Delaney v. Public Service Com'n of State of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 1,1,2
• Citation: 123 A.D.2d 861,507 N.Y.S.2d 471
• Parties: In the Matter of Doris DELANEY, etc., Petitioner, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding). In the Matter of TOWN OF LAURENS, et al., Petitioners, Otsego County, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 471

507 N.Y.S.2d 471

123 A.D.2d 861

In the Matter of Doris DELANEY, etc., Petitioner, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, et

al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1).

In the Matter of TOWN OF LAURENS, et al., Petitioners,

Otsego County, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, et

al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 27, 1986.

Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., New York City (David Sive and Jeffrey M. Blum, of counsel), for all petitioners except Dutchess County.

David E. Blabey, Albany (Mark Seidenfeld, of counsel), for respondent Public Service Com'n of the State of N.Y.

Charles M. Pratt, New York City (Gerald C. Goldstein, Edgar K. Byham and Beverly Ravitch, of counsel), for respondent Power Authority of the State of N.Y.

Peter H. Bouman, Binghamton, for James E. Bacon, Edith Bacon, Elizabeth Petersen, Helen S. Surry and Edward E. Surry, amici curiae.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Proceedings pursuant to Public Service Law § 128 to review an order of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, dated May 6, 1985, which (1) denied an application for a rehearing of its determination, dated January 30, 1985, granting the respondent Power Authority of the State of New York a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to construct the proposed Marcy-South power transmission project and (2) adhered to its original determination.

Justice Weinstein has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2[c] ).

ADJUDGED that the order is confirmed and proceedings dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs.

Pursuant to Public Service Law article 7 the respondent Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) filed an application in 1982 with the respondent Public Service Commission of the State of New York (the commission) for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need authorizing the construction of a dual circuit electrical power transmission line known as the Marcy-South 345kV Transmission Facilities. The proposed project called for the installation of a transmission line approximately 200 miles in length which would extend from a power substation in Oneida County to a proposed power substation in Dutchess County in order to facilitate the transport of large amounts of Canadian hydroelectric power. Prehearing conferences were held before two Administrative Law Judges on January 4, 1983, and April 5, 1983, to review PASNY's application, and eight sets of public statement hearings were conducted, pursuant to Public Service Law § 123, in the towns of Marcy, Herkimer, Cooperstown, Delhi, Monticello, Goshen, and Wappinger Falls, respectively. Formal evidentiary hearings commenced on April 18, 1983, and continued through February 2, 1984, resulting in a voluminous record.

On June 21, 1984, the Administrative Law Judges issued a lengthy decision recommending the conditional certification of a substantially modified Marcy-South facilities. On January 30, 1985, a majority of the members of the commission, after making further modifications in the proposal, adopted the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judges and granted a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. The commission thereafter denied an application by the petitioners for a rehearing, and adhered to its prior determination. The petitioners then commenced the instant proceedings to review the determination of the commission. We find their arguments unpersuasive and we therefore confirm said determination.

Initially, we reject the petitioners' contention that the commission unlawfully failed to weigh and balance the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed transmission facilities against the strong public need for energy and the economic and noneconomic benefits which the facilities offer. While we recognize that Public Service Law § 126(1)(b) requires the commission to fully consider environmental issues in reaching its decision, the instant record clearly demonstrates that the commission undertook a thorough evaluation of the pertinent environmental factors before deciding to certify the proposed project. Indeed, the record is replete with testimony and exhibits evincing a strong concern for environmental considerations, and the Administrative Law Judges devoted the bulk of their recommended decision to a detailed review and analysis of a myriad of environmental factors, including agriculture, threatened and endangered species of wildlife, visual impacts, noise levels, archeological impacts, impacts on wetlands, and other similar concerns. The commission then engaged in a similar balancing of factors and further modified the proposed route of the facilities in order to minimize any adverse environmental impacts. Based on the record, we conclude that the commission fully complied with the requirements of Public Service Law § 126(1) in analyzing the need for the project, its probable environmental impacts, and the manner in which those...