertise.’” LaFleur , 3 0 0 F. 3 d at2 6 7 (qu o t i n g Mo tor

Ve hic le Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).19

Under § 825 l (b), only

a “pa rty” that has be en “a g g rieve d” by a F ERC order may

file a petition for re view of that order. 16 U .S.C. § 825 l (b ); see ScenicHudson Pres. Conferenc e v. FPC , 354 F.2d 608, 617 ( 2d Cir. 1965) (“ ScenicHudson ”). F ERC has the authority to control who may become a “pa

rty” to proc eeding s befor e it. See16 U.S.C. § 825g(a ) (“ In any proce edingbefor e it, the Commiss ion, in accor dance with such rules a nd regulations as it may presc ribe, may

admit as a pa

rty any interested State, State c ommissi on, municipality , or any repr esentative of intere sted consumer s or sec urity holders, or a

ny competitor of a

party to such pr oc e e din g , o r a

ny oth e r p e rs on

wh os e pa rt ic ipatio n in

the pr oc e e din gmay

be in t he pu bli c int e re st. ” ); ScenicHudson , 3 54 F .2 d at 61 7 ( re c og nizi ngthat th e a bil ity to p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w i s predic ated on pa

rty status, and that FE RC has the authority “to limit t hose elig ible to intervene or to s e e k r e vie w” by

de nyingpa

rt y status ). A p art

y is “ a g g ri e ve d” if

it c an e sta

bli shthat it

ha s b oth constitutional and prudential standingto challeng e F ERC’s orders. See City of Orrville v . FERC , 147 F.3d 979, 985 ( D.C. Cir. 1998); ScenicHudson , 3 54 F .2 d at 61 5- 16 . Co ns e qu e ntl y , w e mus t deter mine as a thre shold matter whethe r either Adirondac k or Gre en I sland was a party to the pr oc e e din g s b e low

and , if so , whe the r e ith e r h a s st and ingto c ha lle ng e the re su lti ngor de rs . A. P arty Stat us of

the P etitioner s Adirondac k beca

me a pa rty to the relice nsing pr ocee dings when F ERC gra nted its moti on to intervene in 1997 and thus satisfies this element of § 825 l (b). See Nov embe r 16 Order Deny ing Rehearing , 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,189, at 61,935 n.42. I ti s un d i s p u t edth atGr ee nI s l an d n ev er wa s p erm i t t edt o i n t erv en e i nth e p ro ce ed i n gs below. Consequently , Gre en I sland was not a pa rty to the relice nsing pr ocee dings a nd there fore la c ks the statut or

y a uth or ity to p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w o f o rd e rs re su lti ngdir e c tly fr om t ho se20

proce eding s. See Sc enic Hudson , 354 F.2d at 617. Gree n I sland, howeve r, wa s a par ty to the order denying its motion to int erve ne out-of- time and the orde r deny ing r ehea ringof that orde r, a point concede d by

FERC. I t theref

ore satisfies the first eleme nt of § 825 l (b ) w ithre sp e c t to tho se two order s. See N. Colo. W ater Conservancy

Dist. v. FERC , 730 F.2d 1509, 1515 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (“ I t would be g rossly unfair to de ny

judicial revie w to a petitioner obje ctingto an ag ency ’s ref usal to g rant pa

rty status on the basis that the petitioner lac ks party status. Such a petitioner must obviousl y

be conside red a

party for the limited purpose of revie wingthe ag ency ’s basis for de nyingpa

rt y status .” ); se e als o Ci ty

of O rrv ille , 1 47 F .3 d at 98 9– 90 n. 12 ; Covelo Indian Cmty. v. FERC , 895 F.2d 581, 585–86 ( 9th Cir. 1990). B. Stand ing of

the P etitioner s As dis c us se d a

bo ve , th e re qu ir e me nt t

hat a pa rt y be “ a g g ri e ve d” by

a F ERC or de r i s coextensive with the requir ement that it be able to establish both constitut ional and prude ntial standing to challeng e that orde r. “Thre e ele ments comprise the ‘ irreduc ible constitutional mi nimum of standing.’ ” LaFleur , 3 0 0 F. 3 d

at2 6 9 (qu o t i n g Luj an v . D e fe nd e rs o f W ild lif e , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To satisfy Article I I I ’s standingrequire ments, a par ty must demonstrate that “‘ (1) it has suff ere d an “injury in fac t” that is (a) concr ete a nd particula

rized and (b) actua l or imminent, not conjectural or hy pothetical; (2) the injury

is fairly trac eable to the challeng ed ac tion of the defe ndant; and (3 ) i t is lik e ly , a s o pp os e d to me re ly sp e c ulativ e , th at th e inj ur y wi ll b e re dr e sse d b y

a fa vo ra ble decision.’” Pac. Capital Bank, N.A. v. Connecticut , 542 F.3d 341, 350 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v . Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. ( TOC), I nc. , 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000))
. The “ injury

in fac t” re quirement ha s been c hara cter ized as “an inva sion of a leg ally protec ted21

interest.” Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560. The pa rty seekingjudicial revie w “be ar[s] t he burde n of alleg ing f acts that de monstrate [its] standing .” LaFleur , 300 F.3d at 268. Pr ud e nti a l st and ingis n ot a

c on sti tut ion a l c on sid e ra

tio n b ut r athe r “ e mbo die s ‘ jud ic ia lly self-imposed limits on the ex erc ise of fe dera l jurisdiction.’” Elk GroveUnified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow , 5 4 2 U. S
. 1 , 1 1 (2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Allen v. W right , 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)). Prude ntial standing considerations include, inte r a lia , “‘the rule ba rringadjudication of g ener alized g rieva nces more appropr iately

addre ssed in the re prese ntative bra nches, a nd the re quirement that a plaintiff’ s complaint fall within the zone of interests prote cted by the law invoked.’ ” Dev lin v. Sc ar de lle tti , 5 3 6 U. S
. 1 , 7 (2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Allen , 468 U.S. at 751). 1. Adirondac k F ERC c on te nd s th at th e on ly int e re st A dir on da c k h a s e ve r i de nti fi e d to jus tif y its prese nce a s a par

ty in the relice nsing pr ocee dings – its intere st in the New Yor k State Dam Hydr oe le c tr ic Pr oje c t r e su lti ngfr om i ts p os iti on a s th e mana g ingpa

rt ne r o f t hat pr oje c t – i s ins uf fi c ie nt t o s e rv e a s th e c ur

re nt b a sis fo r a

n in jur y -i n- fa c t g ive n th at A dir on da c k n o lo ng e r i s involved with that project. It theref ore a rgues that Adironda ck lac ks standing to c halleng e any of F ERC ’s or de rs . A dir on da c k c on c e de s th at it no lon g e r o wn s o r o pe ra

te s a ny hydr oe le c tr ic projec ts on the Mohawk River, but it contends that it ca n establish an injury -in-fa ct re sulting fr om F ERC ’s or de rs in t

hr e e wa y s. F ir st, Ad ir on da c k p oints t o th e fa c t th at va ri ou s p art ie s mo ve d to int e rv e ne out- of -t ime in the re licensingproce eding s. Those par ties had a br oad ra

ng e of inter ests, including environmenta l, cultural, ae sthetic, public hea lth, hist oric pre servation, and restoration interests. F ERC de nie d th os e mot ion s, in p art , o n th e g ro un d th at A dir on da c k, wh ic h w a s a lr e a dy a pa rt y to22

the proc eeding s, “appe ar[ed] aligne d” with the potential interve nors and thus could re prese nt their intere sts. See Nov embe r 16 Order De nying Rehe aring , 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,189, at 61,933. Adirondac k contends that this constituted a conc ession by FERC that Adirondac k shared tho se interests and the ref

ore w ould have standingto challeng e F ERC’s orders, suc h that it would be unfair to let F ERC argue now that Adir ondack la cks standingbeca use it has suffe red no injury
. As s u m i n g arguendo that FERC conc eded A dirondac k’s intere st in the procee dings, a point on which we e x press no view , we none theless have “an inde pendent oblig ation” to conduc t our own standinginquiry
. Ke nd all v . E mp loy e es R e t. P lan of A v on Prod s. , 561 F.3d 112, 117 n.11 (2d Cir. 2009). And a lthough we rec og nize that a party ’s standingcan be predic ated on a n injury to aesthetic, e nvironmental, or r ecr eational inter ests, see, e .g. , Friends of the Earth, Inc. , 52 8 U .S. at 18 3- 84 ; LaFleur , 300 F.3d at 270–71, Adirondac k offe rs no support for its asse rtion that it ha s su ff e re d a ny su c h in jur y a s a re su lt o f a

ny of F ERC ’s or de rs . Second, Adironda ck asse rts that it has an intere st, in it s capa city as the de velopment
su bs idi ary of Al ba ny En g ine e ri ng(“ Al ba

ny” ), in t he g e ne ra l de ve lop me nt o f hy dr oe le c tr ic pr oje c ts o n th e Mo ha

wk and Hu ds on Riv e rs in t

he vic ini ty

of the Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t. B ut t his argument is to no avail. As an initial matter, althoug h Adirondac k states that Albany has initiated licensing proce eding s for a projec t on the Mohawk River upstre am from the School Street Project, it makes no a rgument that this project would be impac ted in any way by the relice nsing of

School Street. Fur

thermore , any

potential injury

that might re sult from Adirondac k’s purporte d interest in deve loping f uture hy droele ctric pr ojects on the Mohawk River is far too hy

pothetical to establish standing , beca use that injury

would be depe ndent upon (1 ) A dir on da c k a c tua lly

purs uin gtho se pr oje c ts, and (2 ) t he Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t a ff e c tin gthe ir23

development. See B aur v. Vene man , 3 5 2 F. 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 2 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( “[ T ] o s u

p p o rts t an d i n g, the pla int if

f’ s in jur y mus t be a c tua l or

imm ine nt t o e ns ur e tha

t th e c ourt

avo ids de c idi nga

pure ly hy pothetical ca se in which the pr ojected ha rm may ultimately

fail to occ ur.”)
. Third, Adironda ck asse rts that it has an intere st that derives fr om the development of the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t. I ts argument proce eds as f ollows: Albany

is Gree n I sland’s ag ent and primary consultant with respe ct to the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t and thus stands to profit by doing work for Gre en I sland on that projec t. As a subsidiary of Albany , Adirondac k stands to ear n profits as a r esult of the wor k that Albany

will perfor

m. I f F ERC relicense s the School Street Project, howe ver, G ree n I sland ca nnot develop the Cohoes F alls Project. This will have a financ ial impact on Albany , which, in turn, will cause economic ha rm to Adirondac k. Adirondac k’s ar g ument, howeve r, suffe rs from two f laws. The f

irst is that Adirondack’ s purp or te d in jur y de ri ve s f ro m A lba ny ’s fi na nc ia l in jur y . A lth ou g h it

is s e ttl e d la

w that a pa rt y
can e stablish standing e ven if it has suff ere d only an indirec t injury , se e W

ar th v . S e ldi n , 4 22 U. S. 490, 504-05 (1975) , that does not relieve that party from esta blishing that it actua lly

will suffer a
concr ete injury . In this case, Alba ny ’s injury

is purely speculative. I f School Street we re not lic e ns e d, the n A lba

ny wo uld sta nd to p ro fi t f

ro m it s r e latio ns hip wi th G re e n I sla nd on ly if (1) Gr een I sland ca

rried thr oug h with its st ated intention of filinga license application for the Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t, ( 2) Gr e e n I sla nd c on tin ue d to us e Al ba

ny a s a c on su lta nt o n th at pr oje c t, and (3) work ne eded to be perf ormed by Albany as Gre en I sland compete d for that lice nse. Be cause Albany ’s injury

is speculative, Adir ondack’ s purported injury nece ssarily

is speculative
a s w e ll. Bu tev en as s u m i n g arguendo tha t A lba ny wo uld su ff e r a no n- hy po the tic a l in

jur y a s aAdirondac k’s re liance on Consolidat ed Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A. , 871 F.2d 9 252, 258 (2d Cir. 1989), her e is misplaced. In Consolidat ed Gold Fields , a ca se ar ising in the antitrust context, we held that a subsidiary of a hostile take over ta

rg et had standingto seek a n inj un c tio n a g a ins t th e te nd e r o ff e r b e c a us e the take ov e r b id w ou ld c a us e the su bs idi ary its e lf to su ff e r “ c ur ta ilm e nt o f i ts p ro du c tio n, ” wh ic h in tur n w ou ld l e a d to re du c tio n in its pr of its and in its abilit y to compete. Id. Thus, the subsidiary had standingnot beca

use it was a subsidiar

y of a p ar e n tth ats u f

f e r e d ani n j ur y, b u tr ath e r

b e c a u s e i ts u f f e r e d ani n j ur y its e lf
. 24 re su lt o f t he lic e ns ingor de r, Ad ir on da c k f a ils to e xpla in t

he me c ha nis m by wh ic h in jur y wo uld fl owto i t. I

nd e e d, a lth ou g h A dir on da c k a sse rt s th at it sta nd s to pr of

it f ro m th e Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t be c a

us e it i s a su bs idi ary of Al ba ny , it c ite s n o a

uth or ity to s up po rt

the pr op os iti on

that a subsidiary

nece ssarily

suffe rs financ ial injury

whene ver its par ent suffe rs ec onomic harm. Nor 9 does Adironda ck identify any fac ts or char acte ristics unique to this particular pa rent-subsidiar

y relationship t hat could lea d us to the conclusion that Adironda ck will suffe r an injury if Albany
s u f f e r s ani n j ur y. In s u m , n o n e o f

th e i n j ur i e s i d e n t i f

i e d b y A d i r o n d a c k

ar e s u f f i c i e n tt o s at i s f

y th e i n j uryin- fa c t r e qu ir e me nt o f t

he sta nd ingana ly sis . Co ns e qu e ntl y , A dir on da c k la c ks sta nd ingto
c ha lle ng e any

of F ERC ’s or de rs . 2. Gre en I sland Gre en I sland was not per

mitted to int erve ne as a

party in the relice nsing pr ocee dings. A s discussed above , howeve r, it is a party for the limited purpose of challeng ing F ERC’s denial of its mot ion to intervene. F urthermor e, Gr een I sland has standingto challeng e F ERC’s order denying its motion to int erve ne and its orde r deny ing r ehea ringof that orde r. See City of Or rv ille , 1 47 F .3 d at 98 9– 90 n. 12 ; Covelo Indian Cmty. , 895 F.2d at 585-86. Acc ording ly , we now consider

Gre en I sland’s petition for re view of F ERC’s denial of its motion t o intervene , and FERC’s denia l of Gre en I sland’s re quest for r ehea ringof that dec ision.25

C. G r e e n Is lan d’ s M ot ion to Int e r ve ne As it d id b e fo re the a g e nc y , G re e n I sla nd argue s h e re that F ERC dis re g ard e d it s ob lig atio n to so lic it m oti on s to int e rv e ne at thre e po int s d ur ingthe re lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s: ( 1) in Dec ember

1995, when Nia g ara

Mohawk infor

med FE RC that it no longe r intended to install the pr op os e d 2 1- MW g e ne rator ; ( 2) in M ay 20 01 , whe n E ri e re ve rs e d c ours e and inf or me d F ERC that it int e nd e d to ins ta ll the pr op os e d 2 1- MW g e ne rator ; and (3 ) i n M arc h 2 00 5, wh e n E ri e
su bmi tte d th e Of

fe r o f S e ttl e me nt. Gr e e n I sla nd c on te nd s th at be c a

us e F ERC fa ile d to so lic it interventions at any

of these thr ee points, its treatment of G ree n I sland’s motion to int erve ne as
un tim e ly wa s arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s. Under the re g ulations gove rningrelice nsing pr ocee dings, upon the filing of a mater ial amendment to a ne w license application, F ERC must reissue public notice of that application, alongwith dates for

comments, intervention, and pr otests. See 18 C.F.R. § 16.9(b)( 3), (d) (1). A “mater ial amendment to plans of de velopment proposed in a n application for

a license . . . means any fundame ntal and sig nificant c hang e, includingbut not lim ited to . . . [ a] chang e in the installed capa city , or the number or location of any

g ener atingunits of the proposed pr oject if the
c ha ng e wo uld

signif ic antl y mod if y the fl owre g ime a sso c iate d w iththe pr oje c t.” 18 C.F .R. § 4.35(f) (1)( i). FERC did not view any

of the e vents identified by Gre en I sland as wa

rra nting the
so lic itatio n o f m oti on s to int e rv e ne . Sp e c if ic a lly , it de te rm ine d th at th e 19 95 and 20 01 e ve nts did not constitut e mater ials amendments to the license application bec ause the y did not “sig nificantly

aff ect the pr oject’s f

low reg ime.” Septembe r 21 Order De nying Rehe aring , 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,267, at 62,184–85. It determined that the 2005 Offe r of Settlement did not war rant26

int e rv e nti on

fo r t hr e e re a so ns : ( 1) it “ su

pp le me nt[e d] r athe r t

ha n s up e rs e de [d] th e lic e ns e application”; ( 2) it did not “signific antly aff ect inter ests in a manner

not contemplated by

the
or ig ina l a pp lic atio n” ; and

(3 ) i t f e ll und e r o ne of

the e xce pti on s to the int e rv e nti on re qu ir e me nts contained in 18 C.F .R. § 4.35(e). See id. at 62,185–86 & n.26. Consequently , FERC ana ly zed Gr e e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

