Potomac Electric Power Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
650 F.2d 509 (1981)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (plaintiff) petitioned for a review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) (plaintiff) decision finding that PEPCO’s electric-generating station was subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) promulgated by the EPA for fossil fuel-fired steam generation under the Clean Air Act. The regional administrator based his decision on the determination that PEPCO did not commence boiler construction before the EPAs publication of the relevant NSPS. PEPCO had requested a ruling from the EPA on whether the unit would be subject to the NSPS for fossil fuel-fired steam generating units previously published by the EPA. The EPA preliminarily determined that the unit was subject to the 1971 NSPS for electric steam plants but requested additional information to determine the exact status of the unit. The reasons given for the EPA’s preliminary determination were that construction of the unit was not continuous nor of a reasonable length as required under the regulation. The EPA said that its ruling would turn on whether a contractual obligation to construct the boiler existed before the publication of the relevant NSPS.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phillips, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.