In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

120 Scenic Hudson Attacks Con Ed’s Political Support Scenic Hudson had long tried to influence public opinion, and it was only natural that it would seek to lobby those parts of the political establishment supportive of Con Ed. The organization began an effort to influence officials of the City of New York and a new Con Ed CEO while Rep. Richard Ottinger’s Hudson scenic riverways bill was debated. This narrative shows that, within the political realm, the struggle between energy production and environmental quality is affected by a wide and varied set of factors but that a rising tide of environmental concern in the late 1960s ultimately proved very helpful to Scenic Hudson’s efforts. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Armand D’Angelo was a second-generation electrician who was raised on the West Side of Manhattan and in the Bronx. His father had helped install the first night-game floodlighting at Yankee Stadium. As a young electrician, D’Angelo was a staunch union supporter, worked for the Urban League and the United Jewish Appeal, and was active in Democratic politics. In the late 1930s, D’Angelo had become an assistant to Harry Van Arsdale Jr., the leader of the New York City AFL-CIO, and worked closely with him. When Robert Wagner was elected mayor in 1952, D’Angelo was one of the union people he put on the public payroll. 7 SCENIC HUDSON ATTACKS CON ED’S POLITICAL SUPPORT ■ 121 Within two years, he was commissioner of the Department of Water Supply, Gas, and Electricity.1 Jim Cope, a partner at Selvage & Lee, the firm first approached by Stephen Duggan in 1963, had long hoped that a strategy could be formulated to cut the ties linking city officials to Con Ed. If the city were to deny Cornwall’s request to tap the city-owned Catskill Aqueduct (Cornwall would need a new source of freshwater when the new plant co-opted its reservoirs) or petition the FPC to deny a license, then the fight would become even more serious.2 Commissioner D’Angelo began to receive letters from Scenic Hudson members asking him to oppose the plant. D’Angelo responded that Cornwall, under certain terms and conditions, was entitled to draw water from the city’s system and that his department could not veto such requests. As to the argument that the plant might harm the aqueduct itself, D’Angelo related that there had been many meetings with the company and that these meetings had produced what he believed was a safe plan. Mayor Wagner’s administration was behind the plant.3 In November 1965, John Lindsay was elected mayor of New York City. Lindsay was an energetic young congressman from the Upper East Side. A vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and a leader of the Republican Party’s moderate to liberal wing, Lindsay argued that New York was in crisis. He blamed the city’s problems on the Democratic machine, the city’s bureaucracy, and Mayor Wagner . His election represented a fresh change after twelve years of Wagner. With an administration less closely tied to the unions, there was new hope among the opponents of the Storm King plant that a wedge could be driven between the city and the company.4 Some of the lobbying undertaken by plant opponents occurred behind the scenes. Mike Kitzmiller had a steady correspondence with Deputy Mayor Bob Price, and in it Kitzmiller pointed out that, while New York and Westchester County were being asked to conserve water, Cornwall was set to tap the aqueduct to serve the convenience of Con Ed. In the spring of 1966, Scenic Hudson’s executive director, Rod Vandivert, wrote a letter to Mayor Lindsay arguing that the company’s claims that the Cornwall plant would reduce air pollution were misleading. Scenic Hudson’s position was that the plant would at best insignificantly reduce air pollution. Alternatives such as buying power from Canada or using nuclear power or gas turbines would be far more effective in reducing air pollution. The mayor’s Task Force on Air Pollution was then in the process of negotiating a series of proposals that would require the company to reduce its emissions. Vandivert was concerned that the company was using support for the Storm King plant as a chip in these negotiations or that the task force would be persuaded by claims the company had been making for some time—that the Storm King plant would reduce air pollution...

Share