purs ua nt t o th e fa c tor s g ov e rn ingits c on sid e ra tio n o f l ate mot ion s to intervene
. See18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d). FERC’s fa ctual finding s underlying its conc lusion that the 1995 and 2001 eve nts did not
c on sti tut e mate ri a l ame ndme nts to t he lic e ns e a

pp lic atio n b e c a

us e the y did no t “ signif

ic antl y modify the projec t’s flow re g ime” ar e supported by substantial evidence
. See F riends of the Ompompanoosuc v. FERC , 968 F.2d 1549, 1554 ( 2d Cir. 1992) (“‘ Substantial evidence ’ has be e n d e fi ne d to me an s uc h r e le va nt e vid e nc e a s a

re a so na ble min d mi g ht a c c e pt a s a de qu ate to support a conc lusion.” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). With respect to the re moval of the g e ne rator fr om c on sid e ratio n in

19 95 , F ERC re c og nize d th at th is “ wo uld re su lt i n a

c ha ng e in flows, bec ause more water would spill over the dam whe never flows ava ilable for g ener ation exceede d the ca

pacity of the e x isting turbines.” Septembe r 21 Order De nying Rehe aring , 120 F .E .R. C. ¶

61 ,2 67 , at 62 ,1 84 . It c on c lud e d, ho we ve r, that th is w ou ld n ot sig nif ic an tly aff ect the projec t’s flow re g ime beca use “the projec t would stil l be re quired to oper ate in a r un-of[-]river mode, and to provide the same minimum flows in the by passed r eac h.” Id. FERC ref ere nced thi s sa me re a so nin gwh e n it

c on c lud e d th at th e 20 01 re ins tate me nt o f t he 21 -M W g e ne rator

did not constitute a materia l amendment. Althoug h Gre en I sland criticizes FERC’s re asoningas “illogic al” a

nd “nonsense ,” it offe rs no ac tual evidenc e to demonstrate that FERC’s conc lusion was fla wed. Conseque ntly , FERC’s dec isions not t o solicit mot ions to int erve ne in 1995 or 2001In any event, e ven if F ERC’s decisions not to soli cit motions t o intervene in 1995 or 10 2001 wer e ar

bitrary and ca pricious, any

resultingerr or would have been ha rmless vis-à-vis Gr een I sland, bec ause ( 1) the 1995 e vents occ urre d prior to the time when G ree n I sland deve loped an interest in the proc eeding s, and (2) Gre en I sland has not alleg ed that it would have f iled a motion to intervene in 2001, as opposed to waitinguntil 2004, had FERC solicited interventions at that time. 27 we re no t arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s. 10 FERC’s dec ision not t o solicit mot ions to int erve ne followingthe Marc h 2005 Offe r of Settlement, however , was a rbitrar y and ca pricious. See LaFleur , 300 F.3d at 267. Section 16 .9 (b )( 3) of

its re g ulatio ns re qu ir e s F ERC to r e iss ue pu bli c no tic e and

se e k c omm e nts , interventions, and pr otests, if an applica nt for a ne w license “mater ially amends” its application as that term is def

ined in 18 C.F.R. § 4.35(f) (1). Thus, the a naly sis that FERC should have perf ormed at that time required it to consider solely whether the Off er of Settlement constituted a “funda mental and sig nificant c hang e” to the School Stree t license a pplication. See18 C.F .R. § 4.35(f) (1). F ERC did notaddre ss this question. R ather , it relied on two g rounds – that (1) se ttlement ag ree ments g ener ally supplement rathe r than super sede lice nse applications, and (2) the O ffe r of Settlement did not “sig nificantly aff ect inter ests in a manner

not contemplated by the or ig ina l a

pp lic atio n” – th at ha

ve no be ari ngon

the ana ly sis
. FERC’s third re ason for

not soliciti ngmotions t o intervene in 2005 – that the Offe r of Settlement fell under one of the e x ceptions in 18 C.F.R. § 4.35(e) – simil arly was improper . On the surf a c e , § 4. 35 (e ) w ou ld a

pp e ar t o b e a

pp lic a ble . A s a g e ne ra l matte r, § 4 .3 5 g ov e rn s h owto deter mine the date of

acc eptanc e of a

license a pplication when that a

pplication has bee n amende d. See18 C.F .R. § 4 .3 5( a ) ( “ [I ]f a n a pp lic ant a me nd s it s f

ile d a pp lic atio n a s d e sc ri be d in pa ra g ra ph(b ) o f t

his se c tio n, the date of

a c c e pta nc e of the a pp lic atio n und e r § 4. 32 (f

) i s th e dateAs discussed above , the term “ materia l amendment” is de fined in § 4.35(f ). 11 28 on which the amendment to the applica [t ion] was filed.” ). The r egulation applies when, f or example, the applicant “ [a] mends its filed license . . . a pplication . . . to materially amend the proposed plans of

development.” Id. § 4.35(b)( 1). In that event, the a pplication is considere d 11 “a ne w filing for . . . [t] he purpose of dete rmining its timeliness under § 4.36 of this par t . . . and . . . [r] eissuing public notice of the a pplication under § 4.32( d)(2) .” Id. § 4.35(c)
. Section 4.35(e) cre ates e x ceptions to the oper ation of § 4.35(a ) whe re, inte r a lia , the amendment is “ma de by

a license . . . applicant to its proposed plans of development to satisfy reque sts of resourc e ag encie s.” Id. § 4 .3 5( e )( 4) . T hu s, wh e n a n a pp lic ant a me nd s a lic e ns e application in re sponse to a re quest from a resour ce a g ency , that amendment ha s no impact on the date on

wh ic h th e a

pp lic atio n is de e me d to have be e n f ile d. Mo re ov e r, § 4 .3 5( e ) a pp e ars to indicate that F ERC does not have to re issue public notice of the application, eve n if the
ame ndme nt t o th at a

pp lic atio n is mate ri a l. In the pre sent context, however, that of a re licensingproce eding , § 4.35 is not the
a pp ro pr iate re g ulatio n u

po n whic h to re ly . Rathe r, F ERC sh ou ld h ave c on du c te d it s a na ly sis pursuant to the re quirements of § 16.9, which “a pplies to an applica [t ion] for a new lice nse or nonpower license f or a pr oject subjec t to sections 14 and 15 of the F eder al Power A ct.” 18 C.F.R. § 16.9(a) . Indeed, § 16.9( b)(3) expli citly provides that “[t]he requireme nts of § 4.35 of thi s c ha pte r d o n ot a

pp ly to a n a pp lic atio n und e r t

his se c tio n, e xce pt t

hat th e Commis sio n w ill reissue a public notice of the application in ac corda nce w ith the provisions of § 16.9(d)(1) if an amendment de scribed in § 4.35( f) of this chapter is filed.” In other wor ds, in relicensing pr oc e e din g s F ERC may

loo k to § 4 .3 5 o nly

fo r i ts d e fi nit ion

of “ mate ri a l ame ndme nt” ; F ERC29

mus t r e iss ue pu

bli c no tic e and

se t a date fo r c omm e nts , inte rv e nti on , a nd pr ote sts any timean applicant f

or a ne w license materia lly amends its license a

pplication. The a dminist rative history of § 16.9(b) (3) supports our unde rstandingof the role § 4.35 pla y s in re lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s a nd de mon str ate s th at F ERC ’s int e rp re tatio n o f t hat r e g ulatio n is
unrea sonable. In setting f orth its final rule with re spect to hydroele ctric r elicensingregulations under the FPA, F ERC ex plained that § 4.35 wa s not releva nt to the filing of a

mendments to new license a pplications, except insofar a s that section is to be used to deter mine whether

such
ame ndme nts are mate ri a l.

Un de r § 4. 35 , whe n ame ndme nts to a pp lic atio ns that are c on sid e re d a s “ mate ri a l” are filed, the filingdate of the initial application is deemed to be the date the materia l amendment is filed for a var iety of purpose s, including the deter mination of wh e the r t he ini tia l a

pp lic atio n w a s ti me ly

fi le d v is- a -v is c omp e tit ion de a dli ne s. On its face , § 4.35 applies to relice nsing pr ocee dings. H oweve r, application of § 4 .3 5 to re lic e ns ingpr oc e e din g s w ou ld m e an th at an a pp lic atio n f

or ne w l ic e ns e timely filed by an applica

nt prior to the 24-month new lice nse filingdeadline would be re

jected if the applica

nt were to file a mate rial ame ndment to the a pp lic atio n a ft e r t

he 24 -m on th d e a dli ne , e ve n if the ame ndme nt w e re fi le d p ri or to th e f i n al am en dm en td ea d l i n e e s t ab l i s h edfo r t h e p ro ce ed i n g. The Commission believes it is appropriate to wa ive § 4.35 as to re licensing pr oc e e din g s to avo id t

his sit uatio n. . . . H ow e ve r . . . , th e § 1 6. 9( d) (1 ) n oti c e wi ll be re issued to obtain the views of the public a nd others should an amendment considere d materia l under § 4.35(f ) be f iled. Hydroele ctric Relice nsing Regulations Under the F eder al Power A ct, 54 Fe d. Reg . 23,756, 23,787 (June 2, 1989) (footnotes omitted). I t is plain, therefor e, that F ERC’s decision not to soli cit motions t o intervene following the submission of the Offe r of Settlement wa s predicated on three rea sons not contemplated byAs discussed above , those three rea sons were that the Off er of Settlement 12 (1 ) “ su pp le me nt[e d] r athe r t

ha n s up e rs e de [d] th e lic e ns e a pp lic atio n, ” (2 ) d id n ot “ signif ic antl y aff ect inter ests in a manner

not contemplated by

the orig inal application,” a nd (3) f ell under one of the e x ceptions to the interve ntion requireme nts contained in 18 C.F.R. § 4.35(e ). Septembe r 21 Order De nying Rehe aring , 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,267, at 62,185–86 & n.26. 30 its re g ulatio ns . F ur

the rm or e , it s f

a ilure to c on du c t th e pr op e r a na ly sis may

have a ff e c te d it s 12 treatment of Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne. Ha d FERC deter mined that the Off

er of Se ttl e me nt was a

mate ri a l ame ndme nt, the n it wo uld have be e n r e qu ir e d to so lic it i nte rv e nti on s, Gre en I sland’s re newe d motion to i nterve ne would have been timely , and F ERC could not have analy zed that motion pursuant to the factors a pplicable to untimely

motions t o intervene
. Consequently , FERC’s denia l of Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne, without first conduc ting the proper analy sis to determine whe ther it was r equire d to solicit such moti ons, was ar bitrary and
c a pr ic iou s. D. P r e

ju dic ialEr r orAna lys is Although w e find that F ERC acted a rbitrar ily and ca priciously by denying G ree n I sland’s motion to i nterve ne without first consider ing whether the Off er of Settlement materially

amende d the School Street license application, we are mindful of the Administrative Proce dure A ct’s
a dmo nit ion

that “ du e a c c ount s ha ll b e take n o f t he ru le of pr e jud ic ia l e rr or .” 5 U .S. C. § 70 6; see Nat ’l As s’n o f H om e Bu ild

e rs v . D e fe nd e rs o f W ild lif e , 551 U.S. 644, 659 (2007). “T he rule of prejudicia l error

ty pically eliminates the nec essity

of re mand followingjudicial revie w when the
err or that the a g ency

has made was not pre

judicial and did not impinge on f undamental r ights.” N.Y . Pub. Intere

st Research Group v. W

hitman , 3 21 F .3 d 3 16 , 3 33 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ) ( e mph a sis omitted). Thus, we will not disturb FERC’s order s if we c an dete rmine that the outcome of the administrative proc eeding s will be the same a bsent FERC’s er

