Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 37 N.Y.2d 156 (1975)
An environmental impact statement for a proposed utility transmission facility need not include detailed studies of every conceivable alternative route, provided the Public Service Commission develops a comprehensive record of the environmental impact of the chosen route.
Summary
Niagara Mohawk applied for a certificate to construct high-voltage transmission lines. After its initial route through a reservation failed, the Public Service Commission (PSC) approved an alternative route proposed by the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency (SOCPA), despite Niagara Mohawk not filing a full environmental impact statement for that specific route. Challengers argued that the lack of an impact statement for the chosen route violated the Public Service Law. The New York Court of Appeals held that a full impact statement for every alternative is not required, as long as the PSC develops a comprehensive record on the environmental impact of the certified route. The Court emphasized the balance between environmental concerns and the need for energy infrastructure.
Facts
Niagara Mohawk sought to build high-voltage transmission lines across several counties. Its primary proposed route through the Onondaga Indian Reservation was abandoned. The utility then presented other alternative routes, but without detailed environmental impact statements for each. SOCPA proposed an alternative route. The Hewlett Hills community objected to the SOCPA route. Niagara Mohawk provided descriptions of alternatives and explained why the primary proposal was deemed best. The PSC ultimately certified the SOCPA route.
Procedural History
The Public Service Commission approved the SOCPA route. The appellant, representing the Hewlett Hills community, challenged the PSC’s decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the PSC’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Law requires an applicant for a certificate to construct a utility transmission facility to prepare and submit a full environmental impact study for every alternative route proposed for the facility.
Holding
No, because the Public Service Law requires only a comprehensive record on the environmental impact of the route ultimately certified, not detailed impact studies for every conceivable alternative.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Public Service Law strikes a balance between environmental protection and the need for new utility facilities. While an applicant must provide information on alternative routes, the law does not mandate detailed and expensive studies for every conceivable alternative. The applicant must provide descriptions of reasonable alternatives and explain why the primary proposal was deemed best. The Court emphasized that the PSC has a duty to develop a comprehensive record on the environmental impact of the line to be certified, citing Public Service Law § 128, subd 1. The Court stated, “As long as the commission developed a comprehensive record, as we believe it had, on the environmental impact of the line to be certified, the statutory purpose has been fulfilled.” The Court declined to impose a stricter requirement than that intended by the legislature. The decision reflects a pragmatic approach, recognizing the burden of requiring full impact statements for all alternatives and highlighting the importance of the PSC’s role in developing a comprehensive record. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted.