Document: 427 U.S. 246 96 S.Ct. 2518 49 L.Ed.2d 474 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner,v.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. No. 74-1542. Argued Jan. 21, 1976. Decided June 25, Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, See 429 873, 97 189. Syllabus Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as added by 1970 Amendments to requires that each State formulate, subject approval Administrator Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an implementation plan providing for attainment national ambient air quality standards, both primary standards (those necessary protect public health) and secondary welfare). 110(a)(2) provides "shall approve" proposed if it has been adopted after notice hearing meets eight specified criteria, including provisions attaining "as expeditiously practicable but . in no case later than three years from date such plan," within a "reasonable time," control measures may be necessary" attain standards. 307(b) (1) Act petition review Administrator's "action approving (the) plan" filed appropriate United States court appeals, must 30 days approval, or is based on grounds arising 30th day. Petitioner electric utility company, whose coal-fired generating plants are sulfur dioxide restrictions Missouri plan, did not seek required rather applied state county agencies for, received, one-year variances. At time when petitioner was seeking extension these variances, notified emissions its were violating plan. Thereupon claiming various economic technological difficulties had arisen more making compliance with emission limitations impossible. The Court Appeals dismissed lack jurisdiction, holding only matters which, known at he approved would justify setting aside properly reviewable 30-day period, since claims infeasibility, asserting here, could rejection serve any basis court's overturning Held: 1. Since, regardless under § 307(b)(1), limited reviewing "the action new "grounds" alleged, they that, presented have abuse discretion him approve A contrary shift substantial responsibility administering federal courts. Pp. 255-256. 2. Since language relevant 1970, especially 110(a)(2), their legislative history make clear Congress intended infeasibility deemed wholly foreign consideration appeals 307(b)(1) cannot set grounds, matter raised. 256-269. (a) mandatory "shall" provision satisfies clearly indicates concerned factors other those specified, none which appears permit infeasibility. P. 257. (b) criterion met years," does require but, clear, even appear possible, three-year deadline being central regulatory scheme technology forcing. 257-260. (c) contain achieve preclude submitting stringent law demands, requirement demands meet minimum requirements bas ever reject ground economically technologically infeasible. 260-265. (d) afford ample opportunity considering long there will interference goal promptly allow raised appealing frustrate congressional intent; struck down infeasible before given chance work, though contemplated some plans proposed; also State's choices regulating pollution, plainly left States, so met, power determine sources burdened regulation what extent. 266-269. 8 Cir., 515 F.2d 206, affirmed. William H. Ferrell, St. Louis, Mo., petitioner. Peter R. Taft, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 After (EPA) approves challenged days, run newly discovered available information justifies subsequent review. We decide whether operator regulated source, EPA-approved original appeal can raise claim comply 2 * addressed Pub.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, detail Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 421 60, 95 1470, 43 731 (1975), repeat discussion here. Suffice say reflect dissatisfaction progress existing pollution programs determination "tak(e) stick States," Id., 64, S.Ct., 1474, order guarantee prompt maintenance heart EPA designed health plan." 110(a)(2)(A) t, added, 1680, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-5(a)(2)(A). provide welfare time." Ibid. Each wide formulating criteria. 110(a)(2).1 3 On April 30, 1971, promulgated six pollutants found adverse effect welfare. 40 CFR pt. 50 (1975). 108(a) 1678, 1857c-3(a). Included among them dioxide, issue §§ 50.4-50.5 promulgation formulated submitted approval. levels exceeded one five regions Metropolitan Louis Interstate region, 52.1321 (1975) concentrated strategy regulations lower area. plan's effective once, retained authority grant variances particular immediately comply.2 Mo.Rev.Stat. 203.110 (1972). May 31, 1972. 52.1320 seq. 4 company servicing metropolitan area, large portions Missouri, parts Illinois Iowa. Its area entitled do 1708, 1857h-5(b)(1), affecting plants. received extended upon reapplication. two petitioner's expired applying extensions when, 1974, violated contained plan.3 Fed.Reg. 3566 Shortly thereafter Courof Eighth Circuit 1972 5 allows petitions "based solely day." claimed this asserting, Inter alia, made impossible.4 ordered bring question subject-matter jurisdiction hear and, argument, granted motions intervenor-respondents, Attorney General Conservation Commission, dismiss jurisdiction. 6 held "only his (in plan), initial day period." 