Union Electric Co. v. EPA

427 U.S. 246 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Section 110 of the CAA requires that each State formulate, subject to D approval, an implementation plan designed to achieve national primary ambient air quality standards -- those necessary to protect the public health no later than three years from the date of approval of such plan. The plan must also provide for the attainment of quality standards to protect the public welfare within a reasonable time. After D approves a state implementation plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the plan may be challenged in a court of appeals within 30 days, or after 30 days have run if newly discovered or available information justifies subsequent review. D promulgated national primary and secondary standards for six air pollutants he found to have an adverse effect on the public health and welfare. Included among them was sulfur dioxide. The State of Missouri formulated its implementation plan and submitted it for approval. D approved the plan. P is an electric utility company. Its three coal-fired generating plants in the metropolitan St. Louis area are subject to the sulfur dioxide restrictions. P applied to the appropriate state and county agencies for variances from the emission limitations affecting its three plants. Eventually D cut P off and P filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review of D's 1972 approval of the Missouri implementation plan. Section 307(b)(1) allows for review to be filed in an appropriate court of appeals more than 30 days after approval of an implementation plan only if the petition is 'based solely on grounds arising after such 30th day.' P contends that economic and technological difficulties had arisen more than 30 days after the approval and that these difficulties made compliance with the emission limitations impossible. The court granted the motions of D to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that 'only matters which, if known to the Administrator at the time of his action [in approving a state implementation plan], would justify setting aside that action are properly reviewable after the initial 30-day review period.' It held that claims of economic and technological infeasibility could not properly provide a basis for D's rejecting a plan, and as such those same reasons could not be the basis for a court's overturning an approved plan. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.