Lexplug logoLexplug

Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.

Supreme Court of United States
427 U.S. 246 (1976)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve a state implementation plan (SIP) if it meets the statute's enumerated requirements, and may not reject the plan on the grounds that it is economically or technologically infeasible. Consequently, claims of economic or technological infeasibility cannot be used as a basis to invalidate an EPA-approved plan in a judicial review proceeding.


Facts:

  • The EPA promulgated national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for pollutants including sulfur dioxide.
  • The State of Missouri formulated a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet these standards, which included specific emission limitations for sulfur dioxide in the Metropolitan St. Louis area.
  • Union Electric Co., an electric utility, operated three coal-fired generating plants in the St. Louis area that were subject to the new sulfur dioxide restrictions.
  • Union Electric did not seek judicial review of the EPA's approval of the Missouri plan within the initial 30-day period provided by statute.
  • Instead, Union Electric applied for and received one-year variances from state agencies, allowing it temporary relief from the emission limitations.
  • After the variances for two of its plants expired, the EPA notified Union Electric that its plants were in violation of the sulfur dioxide emission limitations contained in the Missouri SIP.
  • Union Electric then sought to challenge the plan, claiming that various economic and technological difficulties that arose after the plan's approval made compliance impossible.

Procedural Posture:

  • The EPA Administrator approved the State of Missouri's implementation plan on May 31, 1972.
  • Approximately two years later, Union Electric Co. filed a petition for review of the Administrator's 1972 approval in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  • The petition was filed after the statutory 30-day review period, alleging that new grounds of economic and technological infeasibility had arisen after the 30-day period expired.
  • The EPA and Missouri (as intervenor) moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss, holding that claims of infeasibility were not a basis for the EPA to reject a plan and therefore could not be the basis for judicial review.
  • The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on this issue.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Clean Air Act permit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to reject a state implementation plan on the grounds that it is economically or technologically infeasible for a pollution source to comply?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall

No. The Clean Air Act does not permit the Administrator of the EPA to consider a polluter's claims of economic or technological infeasibility when reviewing a state implementation plan for approval. The Act mandates that the Administrator 'shall approve' a plan if it satisfies the eight criteria specified in § 110(a)(2), none of which involve feasibility. Congress deliberately designed the 1970 Amendments to be 'technology-forcing,' intending to compel regulated sources to develop the necessary pollution control devices to meet health-based standards within strict deadlines. The legislative history demonstrates that Congress chose to prioritize public health over economic and technological concerns. Furthermore, states are permitted under § 116 to adopt pollution control standards more stringent than federal law requires, and the EPA must approve such plans if they meet the Act's minimum requirements. While polluters cannot challenge the plan's approval on feasibility grounds, the Act provides other mechanisms to address such concerns, including the state variance process, requests for deadline extensions under § 110(e) and (f), and consideration of good-faith efforts during enforcement proceedings.


Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell

No. The statutory language and legislative history irrefutably show that Congress did not intend for the EPA to consider economic or technological infeasibility when approving a state plan. While this legal conclusion is correct, the potential real-world consequences are deeply troubling. The Act's inflexible demands could force the shutdown of essential services, such as Union Electric's power supply for the St. Louis metropolitan area, which could have a more devastating impact on public health and welfare than the air pollution itself. This 'Draconian' outcome suggests that Congress, if it were fully aware of such possibilities, might have struck a different balance between environmental goals and economic realities.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'technology-forcing' nature of the Clean Air Act, establishing a powerful precedent that economic and technological constraints are not valid legal defenses to the approval of a state implementation plan. By affirming the states' authority to enact pollution controls stricter than the federal minimum, the Court reinforces the Act's model of cooperative federalism. The ruling channels feasibility arguments away from the plan approval stage and into specific, limited procedural avenues like state variance proceedings or federal enforcement actions, thereby protecting the integrity and deadlines of SIPs from broad-based challenges. This ensures that the primary goal of attaining national air quality standards remains paramount, forcing industry to innovate rather than litigate its way out of compliance.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (1976)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"