216 view, rejecting Accordingly, insofar grounded assertion itself without consider review, petition. In considered rejected partially holdings Circuits. Buckeye Power, Inc. EPA, 481 162, 168-169 (CA6 1973) (but see 173); Appalachian Power Co. 477 495, 505-507 (CA4 1973); Duquesne Light (CA3 Getty Oil Ruckelshaus, 467 349 1972), cert. denied, 409 1125, 93 937, 35 256 (1973). Joe Minerals Corp. 508 743, 746-749, 1975), vacated remanded, 425 987, 2196, 48 812 (1976); 52F.2d 1186 pending, 75-736. hand, support position decisions several South Terminal 504 646, 675-676 (CA1 1974); Texas 499 289, 317 (CA5 507 905, 914 (CA9 1974). Indiana & Michigan Electric 509 839, 843-845 (CA7 1975). Cf. 525 80 certiorari resolve conflict Circuits, 423 821, 35, 46 38 we now affirm. II A. 7 outset suggestion period. pertinent part provides: "A promulgating section 110 circuit. Any shall promulgation; action, 9 Regardless ." "gunds" To hold otherwise transfer B 10 address ourselves scope responsibility. whatsoever infeasible, previously accorded great deference construction Act. NRDC,421 U.S., 75, 1479. surveying history, agree 11 As recognized, drastic remedy perceived serious uncheckable problem pollution. place strategies nonetheless strict requirements. These "technology-forcing character," NRDC, supra, 91, 1487 expressly force develop devices might technologilly 12 This approach apparent face 110(a)(2). sets out criteria satisfy, reasonable hearing, makes quite 71 n. 11, 79, 1481, infeasibility.5 Nonetheless, allowing claims, here argument focused. 13 It suggested first met"as withia 110(a)(2)(A). "practicable" "reasonable" determined assessing possible. survive analysis. 14 110(a)(2)(A)'s achieving Amendments' leaves room debate centered forcing desirable framing sufficient health, termed House version moderate approach, requiring health-related "within H.R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 108(c)(1)(C)(i) (1970). Senate bill, flatly possible not, years." S. 4358, 111(a)(2)(A) 15 Senate's stiff foreclose time. Senator Muskie, manager explained chamber: 16 " 'The judgments feasible. Our establish interest persons. mean people industries asked seems impossible present time.' 116 Cong.Rec. 32901-32902 17 32919 (remarks Sen. Cooper); 33115 Prouty). reflected committee: 18 "In Committee discussions, considerable concern expressed regarding use concept technical feasibility 1) important early achievement protective technically feasible; 2) growth load many areas, application technology, still deleterious health. 19 "Therefore, either should standard closed S.Rep. 91-1196, pp. 2-3 20 Conference ultimately, entire accepted mandate import decision House's reasonableness, however, conferees strengthened version. procastinate until approached. Rather, less possible; practicable." Whatever lie phrase, is, course, evaluating attempt years. 21 argued calls proceeding rapidly economics allow, "practicable." Whether correct reading 110(a) (2)(A) depends how section's practicable" phrase characterized. exceed discretion, surpasses reflects engage own proceed practicable. Amici supporting argue precisely conclude too well lax. arguments theory show require, defer outline development content 22 Secondary welfare, far treated welfare-related together 107(e)(1), 108(c)(1)(C)(i)(1970). health- separately all, Cong.,2d Sess. 110(a)(3), 110(b), (1970), although Report desire possible." p. final separated labeled 109(b), Thus, welfare.6 23 necessarily follow, impossibility years, adopt demands.7 24 give broad States. They precluded 110(a)(2)'s second 110(a)(2)(B).8 contention overly restrictive "necessary" Administrator.9 25 principal lies fact while versions provided submit stricter required, 108(c) (1970); 111(a)(1) enacted contains express language. decided simply proves much. lacks substantive changes about Houses agree. 190c(a) (Senate Reports); Rule XXVIII (3), Rules Representatives, 546, Jefferson's Manual, H.R.Doc. 384, 92d 526, 270-271 (1972); National Coal Operators' Assn. Kleppe, 388, 401, 10, 809, 816, 580 (1976). Here notes bills demand, offers bill change result, could. H.R.Conf.Rep. 91-1783, 45 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 5356. And 110(a)(2)(B) explicit originally Senate, most natural context assure minimal, "necessary," detect demanding requires.10 26 further supported practical considerations. 1689, 1857d-1 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), standards.11 enforced independently 116, expend energy determining tailored standards,12 simultaneously desiring enact enforce federally find visiting wasteful burdens Administrator, Amici. 27 read demand "minimum conditions" Amendments.13 1478. Beyond desires certain willing lose industry fully consistent structure purpose Amendments, object infeasibility.14 1481. 28 sum, concluded And, follows III 29 conclusion bolstered recognition situations where substantially interfere never relevance formulation unable inevitably shut down. Perhaps forum agency So select whatever mix desires, problems special treatment itself. 51.2(b), (1975); 36 Moreover, exempted from, accommodated by, obtain variance, case; revision plan.15 (3)(A), amended, 88 256, 1857c-5(a)(3)(A) IV). Lastly, denied exemption able take See, e. g., 203.130 Cal.Health Safety Code 39506 (West Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 71, 1710.41 (1962).16 31 While virtually absolute allocating implicated postponement procedure. There ways secure relief individual sources, classes First, Governor requests submitted, interim controls, two-year finds, source comply. 110(e).17 Second, again State, continued eration (the source) essential security 110(f). 