# Amicus Curiae Brief — Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_1739%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1974
- **Citation:** 416 U.S. 969

## Text

is. S&S

No. 73-1038

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1973

AppatacHiaN Power Company.
Ixpiana & Micuigan Exvecrnic Co.,
KENTUCKY Powe CoMPANY.
Onio Power Company,

Petitioners.

Vv.

ISNVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Re sponde nt.

Os Wrir or CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CoUr? oF
AprEALS FOR THE District or CoLuMBIA CIRCUIT

Cameron F. MacRae
LeBoevr, Lams, Lerpy & MacRae
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Attorney for
Edison Electric Institute

February 1, 1974

se.

od

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interest of Amicus Curiae ...................

Reasons for Granting a Writ of Certiorari -................-.

I. The Decision Below is Inconsistent with the
Policy of the Clean Air Act and does not Evi-
dence the Quality of Review Contemplated by this
Court’s Decision in Overton Park

II. The Relationship Between the Regulatory Activi-
ties of EPA and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 Should be Clarified as Should
the Obligations of EPA Under the Clean Air Act
of 1970

Te

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, 352 F.Supp.
697 (D.Colo. 1972), rev'd, Anaconda Company Vv.
Ruckelshaus, 482 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1973) -.......

Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Pro.
Agcy., 477 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1973)

Buckeye Power, Inc. v. Environmental Protection
Agcy., 481 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1973)

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic
Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.
1971)

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc. v. Volpe,
401 U.S. 402 (1971)

Cohen v. Price Commission, 337 F.Supp. 1236
(S.D.N.Y. 1972)

Duquesne Light Co. v. Environmental Protection
Agcy., 481 F.2d (3d Cir. 1973) ae

i
¢
‘
;
ERNE PLETE LEARN TD LG OE MED IES Se |

Tere draY Tee) Wath ue di flaca ol chi odd aaa

Berean weer mr

ii

PAGE
Environmental Defense Fund et al. v. E.P.A., 6

E.R.C. 1112 (D.C. Cir. Nos. 72-1548 e¢ al., Dee.

13, 1973) a ee coil 12, 13
Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp.

1401 (D.D.C. 1971) ---------cc--eceeececeessec te
Essex Chemical Corporation et al. v. Ruckelshaus,

486 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ne : 3

Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations) v. Ruckel-
shaus, 342 F.Supp. 1006 (D. Del. 1972), rev'd,
Getty Oil (Eastern Operations) v. Ruckelshaus,

467 F.2d 349 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S.
1125 (1973) -..--.---.----n--onseccsenseecseneeenssnnscnsscnsensssnnsenseenssees 12

Gibson v. Ruckelshaus, 1 E.L.R. 20337 (Civ.Ac. No.
5255. E.D.Tex., Mar. 1, 1971), rev'd, City of Luf-
kin, Texas v. Gibson, 447 F.2d 492 (5th Cir.1971) 12

Greene County v. FPC, 455 F.2d 412 (2d Cir. 1972),

cert. denied, 409 U.S. 849 (1972) -...---------------- 8
International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus,

478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ....-------------- 12, 13, 14
Kalur v. Resor, 335 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1971) -....------ 11
Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C.

Cir. 1973) .-...-.------c-e---nenceeeeeseneeneeenenensnsnsesesnsosnesnees 12, 15, 14

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal
Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965) 8
Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F.Supp. 253 (D.D.C.
1972), aff'd, without opinion, 4 E.R.C. 1815 (D.C.
Cir. 1972), aff'd, Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541

(1973) nneveanennvonennvenconvvennwveseevsenemevecenncvesennneneenasssoncereees 4
Sierra Club v. Sargent, 2 E.L.R. 20131 (Civil No.
249-71 C2, W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, |: SERS 12

