sideration of the national interest.'*° State and Fed- 
eral officials, however, say that the California Act 
does establish clear-cut procedures for considering 
energy facilities and that it it acknowledges that some 
facilities may need to be sited even if there is envir- 
onmental deterioration.*** 
The companies’ brief also discusses the concerns 
behind the lawsuit. They feel that the California 
program is not explicit enough or detailed enough 
to give them any degree of certainty that their 
facilities will be allowed.*** 
“An adequate management program re- 
quires certainty—particularly in the energy 
field, an area of recently expressed Con- 
gressional interest... .(T)he general poli- 
cies of the Coastal Act on this topic are 
devoid of any specific commitments to 
energy development which would accom- 
modate the national interest and meet the 
requirements of the CZMA.” 
They also argue that the program is so vague that it 
“provides no guidance or basis of predictability for 
oil and gas producers who must submit plans that 
are consistent with and must be operated in com- 
pliance with the (program).”?* In short, they want 
assurances that California will not try to block 
their OCS operations, and they do not like the Cali- 
fornia program because it offers no such certainty. 
California argues that it is not “anti-energy,” as 
the companies assert, and that what it wants are 
reasonable energy projects with environmental safe- 
guards. More to the point in this lawsuit, State and 
Federal attorneys argue that:1* 
“the CZMA does not require such a ‘legally 
enforceable’ commitment (to accommo- 
date the national interest in the siting of 
energy-related facilities) but only pro- 
cedures for ensuring ‘adequate considera- 
tion’ of the national interest and that the 
State’s program fully satisfied this require- 
ment.” 
There is also the argument that there are other 
“national interests” to consider besides energy, in- 
cluding environmental protection. 
The Federal brief also argues that the companies’ 
allegations that California will somehow abuse or 
misuse its program are “legally irrelevant.” 1% 
180 Ibid., pp. 62-64. 
181 “Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judg- 
ment,” American Petroleum Institute vs. Knecht, particularly 
Pit 
182 “Plaintifis’ Trial Brief,” op. cit. note 179, p. 113. 
183 Ibid., p. 57. 
184 “Federal Defendants’ Motion...,” op. cit. note 181, pp. 
7-8. 
185 Ibid., p. 44--47n. 
“Even were the plaintiffs correct (about 
possible abuse), the remedy is not to with- 
hold approval of an otherwise valid Pro- 
gram, but to seek redress after approval 
against the individuals who are acting un- 
lawfully under it either under the CZMA 
or in the courts.” 
Also contained in these briefs is an important 
policy question: will this California program, whether 
approved completely at the Federal level or not, 
actually help improve siting decisions, or will it, 
as the companies assert, only add to the confusion, 
lead to more court suits over what the statutes 
mean, and give States new powers to block needed 
national energy projects? 
One part of the final environmental impact state- 
ment on the California program sums up the argu- 
ment of the proponents of coastal zone management 
—and hence of what is called the “newer” approach 
to siting: 1** 
“It is... likely that the 305(b)(8) (energy 
planning) and 307 (consistency) provisions 
of the CZMA would work together to 
provide greater certainty and predictability 
for those applying for energy facility per- 
mits, and eventually speed up the permit 
procedure.” 
Perhaps at the heart of this issue is the question 
of the strengths and limitations of “performance 
standards” (“siting criteria”) of the type used in the 
California program. From the point of view of those 
who propose them, their preparation is not only a 
way to resolve political disagreements and formu- 
late basic policies, but also a way to avoid the need 
for raising “generic” matters in individual cases and 
to give guidance to both applicants and regulators. 
The State of California brief for this case discusses 
the advantages of making land-use decisions on the 
basis of performance standards instead of detailed 
zoning maps: 1°” 
“Increasingly, the traditional zoning ordi- 
nance approaches have been found to be 
too rigid and inflexible for modern devel- 
opment activities. The traditional zoning 
ordinance does not provide an adequate 
means for responding to specific site con- 
ditions or specific attributes of a particular 
[proposed] development. Accordingly, 
many governmental entities have shifted 
from the rigid zoning definitions of the 
past to regulatory systems that define 
general permissible types of uses that will 
be reviewed in accordance with develop- 
ment and resource protection standards 
and criteria. This is the approach of the 
California Coastal Management Program.” 
IV-79 
