Opinion ID: 586835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Alleged Violation of Regulations.

Text: 46 Vermont raises several claims concerning FERC's alleged failure to follow applicable federal regulations in preparing the EA and EA Supplement. Specifically, Vermont contends that FERC improperly failed: (1) to hold a hearing; (2) to disseminate copies of the EA Supplement; and (3) adequately to consider alternatives to the Project. We address these claims in order. 47 Under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(c) (1991), an agency shall hold or sponsor public meetings or public hearings whenever appropriate. (emphasis added). Criteria for determining when a hearing should be held include whether there is (1) a [s]ubstantial environmental controversy and (2) [a] request for a hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the action supported by reasons why a hearing will be helpful. Id. 48 According to Vermont, both criteria for a hearing are met in the instant case: the Project's effects are controversial and the Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation requested a hearing in 1986. Given the arguable existence of a controversy surrounding the Project's aesthetic impact, we believe that a hearing might have been beneficial. Nevertheless, we do not believe that a hearing was required. See River Road Alliance, 764 F.2d at 451; see also Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d at 835 (neither NEPA nor any other federal statute mandates the specific type of procedure to be followed by federal agencies. There is no statutory requirement that a public hearing be held). An examination of the record in the instant case persuades us that the Commission's failure to hold a public hearing did not preclude it from weighing all the factors essential to exercising its judgment in a reasonable manner. Sierra Association For Environment v. FERC, 744 F.2d 661, 664 (D.C.Cir.1984). 49 Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a) and (b)(1) (1991), agencies shall provide notice to interested parties of the availability of environmental documents concerning a proceeding, and shall mail notice to those who have requested it in an individual action. Vermont is correct in arguing that FERC failed to comply with these requirements because it did not provide Vermont with notice that the EA Supplement had been issued. However, because Vermont received the document through a Freedom of Information Act request two months in advance of the Order licensing the Project, Vermont had ample time to comment on the EA Supplement before the license was issued and to petition FERC for reconsideration and rehearing. Because Vermont cannot demonstrate prejudice from FERC's oversight, reversal is not appropriate on this ground. 50 Finally, Vermont argues that FERC erred by failing to consider alternatives to the Project. Specifically, Vermont contends that FERC did not consider conservation as an alternative to the energy that the Project will produce. This argument is unpersuasive. It is well-settled that under NEPA the range of alternatives that must be discussed is a matter within an agency's discretion. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. National Resource Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551-52, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1215-16, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). Indeed, the range of alternatives an agency must consider is narrower when, as here, the agency has found that a project will not have a significant environmental impact. See, e.g., City of New York v. United States Dept. of Transp., 715 F.2d 732, 743 n. 11, 745 (2d Cir.1983) (implicitly suggesting that considering conservation as an alternative to energy production is not necessary), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1055, 104 S.Ct. 1403, 79 L.Ed.2d 730 (1984). We therefore hold that FERC's failure to consider conservation as an alternative was not an abuse of discretion.