The court held that the "primary responsibility" for fulfilling NEPA must lie with the Commission, which may not merely "sit back, like an umpire, and resolve adversary contentions at the hearing stage." [11] Id.

—required that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) sufficient to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC § 4321 et seq.(NEPA) had to be prepared by the responsible federal agency and not by a state agency.

In 1972, when this case was before us on a prior appeal, we reviewed the statutory authority of the Federal Power Commission and found no basis "to extend the Commission's power to include paying or awarding the expenses or fees of intervenors."

"Guidelines are merely advisory and the Council on Environmental Quality has no authority to prescribe regulations governing compliance with NEPA."

We are no more willing to give a "crabbed interpretation" to Section 106 of the Act than the courts have been in respect to NEPA.

Is there any policy reason for prohibiting delegation of the responsibility to prepare the EIS to the applicant for a license or grant?

—authorization by the FPC of a transmission line construction project of the Power Authority of the State of New York

Thus agencies could no longer rely on a number of earlier judicial opinions which had viewed CEQ's previous guidelines as advisory only.

Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4332) requires the FPC staff to prepare and circulate a draft environmental impact statement and prepare a final environmental impact statement, has given rise to numerous additional proceedings before the FPC and in the courts, including further court proceedings by the Green County …

This requirement is to insure that the final EIS will not be based upon self-serving assumptions submitted by the applicant.

[CITATION] The Value of Time in Environmental Decision Processes: Concepts and Issues

[PDF] The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA): An overview