Gerald Heaney

Name: Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency (593 F.2d 299) — Opinion of the Court
Author: Gerald Heaney

Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

Summary

“Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency (593 F.2d 299) — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1979, is a work by Gerald Heaney. It explores elements such as Union Electric, variance and technological infeasibility.

Quotes from Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (Gerald Heaney)

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ We cannot, of course, read more into Fry or into the EPA's concession than was intended. We do not now hold that the Clean Air Act will ultimately permit a noncomplying polluter to continue operations without change if such change is not technologically or economically feasible. We do hold, however, that this question can be raised in any future enforcement proceeding, and that Union Electric at that time will be able to argue that Congress did not intend that result or that, if it was intended, the statute is unconstitutional. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ The Missouri Implementation Plan was approved on May 31, 1972. Now, nearly seven years later, Union Electric is still not in compliance with the plan's SO 2 emissions limitations at its Labadie or Sioux plants, and the State of Missouri has yet to finally approve or disapprove its request for a variance from existing standards.
This statement of fact is not necessarily intended to point the finger at Union Electric, the State of Missouri or the EPA. All have been responsible in one way or another for the delays that have occurred. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ Perhaps the most important forum for consideration of claims of economic and technological infeasibility is before the state agency formulating the implementation plan. So long as the national standards are met, the State may select whatever mix of control devices it desires, * * * and industries with particular economic or technological problems may seek special treatment in the plan itself. * * * Moreover, if the industry is not exempted from, or accommodated by, the original plan, it may obtain a variance, as petitioner did in this case ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ It is only to emphasize that we can only be faithful to the mandate of Congress if we require strict adherence to the procedural routes which it established for bringing clean air to the nation.
In Fry, we did not consider a contention by Union Electric which was deemed important by the District Court, I. e., that Union Electric has a due process right to contest the validity of the emission standard without necessarily having to face ruinous penalties if it loses its action. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ Now, to impose upon a party interested the burden of obtaining a judicial decision of such a question (no prior hearing having ever been given) only upon the condition that, if unsuccessful, he must suffer imprisonment and pay fines, as provided in these acts, is, in effect, to close up all approaches to the courts, and thus prevent any hearing upon the question whether the rates as provided by the acts are not too low, and therefore invalid. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ He also noted that if the Agency seeks retroactive civil penalties, a company can protect itself by invoking the equitable doctrine of laches if the Agency failed to promptly seek enforcement. [6] Id. at 891 & n.4.
Union Electric would have us distinguish Fry on the grounds that the plaintiff in Fry sought pre-enforcement review of an EPA compliance order while, here, it seeks only a temporary stay of any enforcement action which may be undertaken by the EPA pursuant to the notice of violation while a state variance from the emission limitations is sought. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Gerald Heaney, Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (1979)

“ Thus, it cannot be said that confiscatory fines and penalties will Necessarily be incurred. Indeed, the Administrator apparently feels, in this case, that he has a third alternative that of staying enforcement until the resolution of Union Electric's variance request. [8]
Union Electric makes a corollary argument that it must, at some point, have a forum in which to raise its contention that compliance with the Missouri Implementation Plan is economically and technologically infeasible, and that denial of such a forum results in its property being taken without due process of law. ”

Gerald Heaney

Summary

Quotes from Union Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency… (Gerald Heaney)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature