us to comply with the "comprehensive plan" standard of § 10(a) of the Federal Power Act. Environmental considerations are, of course, prominent and often decisive factors in decisions we reach pursuant to this standard. Environmental considerations are also apparent in our jurisdiction over the interstate natural gas industry. Assuring adequate supplies of natural gas is a prime concern and responsibility of this Commission. Plentiful supplies of natural gas have enormous importance in air pollution abatement efforts and we recog. nize this fact in our efforts to stimulate further exploration and development of gas supplies. In addition, the potential widespread use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel for automobiles and other vehicles is a matter which must be pursued in the interest of air pollution abatement. The importance of these considerations underlies the Commission's purpose in seeking increased supplies of natural gas. This policy relates not only to consideration of individual cases filed under the Natural Gas Act, but has also prompted our request to Congress for appropriations to conduct a National Gas Survey comparable to the National Power Survey of the electric industry. To accomplish the formal change in our procedures referred to above, the notice of proposed rulemaking indicated in the foregoing discussion will be published in the near future and supplied to the Council at time of publication. We will follow the procedures we have outlined herein pending completion of that formal rulemaking. The Commission appreciates the Council's advice and guidance in helping us formulate a procedural framework in compliance with the Act. The meeting on May 22, 1970 with Council member Robert Cahn and the Council's General Counsel, Timothy Atkeson, was of particular value. Sincerely, APPENDIX D JOHN N. NASSIKAS, Chairman. HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is written with reference to the Cornwall Pumped Storage Project, Project No. 2338, the provisions of Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190, and Section 9(b) of the Council's Interim Guidelines (35 FR 7390, 7392 (May 1, 1970)), with reference to the preparation and submission to the Council of a detailed environmental impact statement. The proceeding is presently pending before the Commission on exceptions to an initial decision, issued August 6, 1968, and an initial decision in supplemental proceedings, issued December 23, 1969. The decisions were issued after formal hearings in which various Federal as well as State agencies participated on environmental issues. We are submitting seven copies of each of the initial decisions. It is noted that certain of the parties have asked the Commission to make findings of fact on environmental issues contrary to some made by the hearing examiner. Some parties are opposed to the issuance of any license for the proposed project. This proceeding involves a hearing held in accordance with the remand of the Court in Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. F.P.C., 354 F.2d 608 (CA2 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 941 (1966), reversing, among other orders, an order issuing license. See generally 35 FPC 151 (1966) (order fixing hearing on Court remand). The Court remanded the proceeding with directions that the Commission should consider additional evidence concerning alternatives to the project (such as gas turbines), the cost and practicality of further undergrounding transmission lines, and the effect of the project on Hudson River fish. The project would be located in the Hudson River Gorge, approximately half way between West Point and Newburgh, New York. The Court stated that the Commission should consider the scenic beauty of the Storm King Mountain area and the historical significance of the environs of the project. The Applicant had originally proposed a powerhouse about 80% underground. At the 1966-67 hearings on Court remand a completely underground powerhouse was considered for the first time. The Applicant proposed a location in the Village of Cornwall underneath a foothill below the north face of Storm King Mountain (Site 1). Evidence was also taken as to Site 2, about a mile south in Palisades Interstate Park. In the initial decision, issued August 6, 1968, a powerhouse located at Site 1, near which the Catskill Aqueduct crosses the Hudson, was found to be preferable to Site 2. Subsequent to the initial decision the City of New York filed a petition to intervene. On November 19, 1968 (40 FPC 1310) the Commission ordered a supplemental hearing as to the elimination of any hazard to the Catskill Aqueduct (Site 1) and the question of an alternative location of the underground powerhouse in Palisades Interstate Park. The Palisades Interstate Park Commission was permitted to intervene on January 3, 1969. The Commission heard oral argument on May 4, 1970. We shall forward copies of the Commission's opinion, when it is issued. The opinion of the Commission will contain a statement on environmental impact. Very truly yours, Secretary. Cameron F. McRae, Randall J. Le Boeuf, Jr., James O'Malley, Jr., Raymond H. Bradford for Board of Supervisors of Orange County; City of Newburgh; Town of Highlands; Board of Education, Central School District of Cornwall; Cornwall Taxpayers Association; Village of Cornwall; Hudson Valley Progress Committee; Greater Newburgh Chamber of Commerce; New York State AFL-CIO; New York State Building and Construction Trades Council; Building and Construction Trades Department; International Union of Operating Engineers of the U. S. and Canada; Orange County Trades Council; Bethlehem Rod and Gun Club; Orange County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc.; Town of Highlands Fish and Game Club, Inc.; and Black Rock Fish and Game Club of Cornwall, Inc.; all in the State of New York James R. Loeb for Town of Cornwall, New York, and Mid-Hudson Municipal Association C. Edward Doyle for Town of Philipstown and Philipstown Citizens Association, New York Thomas A. Collins for Putnam County, New York Samuel L. Slutzky for Town of Putnam Valley, New York John R. Kibbe and Raymond J. Margles for Town of Yorktown, New York |