ror. See P

DK Labs. Inc. v. U.S.31

Drug Enforcem ent Admin. , 362 F.3d 786, 799 ( D.C. Cir. 2004) (“I f the a g ency ’s mistake did not aff ect the outc ome, if it did not prejudice the pe titioner, it would be senseless to vac ate a nd
re mand fo r r e c on sid e ratio n. ” ); se e als o Ke rn e r v . Ce le br e zze , 340 F.2d 736, 740 ( 2d Cir. 1965) (“ I t w ou ld b e fatuo us to s up po se that if the he ari ngof

fi c e r h a d r e c omm e nd e d a de c isi on in [petit ioner’s] favor , the ultimate result would have been dif fer ent, or that a

rema nd to obtain a
rec ommendation from him now would ac complish any thing save fur

ther e x pense a

nd delay .” (citation omitted)). I f, howe ver, w e ca n deter mine that the outcome will be diff ere nt, or if there is unc e rt a int

y wi th r e sp e c t to wh at th e outc ome wi ll b e , whe n F ERC pr op e rl y a pp lie s it s regulations, then we will find that FE RC’s error was pre judicial and re mand the ca se for further proce eding s. Se e Sp rin t Co rp . v . FCC , 3 15 F .3 d 3 69 , 3 76 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 3) ; cf. Sugar Cane Growers Coop. v. Vene man , 2 89 F .3 d 8 9, 96 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 2) (“ [A]n utte r f a ilure to c omp ly

wi th notice and c omment cannot be c onsidered ha rmless if there is any

uncer tainty at all as to the eff ect of that failure .”). Our p re jud ic ia l e rr or

ana ly sis fi rs t mu st a dd

re ss whe the r w e c an d e te rm ine that F ERC will deny Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne upon re mand, eve n afte r conduc ting the pr oper analy sis. I f so, there can be no prejudicia l error . I f not, howeve r, then we must address whe ther
we c an dete rmine that F ERC will license the School Street Project ag ain, eve n if it gr ants Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne. Turningto the first part of the ana ly sis, we ca

nnot be ce rtain that F ERC will deny Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne af ter a pplying its re g ulations properly , beca use F ERC has never
a dd re sse d whe the r t

he e xten siv e pr op os a ls c on ta ine d in the Of fe r o f S e ttl e me nt m ate ri a lly
ame nd e d th e Sc ho ol S tr e e t li c e ns e a pp lic atio n, and

we la c k th e e xpe rt ise to m ake thi s32

de te rm inatio n in

the fi rs t in sta

nc e . F ur the rm or e , F ERC ha s n e ve r g ive n a ny ind ic atio n th at it would have de nied Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne eve n if it had consider ed that motion to be timely . We theref

ore must consider

the sec ond prongof our pr ejudicial er ror a naly sis – i.e., wh e the r t he outc ome of

the a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e e din g s w ill be the same e ve n if Gr e e n I sla

nd is permitted to intervene
. We are unable to conc lude that the outcome of the proc eeding s will be the same upon
re mand if Gr e e n I sla

nd is p e rm itt e d to int e rv e ne . D ur ingthe pr oc e e din g s b e low , F ERC steadfa stly

ref used to consider

the evidenc e that Adironda ck and G ree n I sland submitted
re g ard ingthe Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t pr op os a l. A s w e e xpla in b e low , h ow e ve r, F ERC ha s a statutory duty when c onductingrelice nsing pr ocee dings to c onsider fe asible alter natives to the p r o j e c tun d e r

c o n s i d e r at i o n , e v e ni f

i tu l t i m at e l y c an n o tl i c e n s e th o s e a l t e r n at i v e s . C o n s e qu e n t l y, if Gr e e n I sla

nd is p e rm itt e d to int e rv e ne up on re mand , th e n F ERC is s tatut or ily ob lig ate d to
c on sid e r i ts e vid e nc e re g ard ingthe Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t. This statutory

duty arises pr incipally

from thre e sec tions of the FPA. As a n initial matter, § 4(e) g rants F ERC the authority to issue licenses for

hy droele ctric pr ojects, but it demands that F ERC c on sid e r a

br oa d s pe c tr

um o f c on c e rn s: In decidingwhether

to issue any

license unde r this subchapter for a ny projec t, the Commi ssion, in addition t o the power and deve lopment purposes for which l i ce n s es ar e i s s u ed , s h al l gi v e e qu al co n s i d er at i o nt o th e p urp o s es o f e n er gy c on se rv atio n, the pr ote c tio n, mit ig atio n o f d ama g e to, and e nh anc e me nt o f, fi sh and wildlife (inc luding r elated spa wningg rounds and ha

bitat), the protec tion of rec reational opportunities, and the pre servation of other aspe cts of envir onmental qu a l i ty. 16 U.S.C. § 797(e). Section 10(a) (1) of

the FPA, whic h cover s the issuance s of license s g ener ally , provides33

that the projec t adopted, includingthe maps, plans, and spe cifications, shall be such as

in the judgme nt of the Commissi on will be best adapted to a comprehe nsive plan for improvingor deve loping a water way or waterwa

y s for the use or bene fit of interstate or

fore ign c ommerce , for the improve ment and utiliz ation of water -powe r deve lopment, for the a dequate protec tion, mit iga tion, and enhanc ement of f

ish and wildlife (includingrelated spawningg rounds and ha bit at) , a nd fo r o the r b e ne fi c ia l pu

bli c us e s. 16 U. S.C. § 8 03 (a )( 1) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . Wh e n th e F PA w a s ame nd e d in 19 86 , Co ng re ss
rec og nized that “[FERC] and the c ourts have he ld the Section 10(a) standard to be [a] broad pu bli c int e re st s tand ard , r e qu ir ingc on sid e ra tio n o f a ll f

a c tor s a ff e c tin gthe pu

bli c int e re st. ” H. R. Rep. No. 99-507, at 12 (1986), as re pr inte d in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2496, 2499. Further , Congr ess explained that it intended § 10(a) to provide F ERC with t he fle x ibilit y to weig ht dif fe re nt p ub lic -i nte re st f

a c tor s d if fe re ntl y on a c a se -b y -c a se ba sis , s o th at “ [a]s the pu bli c int e re st c ha

ng e s o ve r t ime , [F ERC ’s ] co ns ide ratio ns un de r t he se c tio n 1 0( a ) s tand ard

lik e wi se chang e, enc ompassing ne w cr iteria or r eeva luating the weig ht give n established cr iteria.” Id. Section 10(a) does not prese nt “an e x clusive list of values F ERC must evaluate and a ddress,” but rathe r “hig hlights the steps the Commission mus t take to inform itself re g ardingthe nee ds and uses of the r iver in question.” H.R. Rep. No. 99- 934, at 22 (1986) ( Conf. Rep.), as re pr inte d in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2537, 2539. Section 15(a) (2) of

the FPA mandates a similar ana ly sis with respect to applications for new lice nses. I t provides that

[a] ny new lice nse issued under this section shall be issued to the applica nt having the fi na l pr op os a l w hic h th e Commis sio n d e te rm ine s is best adapted to servethe pu bli c inte re

st , e xce pt t

hat in makin gthi s d e te rm inatio n th e Commis sio n s ha ll ensure that insignifica

nt differ ence s with reg ard to subpar ag raphs ( A) through (G) of thi s p ara g ra

phbe tw e e n c omp e tin ga

pp lic atio ns are no t de te rm inativ e and sh a ll34 not result in the transfe r of a projec t. I n makinga dete rmination under this section (whe ther or not more than one a pplication is submit ted for the projec t), the Commi ssion shall, in additi on to the require ments of sec tion 803 of this ti tle, consider ( and explain such consider ation in writing) eac h of the following
. . . . 16 U. S.C. § 8 08 (a )( 2) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T he statut e the n e nume ra te s se ve n f

a c tor s th at F ERC

“ sh a ll .
. . c on sid e r” wh e n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he pr oje c t is “ be st a da

pte d to se rv e the pu

bli c interest.” See16 U. S.C. § 8 08 (a )( 2) (A )- (G ); se e als o 18 C.F.R. § 16.13(a) (“I n deter mining wh e the r a fi na l pr op os a l f

or a ne w l ic e ns e un de r s e c tio n 1 5 o f t he F e de ra l Po we r A c t is be st
a da pte d to se rv e the pu

bli c int e re st, the Commis sio n w ill c on sid e r t he fa c tor s e nume ra

te d in sections 15(a )(2) and (a )(3) of the F eder al Power A ct.”)
. The purpose of § 15(a )(2) is to ensure that F ERC rigor ously scrutinizes any

application for a new lice nse for

an existi nghy droele ctric pr oject, so that it can de termine that the e x isting projec t is “best adapte d to serve the public interest.” T his is so even wher e ther e is only one applicant a

nd that applicant is the c urre nt license holder of the e x isting projec t. I ndeed, the leg islative history

noted explicitl y

that a re licensingproce eding“does not include an incumbent pref ere nce,” H.R. Rep. No. 99-934, at 26, and that the “e x isting license e will not be ‘rubbe r stamped,’ but must ag ain prove that its project qualifies a s ‘best ada pted’ on powe r and
no n- po we r gro un ds .” H. R. R e p. 99 -5 07 , at 15 ; see also id. at 33-35 (disc ussing the importa nce of a r igor ous evaluation of all license a pplications to ensure that eac h is best adapted to se rve the public interest). Se c tio ns 10 and

15 of the F PA p la c e g re at e mph a sis on the re qu ir e me nt t

hat F ERC li c e n s e th e h y dr o e le c tr ic p r o je c t “ b e s t a d a

p te d ” to a c c o mp li s hth e g o a ls o f th e s tatute . We explained what FE RC mus t do to comply with the “best a dapted” standard unde r § 10(a ) whe nBe cause ScenicHudson was de cided be fore Congr ess amende d the FPA in 1986, and 13 befor e it passed the N ational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( “NEPA” ), F ERC questions t he extent to which our decision in that case continues to apply to licensing proce eding s today . At oral a rgument, FERC softene d its posit ion vis-à-vis NEPA, and the leg islative history of the 1986 amendments to the F PA makes plain that Cong ress intende d those amendme nts to reflec t how courts had inter

prete d the “be st adapted” standard in the pa st. SeeH.R. Rep. No. 99-934, at 21 (“The re is no intention in any way to chang e the holding s in releva nt case s, . . . which the confe ree s intend will continue to apply to FERC’s hydroele ctric pr og ram.” ). Thus, Sc e nic Hudson c o n t i nu e s t o a

p p l y t o l i c e n s i n gp r o c e e d i n g s t o d ay. 35 we de cided ScenicHudson Preserv ation Conf erenc e v. F