81, 32 Even intervene behalf least circumstance. When violation may, conference operator, civil criminal enforcement. Such specify standard, taking into account seriousness "any good faith efforts applicable requirements." 113(a)(4) 1686, 1857c-8(a)(4). Claims agrees, fashioning 113(a)(4). Brief Respondent 34.18 33 short, offer Always, care taken Allowing suggests, intent. proposed. Technology somewhat our experience entails risks. But risks passing dangers posed uncontrolled worth taking. Petitioner's render judgment nullity, result refuse reach.19 34 Affirmed. POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. I join because statutory thoroughly described Court's opinion, demonstrate irrefutably intend despite awareness cases down.1 37 impose strong incentives encourage rapid adoption understandable. difficult believe adhere faced potentially devastating consequences vividly demonstrates. supplying alleges continue operate forced Administrator. Specifically, low-sulfur coal become scarce expensive obtain; reliable satisfactory removal equipment enable devised; installation unsatisfactory cost over $500 million, sum bonds contingent bodies acceptance; financing obtained, carrying, operating, costs $120 million year prohibitive.2 recent evidence disclosed hazard once thought be, 39 risk penalties enforceable Federal Governments, citizens' suits, 1857c-8, 1857h-2, embark task installing allegedly unreliable prohibitively Yet permits neither nor courts, 307 1857h-5, allegations concerns, neglected, merit high priority, protection paramount consideration. shutdown aurban area's electrical service impact created decline quality. apparently legislation form sacrifice well-being through imposition inflexible indeed longer clean air. 41 Congress, aware Draconian possibility, strike different balance. 1857c-5(a)(2), full: "The shall, four months submission paragraph (1), disapprove portion thereof. thereof, determines "(A)(i) implementing (subject subsection (e)) (or thereof revised standard); (ii) specifies attained; "(B) includes limitations, schedules, timetables insure including, to, land-use transportation controls; "(C) establishment operation devices, methods, systems, procedures (i) monitor, compile, analyze data request, Administrator; "(D) procedure, meeting (4), (prior modification) location performance apply; "(E) adequate intergovernmental co- operation, located region outside region; "(F) assurances personnel, funding, carry owners operators stationary monitor (iii) periodic reports nature amounts emissions; (iv) correlated established pursuant times inspection; (v) comparable 303, contingency implement authority; "(G) provides, extent practicable, inspection testing motor vehicles standards; "(H) revision, hearings, revisions availability improved expeditious methods standard; whenever finds inadequate implements." July 1975. 52.1332 included all plants, variance yet expired, 110(a)(3)(A), therefore n.15, Infra. presence regarded 307(b)(1). challenge validity alleged procedure exercise 220 Oljato Chapter Navajo Tribe Train, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 654 case, held, brought District Columbia F.2d, 220. sought ruling, writ stated because, free 1689 259, question, briefed us deciding case. Infra, 2527-2529. 1, Supra. Comparison bolsters conclusion. Where provided. 110(a), 110(f), 111(a)(1), 202(a), 211(c)(2)(A), 231(b) consideration, E. "of requisite giving compliance." 231(b), 1704, 1857f-9(b). 1857c-5(e), 1857c-5(f), 1857c-6(a)(1), 1857f-1(a), 1857f-6c(c)(2)(A). guidelines 51.13(b) drafted himself 110(c). 172 311, 521 971 646 drafting reach. call quantitative controls adds nothing If quantitatively stiffer barred, containing rejected, not. below, rigorous satisfied. Subsequent confirms Congress' response fuel shortages late 1973, Energy Supply Coordination 93-319, 246. notify fuel-burning relaxed interfering timely 1857c-5(a)(3)(B) relax restrictions, shows "Except sections 119(c), (e), (f), 209, 211(c) 233 (preempting moving sources) deny right political subdivision limitation respecting (2) abatement pollution; except 111 112, section." burden particularly onerous view facts gave evaluate approximately same 110(a)(1). Economic conditions met. does. achieved failing "a literal sense, offending always option shutting law. need "infeasible" anticipated noncompliance cause fall short Sources objecting State. 110(a)(3)(A) honored 110(d), little 3, Of Require formulate judicial actions. Consistent role controlling leave typically responded manner text. 110(e) convincingly demonstrates contemplate noncomplying 110(e)'s mechanism postponing dependent cooperation going instead freeing themselves entirely having chooses order, issued violated, institute enforcement proceeding. 113(b). Additionally, violators 113(c) citizen suits 304, 1706, 1857h-2. Some courts proceedings violator circumstances defense 173 (C.A.6 847 (C.A.7 Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment afforded impossibility. Appeals, declined question. showing record beyond sponsors floor leaders plans, "closed down." Report. repeated candidly statements members brief EPA's 20-32. Indeed, remarkable seem, total "irrelevant." 16, 18-23. What means Union prove correct, discontinue public. allowed, suppose Government continuing company's facilities noncompliance. program therefor statute, us. extraordinary capital operating costs, solved, consumers power.

Category: 7