of major hydroelectric projects and related applications, as well as the certification of new interstate natural gas pipeline facilities fall within our jurisdictional regulatory responsibilities relating directly to environmental quality within the scope of NEPA. These categories of activity are specified, therefore, in our NEPA regulations. The rules we have adopted in order No. 415-B require applications for various kinds of hydroelectric and natural gas facilities to be accompanied by the applicant's detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed activity using the factors specified in NEPA as a framework. Illustrations of the types of considerations that should be evaluated in detailed statements are provided. Once staff has reviewed the sufficiency of the applicant's statement and required the applicant to rectify deficiencies, the environmental statement is circulated for comment to all appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. Any intervenor in such proceedings (contested and noncontested) taking an environmental position is also required at a specified time to submit an explanation of his environmental position in the context of the NEPA criteria. The record in such cases should include environmental evidence in support of the positions advanced and the environmental issues, including staff-developed alternatives, discussed in the context of the NEPA factors, must be developed in the briefs. The presiding examiner in contested cases renders the initial decision in conformity with is findings on these and other relevant issues and so states in his opinion. Exceptions can be taken to the examiner's decision, including his assessment of the environmental issues. When the Commission takes final action, assuming it approves the activity or facility, its final order includes the detailed environmental statement called for in NEPA. All environmental data of record, including 102 statements and all comments on such statements, are available to the public. Special notice of public availability of (a) the draft environmental statement that is to be circulated and (b) all final environmental statements is provided in the Federal Register. In order to assure the proper representation of all view-points and provide a timely disposition of all applications, we encourage early and informed public participation in our proceedings. The validity of aspects of our rules, however, has been cast in doubt by virtue of the second circuit's decision in Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission, No. 71-1991, et al., January 17, 1972. There, among other things, the court held that the circulation of the applicant's detailed environmental statement (after staff review and appropriate revisions by the applicant) as information comparable to an agency draft statement was inadequate compliance with the requirements of NEPA. The court so held despite a specific provision in section 7 of the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines that is consistent with the Commission's procedures. I cannot speculate on the issues implicit in this decision because the rulemaking governing our NEPA procedures, R-398, is pending on rehearing for further consideration. Some of the issues pending in that proceeding are also involved in the Greene County decision. I will state, however, that we believe it is imperative to clarify the Commission's legal requirements under NEPA and we are, therefore, 76-248 O 72 - 24 seeking all appropriate appellate review of the Greene County decision, including a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. We filed a petition for rehearing in the second circuit on February 14, 1972, suggesting en banc reconsideration of the Greene County decision. The Interstate Commerce Commission asked and was denied permission to intervene and file a brief as amicus curiae in support of the Commission's position. Because they succinctly summarize the issues, our petition for rehearing and the ICC's petition are attached as appendix D.14 In addition to order No. 415-B, several other Commission rulemakings have been designed to fulfill the requirements and respond to the policies of NEPA. Specifically, it is stated in page 102(2)(B) of NEPA that all Federal agencies should "identify and develop methods and procedures . . . which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking, along with economic and technical considerations." I have provided as appendix E an explanatory list of our rulemaking efforts in the environmental area. You will note that they cover a wide variety of matters ranging from revised accounting procedures to allow our jurisdictional industries to apply new tax principles designed to aid the environmental effort to guidelines and rules for the location and construction of natural gas pipelines and electric power transmission lines. Cooperative and coordinating efforts with other agencies of Government in discharging their NEPA and other environmental review obligations comprise another major area of Commission activity in compliance with NEPA. As indicated earlier, we have had extensive staff coordination with the Atomic Energy Commission on nuclear powerplant applications and with the Department of the Interior on major resource development efforts such as the TAPS project and the offshore lease sales. In addition, we are working in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency in analyzing air quality management problems. The delayed projects have cost and environmental dimensions of substantial importance. Currently, the generating units which could be operating to meet the foreseeable electric utility loads during the first 9 months of 1972 and which may be precluded from operation have an associated gross capital investment of approximately $5 billion. These plants, built to various operating and environmental design specifications, when planned and constructed, can have environmental enhancement qualities in serving the needs of ultimate consumers and public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the maintenance of our Nation's economic growth and full employment goals. They are not contributors of solely adverse effects. Moreover, the added costs of environmental enhancement are costs which the consumer may look forward to 14 Another decision by the second circuit, Scenic Hudson (Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission), F 2d- (CA2, Oct. 22, 1971), rehearing denied (Nov. 26, 1971) is the most notable recent example of the Commission's compliance with NEPA. In that case, the court rejected all allegations that the Commission had failed to conduct proper and complete environmental reviews. On the contrary, the court found that the Commission had given "careful and thorough consideration to the impact of the project on the environment." (Slip Op. p. 5303.) On the specific question of our compliance with NEPA's requirements, the court held inter alia that: The environmental statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the act, 42 U.S.C. page 4332(2)(C) (1964), was submitted in the form of the Commission's opinion. In view of the exhaustive environmental findings which occupy a substantial portion of the Commission's opinion, and the Commission's explicit conformance with the enumerated portions of the required statement, we conclude that full compliance with the National Environmental Policy has been demonstrated. carrying. The limits of economies of scale and increased efficiencies are fast being approached. Simply stated, there are no free rides. Mr. Chairman, I would like the appendices A through E be made. a part of the record. Senator BAKER. Without objection, they will be inserted into the record. (The appendices referred to follow:) APPENDIX A MARCH 3, 1972. Memorandum to: The Chairman. From: Chief, Bureau of Power. Subject: Impact of NEPA on summer 1972 electric power adequacy. The attached list designates some 45 new steam generating units of over 100 MW, planned to be in service during the summer of 1972. In the case of the listed nuclear plants, operating licenses have not been granted for any substantial amount of operating capability. In the case of the listed fossil and nuclear units for which cooling water discharge permit authorizations are required, such have not been obtained from the Corps of Engineers. The list is based upon data from utility reports to the FPC and from the National Electric Reliability Council and are being further reviewed by the staff. These units aggregate about 26,000 megawatts of capacity or one-third of the planned reserve margin of the Nation's electric utilities. Those facilities, planned to come into full service before the end of June, are of key importance to the maintenance of adequate electric power during the summer peak load period. However, the additional units scheduled to come into service from July through September will provide highly desirable insurance against the contingency of equipment outages coincident with hot weather late in the season. A new unit usually requires two or three months of testing and shakedown operation before it can be considered reliable and part of the dependable capacity. Consequently, for the 29 units scheduled for commercial availability by the end of June, the discharge permits are needed at least by the end of April. There is, therefore, a considerable degree of urgency in regard to issuance of the discharge permits for the listed units. To provide a basis for possible emergency actions with respect to power shortages in the summer of 1972, we are requesting the Corps of Engineers to designate the units which definitely require discharge permits, its estimate of when the permits will be issued, and its recommendations on actions to allow operation of these new units during the critical summer period. Without some immediate relief through operation of such plants now being completed, there will be a major reduction in summer reserve margins to levels which have in the past resulted in power shortages. If relief is obtained, there is still some probability that certain areas will encounter power shortages because of past technical and construction delays. Attachment. T. A. PHILLIPS. NEW LARGE STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS SCHEDULED FOR SERVICE BY THE SUMMER OF 1972 1 2 3 NEW LARGE STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS SCHEDULED FOR SERVICE BY THE SUMMER OF 1 (N) indicates nuclear unit. 2 Discharge permits, if needed, are required 2 to 3 months in advance of scheduled commercial availability to allow initial testing and shakedown. 3 The Bureau of Power considers only units in commercial service on May 31 as suitable for inclusion in its appraisal of summer reserve margins. However, because the peak period extends over 4 months, June through September, units coming into service in that period will reduce the probability of power shortages. Unit completed but inoperable because of lack of discharge permit. APPENDIX B MARCH 3, 1972. Memorandum to: The Chairman. From: Chief, Bureau of Power. Subject: Mid and long-term power capacity needs. This summary shows the additional plant capacity planned from the summer of 1972 through December 1975, as taken from the schedules in my previous communication of February 7, 1972, to Robert W. Fri, EPA, updated. Gross addition of nuclear and fossil-fueled plant capacity projected by the National Power Survey from 1967 through 1980 are approximately 150,000 MW of steam electric generating units (fossil and nuclear). Here individual plant data are not available. The projections are gross capacity additions. T. A. PHILLIPS. |