Friends of the Ompompanoosuc, State of Vermont v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that regulated parties' responsibility to work with local authorities on mitigation proposal constituted a \rational basis\ for FERC finding of no significant impact
• holding that petitioner could not show prejudice from agency’s failure to circulate EA supplement given its ability “to petition [agency] for reconsideration and rehearing,” combined with fact that it had obtained document with “ample time” to comment before agency decision
• noting that, in preparing EA, agency had “ob tained comments on the application from local citizens and citizens groups” as well as State of Vermont
• observing that “range of alternatives an agency must consider is narrower when, as here, the agency has found that a project will not have, a significant environmental impact”
• noting in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act that “[bjecause Vermont cannot demonstrate prejudice from [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s] oversight, reversal is not appropriate on this ground”
• “[0]nce an agency has made a decision subject to NEPA’s procedural requirements, the only role for a court is to ensure that the agency has considered the environmental consequences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).