Statutory Provisions:
Clean Air Act, As Amended

42 U.S.C. §1857¢-5(a) (2) (1970) seeeeeeneeeeneeeeeee 6
42. U.S.C. §1857¢-6 (Supp.II, 1970)... 2

PAGE
42 U.S.C. §1857¢-6(a) (1) (1970) -..- se 8
42 U.S.C. §1857e-6(a) (2) (1970) «2-2. ; 4
42 U.S.C. §1857¢e-6(b) (Supp.II, 1970) -....-..--.--------- 8
42 U.S.C. §1857e-8(b) (Supp.II, 1970) .........------- 3, 11
42 U.S.C. §1857e-8(e) (Supp.II, 1970) -...-.-.--------- 3
42 U.S.C. §1857e-8(e) (1) (Supp.II, 1970) ........-..--- 11
42 U.S.C. §1857h-2 (1970) 3, 11
42 U.S.C. §1857h-2(b) (1970) 11

Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973
Pub.L.No. 93-159, 87 Stat. 627, 628 (Nov. 27, 1973) 4

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,
33 U.S.C. $1151
et seq. 4,13
33 U.S.C. §1371(e) (Supp.II, 1970) .........-------------- 13
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
$4321

et seq. (1970) oe 11

42 U.S.C. §4332(C) (1970) 7
Regulations:

40 C.F.R. $50.4 (1973) 2

40 C.F.R. $51.18 (1973) 2

40 C.F.R. $60.43 (1973) 2
40 C.F.R. §1500.4 (1973) 13
36 Fed. Reg. 7725 (1971) (CEQ NEPA Guidelines) 13
38 Fed. Reg. 10856 (1973) (Proposed CEQ NEPA

Guidelines) 13
38 Fed. Reg. 20550 (1973) (CEQ NEPA Guidelines) 13
38 Fed. Reg. 32577 (1973) (EPO Reg. 2—Priorities

For Use of Certain Low Sulfur Petroleum Pro-

ducts) id 5

ERIM ARE MARAT BIR IN POPC COL

WRI LPR

PERI

AT OANA PAE, OR r OREO OW I ANIL

Pot aah ale a cake ot ee

iv
Legislative Material: PAGE
NEPA Legislative History

115 Cong. Rec. 40417 (1969) -...------------------ 13
115 Cong. Rec. 40422 (1969) -....--------------- 13
H. Rep. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) -... 9
S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) -... 9

Joint Hearings Before the Senate Committees on
Public Works and Interior and Insular Affairs on
the National Environmental Policy ct, 92d
Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)... 13

Miscellaneous:

Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit .... 9,10

Appendix to Petitioner’s Petition in the Supreme
Court of the United States ...........------------------------- 2

DHEW, Paper on the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Proposed Rule-making on Prevention of
Significant Air Quality Deterioration (Oct. 1973) 15

ELECTRICAL WEEK, November 19, 1973 .........--- 3

ELECTRICAL WEEK, December 10, 1978 .........-.. 3

. EPA, National Public Hearings on Power Plant
Compliance with Sulfur Oxide Air Pollution
Regulations: Report of the Hearing Panel (Jan.

1974) 5, 6, 7, 11, 15
Fourth Annual Report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (1973) -.....-------------------- 9

FPC, the Potential for Conversion of Oil-Fired and
Gas-Fired Electric Generating Units to Use of
Coal, (FPC Form No. 36) (Nov. 6, ne 3

FPC, 1970 National Power Survey (1971)

Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit

~ Ses aN eet

Vv

Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehear-
ing In Bane in the Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit .......----------------------> ee

Second Annual Report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (1971). --.----------------eesere
SOCTAP, Projected Utilization of Stack Gas Clean-
ing Systems by Steam-Electrie Plants, Publica-
tion No. APTD-1569 (Apr. 1973) -...----------------
Statement of W. Donham Crawford Before the Sub-
committee on Public Health and Environment,
House of Representatives Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee (Sept. 20, | Rasa
Statement of W. Donham Crawford Before the
Environmental Protection Agency Stationary
Source Enforcement Proceedings (Oct. 23, 1975)
Statement of W. Donham Crawford Before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
(Nov. 8, 1973) aac cadena
Statement of A. V. Slack Before the Environmental
Protection Agency Stationary Source Enforce-
ment Proceedings (1973) -...-----------------cr

PAGE

o>

a Pe olel tk tt

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1973

No. 73-1038
——$—$— Section 111
of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to promulgate a standard
of performance for categories of stationary sources*? which
reflect “the degree of limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demon-
strated.”**

Both the Senate and the House agreed, when the Air
Quality Act of 1970 was before them, that EPA must base
any performance standard on a finding that an affected
industry had demonstrated capability to achieve the speci-
fied degree of emission control. In this connection, the
Senate Report notes that “the Administrator should exam-

21. 401 U.S. 402, 415-416 (1971).

