Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. v. Stuyvesant Falls Hydro Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 1, 2006Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Peters, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that respondent was not required to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]). Although I recognize that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter FERC) has been given exclusive comprehensive jurisdiction by the Federal Power Act over issues relating to licensing and permits, this proceeding does not relate to the issuance of either.

In reviewing the doctrine of preemption, it is axiomatic that state law will be regarded as preempted by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API