Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965) is a United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals case in which a public group of citizens, the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, organized and initiated legal action after the Federal Power Commission approved plans for Consolidated Edison to construct a power plant on Storm King Mountain, New York. The federal regulatory agency had denied that the environmental group could bring action, but the court disagreed, ruling that Scenic Hudson had legal standing because of their "special interest in  aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects" of the mountain. This was the first decision of a court to grant standing on such terms, and established a precedent to allow similar public-based environmental groups to engage in legal processes. As Justice Hays stated, "the cost of a project is only one of several factors to be considered" in addition to "the preservation of natural beauty and national historic sites" as a basic concern. This 1965 ruling helped to establish the legitimacy of environmental issues and paved the way for lawyers and the courts to play a significant role in all manner  of land-use and environmental battles. Background. This case is part of a 17-year (1963–1981) dispute. In September, 1962, Consolidated Edison announced plans to build the country's largest pumped-storage, 2,000-megawatt (MW) hydroelectric power plant on Storm King Mountain at a cost of $234 million. The proposed project also required that Con Edison buy about three hundred acres of the Black Rock Forest owned by Harvard University, which was unwilling to sell. In response to the proposal, by November 1963 citizens had formed the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference to provide a stronger unified voice against the  project. Despite its opposition, the Federal Power Commission granted Consolidated Edison the right to proceed. The Commission's decision was immediately appealed and the matter was sent to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The timeline below provides a more thorough context of the different cases and significant decisions. Legal framework. Parties involved. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference was a collection of concerned citizens and other local interests. Several towns joined Scenic Hudson as plaintiffs. The towns were located along both banks of the Hudson River within the vicinity of Storm King Mountain. These surrounding local governments felt as though  the development of the storage facility along with the additional transmission lines would adversely affect them. Among them were Phillipstown, Putnam Valley, Cortland, and Yorktown, all on the opposite bank and concerned about the visual impact of the project. Consolidated Edison was, and as of 2013 still is, a large investor-owned utility in New York. It was seeking a reliable source of energy to meet the needs of a then growing population. Appeals court. This case was tried in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. It was argued on October 8, 1965 and decided on December 29, 1965 . The case was remanded to the Federal Power Commission in the lower courts. The decision was the beginning of what was to become environmental law. The case was presented before Chief Judge J. Edward Lumbard and Circuit Judges Sterry R. Waterman and Hays. The innovative decision was written by Justice Hays. Issues. The main issue presented in this case is whether aesthetic harm can suffice as an injury-in-fact in order to establish standing. The "injury in fact" test requires both an "injury to a cognizable interest" and that "the party seeking review be himself among the injured." The  Storm King project was to be located in an area of unique beauty and major historical significance. The highlands and gorge of the Hudson offer one of the finest pieces of river scenery in the world. The great German traveler Baedeker called it "finer than the Rhine." Petitioners' contention that the Commission must take these factors into consideration in evaluating the Storm King project is justified by the history of the Federal Power Act. Prior to this case, aesthetics were not considered worthy of standing in court. Environmental groups had to demonstrate a harm to a person or people (typically  economic harm) before they could be allowed to challenge development in court and be heard. The New York Court of Appeals set aside the Storm King license and remanded to the Federal Power Commission in a decision marking the birth of environmental law. The court stated that "The Commission's renewed proceedings must include as a basic concern the preservation of natural beauty and national historic sites, keeping in mind that in our affluent society, the cost of a project is only one of several factors to be considered." In addition, the court ruled that "On remand, the Commission should  take the whole fisheries question into consideration before deciding whether the Storm King Project is to be licensed." This also helped to establish some of the largest environmental organizations today. See "Catalyst for other action," below. Opinion of the Court. Presented by Justice Hays on behalf of Chief Justice Lumbard and Justice Waterman. Standing. In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." This case was significant because the court  decided the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference was an aggrieved party under § 313(a) of the Federal Power Act and thus "has standing to challenge the Commission's order." They were determined to be an "aggrieved party" because of their "special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development." This was the first example of granting standing on the basis of aesthetic or environmental benefits. Commission. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held the following: Remand. The licensing order of March 9 and the two orders of May 6 were set aside, and the case was remanded for further Federal  Power Commission hearings. Judicial timeline. The Storm King Decision incorporates 15 years of legal challenges, beginning with the first case in 1965. Below is the timeline: Catalyst for other action. The Court's decision to grant standing to the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, a conservation group with local members, established an important legal precedent for similar groups to be able to take legal action to protect the public interest. This case has been attributed as the birth of environmental law, which is now so firmly established, it is taught as a separate branch of legal studies at most law schools  today. Related cases. This case sets a precedent for "attainment of standing to sue than for justiciability of aesthetic issues on their merits." Within each case, it is important that aesthetic conditions be specifically mentioned within the applicable statutes. In the case of "Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission" case, this was the Federal Power Act. Policy change. Though a powerful tool for environmental action, private litigation does not replace the proactive approach of states and the federal government establishing environmental standards. Environmental organizations. The Natural Resources Defense Council started in 1970 from a partnership including attorneys of  the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, led by Stephen Duggan.