22. See generally, Greene County v. FPC, 455 F.2d 412 (2d
Cir. 1972), cert. dented, 409 U.S. 849 (1972); Calvert Cliffs’ Coordi-
nating Committee 7. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109
(D.C. Cir. 1971); and Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v.
Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965).

23. 42 U.S.C. §1857c-6(b) (Supp. II, 1970).

24. 42 U.S.C. §1857c-6(a)(1) (1970).

PD RS eS ~ So erate

ine the degree of emission control which has been or can be
achieved through the application of technology which is
available or normally can be made available.”* Similarly,
the House Report notes that “in order to be considered
‘available’ the technology may not be one which constitutes
a purely theoretical or experimental means of preventing
air pollution.””°

The Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that
SO. stack gas removal systems have been “adequately
demonstrated” is not concurred in by either the Federal
Power Commission” or the President’s Council on Environ-
mental Quality? and cannot meet the standards prescribed
by Congress. As EEI has taken great effort to explain,
the fact is that SO. removal systems did not in 1971-° and
do not today** have the demonstrated capability of achiev-
ing the new source performance standards for fossil fuel
fired steam generators.

In light of the legislative history of the Clean Air Act,
the information upon which EPA relied cannot support any
other conclusion. The EPA’s own test results made prior
to promulgation of the standard indicate that only a single
unit approached (rather than achieved) the 1.2 Ibs. /million

25. S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., at 16, 17 (1970).

26. H. Rep. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., at 10 (1970).

27. Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, at 71, 74.

28. The Second Annual Report of the Council on Environmental
Quality, at 81 (1971). See also, The Fourth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality, at 162 (1973).

29. Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, at 129, 130.

30. Sez, Prepared Statement of W. Donham Crawford, Presi-
dent, Edison Electric Institute, Before the U.S. Senate Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, at 4 (Nov. 8, 1973).

SRE Pe way Ye

LON PME CER HED RON PARTE RROr IT Te Ge

PLA REY VY

Prerroer IRUREDATR NBER ERELITERS,

10

Btu standard.” Such evidence when supplemented by brief
references without date to results achieved on prototype
units or in pilot studies cannot be held to support a finding
that SO, stack gas removal technology is “adequately
demonstrated”.*? Similarly, reference to the desire of EPA
to provide the electric utility industry with “normal ineen-
tives” to “advance” SO, removal technology, however well-
intentioned such “incentives” may be, hardly justifies a
conclusion that any technology was, in fact, “adequately
demonstrated” in 1971. .

Nor is EPA’s justification for the availability of stack
gas removal technology promoted by references to the
guarantees offered by one or more suppliers of SO, removal
systems. Two such guarantees relate to systems other than
the one upon which EPA based its performance standard
and a third guarantee must be read in light of the manu-
facturer’s caveat that his system was not commercially
proven, had a low scrubbing efficiency “and would be far
short of the emission limits for the higher sulfur fuels com-
monly burned in large steam generators.”*

Moreover, in light of the enforcement provisions of the
Clean Air Act, the oppressive implications of EPA’s
restrictive Section 111 performance standards upon the
capability of the electric utility industry to supply the
nation’s expanding energy demands become very clear. The
failure of an electric utility to operate within such stand-
ards on every oceasion would risk the possibility of injunc-

31. Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-
of Columbia Circuit, at 49; and Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief,
at 53.

