Opinion ID: 586835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Relevant Factors Under The FPA.

Text: 12
13 Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3 et seq. (1988), Congress directed FERC to encourage development of small hydroelectric plants, such as the one at issue here, in order to reduce the nation's dependency on fossil fuels. See FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 750, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 2132, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982). In deciding whether to grant a license to build such a plant, the FPA requires FERC to, among other things, give equal consideration to power and development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife ..., the protection of recreational opportunities, and the protection of other aspects of environmental quality. 16 U.S.C. § 797(e) (1988). See also United States Department of Interior v. FERC, 952 F.2d 538, 545 (D.C.Cir.1992). 14 On appeal, petitioners contend that FERC erred in not considering relevant factors in its licensing decision. See Udall v. F.P.C., 387 U.S. 428, 450, 87 S.Ct. 1712, 1724, 18 L.Ed.2d 869 (1967) (under the FPA the Commission must explore all issues relevant to the 'public interest' ). Specifically, petitioners argue that the Commission failed to consider the uniqueness of the Project site, the Falls' importance to the local community, and the degree of opposition to the Project. 15 In reviewing a decision by FERC, a court must evaluate whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. Allegheny Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 922 F.2d 73, 80 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 55, 116 L.Ed.2d 32 (1991) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)). 16 In the present case, FERC carefully considered the effects of the Project on: the aesthetic value of Great Falls and its environs; the flow rate of the Falls; the cultural and historical significance of the site; the geological uniqueness of the Falls; and the decrease in recreational opportunities available at the Project site. Indeed, in its order denying reconsideration, FERC specifically noted that Vermont claimed that the Commission has ignored the fact that the Great Falls site is the State of Vermont's only remaining rural village waterfall site without hydropower development. Although FERC did not elaborate on this objection separately, the Commission was clearly aware of the issue and considered it under the topics listed above. 17 Further, it cannot be said that FERC ignored the local importance of the Falls or the existence of opposition to the Project. The Commission specifically addressed these concerns in the EA, the EA Supplement, the order issuing the license, and the order denying rehearing. Indeed, FERC's entire thrust in requiring mitigation measures was to preserve the integrity of the Falls area while at the same time balancing legitimate hydropower needs. See Swinomish Tribal Community v. F.E.R.C., 627 F.2d 499, 512 (D.C.Cir.1980) (noting that Commission's requirement of extensive mitigation measures aimed at minimizing the aesthetic impacts of the project demonstrated that it seriously considered those impacts); see also Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 832 (2d Cir.1972) (affirming agency decision that mitigation measures would minimize aesthetic impact of project), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 2290, 36 L.Ed.2d 974 (1973). 18 Under these circumstances, we believe that FERC fulfilled its obligations under the FPA. See National Wildlife Federation v. FERC, 912 F.2d 1471, 1480-82 (D.C.Cir.1990). That petitioners disagree with FERC's conclusion that the Project will not have significant adverse environmental effects is simply an insufficient basis upon which to overturn FERC's decision. 19
20 Pursuant to the FPA, in developing a comprehensive plan for the Project, FERC shall consider ... the extent to which the project is consistent with a [state] comprehensive plan ... for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway ... affected by the project. See 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A)(i) (1988). Petitioners argue that FERC failed to give sufficient consideration to conflicts between the Project and the Vermont state report on the Waterfalls, Cascades, and Gorges of Vermont (Waterfall Study) and the Vermont State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). This argument is unpersuasive. 21 Although FERC must consider inconsistencies with state plans, a license need not be denied merely because a state agency opposes a particular project. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, 912 F.2d at 1482 ([FERC's] actions are not subject to the effective veto of every state or federal ... agency....). Rather, the Commission is required to give due consideration to all recommendations from relevant agencies, to reconcile inconsistencies between those agencies' recommendations and the Commission's plans to the extent possible, and to explain its reasons for departing from the agencies' recommendations when it concludes that it must do so in order to fulfill its statutory mandate. Id. at 1482. 22 FERC admitted in its order denying rehearing that the Project conflicted with the Waterfall Study's recommendation against development in the Thetford Falls area. However, after considering the Waterfall Study, FERC reasoned that mitigative measures regarding stream flows and historic preservation would minimize conflicts with the Study and appropriately balance power needs with aesthetic values. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that FERC failed to fulfill its obligations under the FPA. See National Wildlife Federation, 912 F.2d at 1481-82. 23 As to the SCORP, FERC found that no conflict existed between the Project and this state plan. We agree. The purpose of Vermont's SCORP is to guarantee access to recreation. SCORP policy # 9 provides that Vermont's strategy is to increase efforts and programs which maintain and improve the quality of Vermont's lakes, rivers, and streams and which strive to strike a balance between competing uses of these waters. (emphasis added). The SCORP further indicates that more access to swimming is needed in the general area of the Project. While the Project will prevent use of a local swimming hole, we find that FERC's mitigation measures requiring public access to the Project and the development of plans to create other swimming areas strike[s] a balance consistent with Policy # 9. 24