PC , 3 5 4 F
. 2 d

6 0 8 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 6 5 )
. In

13 ScenicHudson , we r eviewe d, inte r a lia , a n o rd e r i ssu e d b y

the F PC g ra

nti nga lic e ns e to Consolidated Edison (“Con Ed”) to c onstruct a hydroele ctric pr oject nea r the Hudson River. Id.
at 61 1. We s tate d th at th e pr oje c t c ou ld b e lic e ns e d o nly if it m e t th e statut or

y re qu ir e me nt t

hat it be “‘ best ada

pted to a compr ehensive plan for improvingor deve loping a water way ,’” id. at 612 (q uo tin g16 U. S.C. § 8 03 (a )) , a nd that th e F PC w a s “ un de r a statut or y duty to g ive fu ll consideration to alternative plans,” even where it “‘ha[d] no authority to command the alternative.’” Id. at6 1 7 (qu o t i n g City of Pitt sburgh v. FPC , 237 F.2d 741, 751 n.28 ( D.C. Cir. 1956)). We found that the F PC had violated this duty when it re fused to re ceive testimony
conce rningthe fe asibility of an a lternative to the Con Ed proje ct, on the g round that the testimony was not timely . We remande d the ca se for the ag ency

to supplement its record,
c on c lud ingtha

t “ [e]s pe c ia lly

in a c a se of thi s ty pe , whe re pu

bli c int e re st a

nd c on c e rn is s o g re at, the Commis sio n’ s r e fu sa l to re c e ive the
. . . te sti mony , a s w e ll a s p ro ff e re d in fo rm atio n o n f

ish protec tion devices a

nd underground transmission fac iliti es, exhibit s a disreg ard of the statute and of judicial mandates instructing the Commiss ion to probe all fe asible alter natives.” Id. at 620 (f oo tno te omi tte d) . F ina lly , w e a dmo nis he d th e a g e nc y that36 the Commis sio n h a s c la ime d to be the re pr e se ntativ e of the pu bli c int e re st. Th is role doe s not permit it to act as an umpire bla ndly callingballs and strikes for adver saries a

ppear ing be fore it; the right of the public must rece ive ac tive and a ff ir mativ e pr ote c tio n at th e ha nd s o f t he Commis sio n. . . . T he Commis sio n mu st se e to i t th at th e re c or d is c omp le te . T he Commis sio n h a s a n a ff ir mativ e duty

to inq uir e int o a

nd c on sid e r a ll r e le va

nt f a c ts. Id. ScenicHudson make s p la in t hat F ERC is s tatut or ily

ob lig ate d, purs ua

nt t o th e “ be st
a da pte d” sta nd ard se t f or th i n s e c tio ns 10 and

15 of the F PA, to g ive fu ll c on sid e ra tio n to a ll f e a s ib le a lt e r

n ati v e s , e v e nw h e r e it

u lt im ate ly

c an n o t l ic e n s e th o s e a lt e r n ati v e s . We r e c o g n iz e that F ERC mus t stri ke a

ba lanc e be tw e e n c omp lyingwi th t his ob lig atio n a

nd e ns ur ingthe tim e ly resolution of licensingproce eding s. Given the unique c ircumstance s of this case, how ever , wh e re mor e tha

n f if te e n ye ars pa sse d b e tw e e n whe n N ia g ara Mo ha wk fi rs t su bmi tte d it s
a pp lic atio n f

or a ne w l ic e ns e fo r t

he Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t in De c e mbe r 1 99 1 a

nd wh e n F ERC issued its li censingorder

in Febr uary 2007, and whe re ne arly

two y ear s passed be tween the filing of the Of fer of Settlement and the lice nsing or der, F ERC’s compliance w ith its statutory obligation bears pa

rticular importa

nce. Thus, if Gre en I sland is permitted to intervene upon rema nd, FERC must consider Gr een I sland’s evide nce r eg ardingthe Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t so that it m ay deter mine whether

the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t is a fea sible alternative. I f F ERC determines that the Cohoes F alls Project is a fe asible alter

native, then it must give it full consideration whe n deter mining whe ther the Sc ho ol S tr e e t Pr oje c t satis fi e s th e “ be st a da pte d” sta nd ard of the F e de ra l Po we r A c t, notwithstanding the f

act that F ERC cannot license the Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t instead of SchoolWe l e ave it f or F ERC to d e te rm ine in t

he fi rs t in sta

nc e wh e the r, in t

he e ve nt i t 14 de te rm ine s th at th e Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t do e s p re se nt a fe a sib le a lte rn ativ e , it

is r e qu ir e d to conduct f urther a naly sis to comply

with its st atutory

obligations under NEPA. 37 Str e e t. B e c a

us e F ERC ha s n e ve r c on sid e re d th e Coh oe s F a lls Pr oje c t pr op os a l in any de ta il 14 and, indee d, has conc eded that it has no way of knowingwhether

that proposal has a

ny merit, see Septembe r 21 Order De nying Rehe aring , 1 20 F .E .R. C. ¶ 61 ,2 67 , at 62 ,1 90 , w e are un a ble to deter mine what the outcome of this analy sis might be. The ref ore, w e ca

nnot be ce rtain that F ERC ’s e rr or

in d e nyingGr e e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

to i nte rv e ne wa s h arm le ss. In sum, FERC abused its discretion whe n it denied Gre en I sland’s motion to int erve ne without first consideringwhether the Off er of Settlement materially

amende d the School Street license a pplication. Fur

thermore , we a

re una ble to conclude that this error w as not prejudicia l. Acc ording ly , we r emand this ca se for FERC to consider in the f irst instance whe ther the O ffe r of Se ttl e me nt w a s a

mate ri a l ame ndme nt t o th e lic e ns e a pp lic atio n. I f i t w a s, the n F ERC mus t consider G ree n I sland’s motion to int erve ne in the re licensingproce eding s as timely filed and
ana ly ze i t a c c or din g ly . In th e e ve nt t hat it g ra nts Gr e e n I sla

nd ’s mot ion

to i nte rv e ne , F ERC is statutorily obligated to consider G ree n I sland’s evide nce r eg ardingthe Cohoes Fa lls P rojec t pr op os a l. C ONCL US I ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY A dirondac k Hydro De velopment Corporation’s petitions for revie w. We GRANT Gr een I sland Power Author ity ’s petitions for re view of the
o r d e r s d e n yin git s mo ti o nto inte r v e n e an d d e n yin git s r e qu e s t f

o r r e h e ar in go f

th at d e c is io n . We VACATE the F eder al Ener g y Regulatory

Commi ssion’s Febr

uary 15, 2007 order

issuing a ne w license f or the School Street Hydroele ctric Projec t and REMAND this case for f urther proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.