32. Id., at 48 and 53, respectively.

33. Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In
Banc in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, at

11; and Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, at 171.

ll

tive action by EPA pursuant to Section 113(a)(3) of the
Clean Air Act,** a fine of $25,000 per day of violation or
imprisonment for up to one year, or both, pursuant to Sec-
tion 113(¢e)(1)(C),*° and civil suit by any citizen pursuant
to Section 304(a)(1).26 Any assumption that EPA would
or could? refrain from prosecuting utilities that have
installed expensive** but unproven SO, removal equipment
is unfounded and offers the electric utility operator or the
nation cold comfort indeed.

The Relationship Between the Regulatory Activities

of EPA and the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 Should be Clarified as Should the Obligations of
EPA Under the Clean Air Act of 1970

The NEPA/EPA issue (that is, whether or not EPA
must comply with the statutory dictates of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969)*? is presented boldly
in this ease.*° If the decision below and others of a similar

34. 42 U.S.C. $1857c-8(b) (Supp. II, 1970).

35. 42 U.S.C. §1857c-8(c)(1) (Supp. II, 1970).

36. 42 U.S.C. §1857h-2 (1970).

37. In any event, pursuant to Section 304(b), 42 U.S.C. §1857h-
2(b) ¢ 1970), if the EPA has not commenced or is not diligently

prosecuting an action 60 days after a notice of violation by a citizen/
plaintiff, the citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf.

38. Report of The EPA Hearing Panel, at 55, 56 (n. 14, supra).
39. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seg., Pub.L.91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970).

40. It appears that lower courts have had considerable difficulty
in resolving the issue of the applicability of NEPA. For example,
compare: Kalur v. Resor, 335 F.Supp. 1, 15 (D.D.C. 1971) (the
Court holding that NEPA applies to all Federal agencies including
the Army Corps of Engineers when administering the Rivers and

LPN IDLO EL EH EAL IROL REL YIM ET ATHY FRNA

POT VIAY REE

eer" Matera ee

12

nature are permitted to stand, EPA will be the only Fed-
eral agency exempted by judicial decree and not by Con-

Harbors Act of 1899); Cohen v. Price Commission, 337 F.Supp.
1236, 1241 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (the Court deciding that NEPA does
not apply to the Price Commission in administering the Economic
Stabilization Act); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325
F.Supp. 1401, 1407 (D.D.C. 1971) (the Court concluding that
NEPA applies to the Department of Agriculture in administering
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act); Environ-
mental Defense Fund et al. v. E.P.A., 6 E.R.C. 1112 (D.C. Cir. Nos.
72-1548 et al., Dec. 13, 1973) (the Court ruling that EPA was
exempt from NEPA when administering the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act); Sierra Club v. Sargent, 2 E.L.R.
20131 (Civil No. 249-71 C2, W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 1972) (the
Court holding that NEPA applied to the Army Corps of Engineers
in administering the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899); Getty Oil
Company (Eastern Operations) v. Ruckelshaus, 342 F.Supp. 1006,
1020-1021 (D. Del. 1972) (the Court ruling that NEPA applies to
EPA in administering the Clean Air Act); Getty Oil (Eastern
Operations) v. Ruckelshaus, 467 F.2d 349, 359 (3d Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 409 U.S. 1125 (1973) (the Court overruling Getty Oil, supra,
and finding that NEPA did not apply to EPA when administering
the Clean Air Act); Gibson v. Ruckelshaus, 1 E.L.R. 20337, 20338
(Civ. Ac. No. 5255, E.D. Tex., Mar. 1, 1971) (the Court deciding
that NEPA applied to EPA in administering the Water Pollution
Control Act); Ccy of Lufkin, Texas v. Gibson, 447 F.2d 492 (5th
Cir. 1971) (the Court overruling Gibson, supra, on other grounds);
Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, 352 F.Supp. 697 (D.Colo. 1972)
(the Court concluding that NEPA applied to EPA when administer-
ing the Clean Air Act); Anaconda Company v. Ruckelshaus, 482 F.2d
1301 (10th Cir. 1973) (the Court reversing Anaconda, supra, and
finding that NEPA does not apply to EPA in administering the
Clean Air Act); International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus,
478 F.2d 615, 650 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (the Court stating, in effect,
that NEPA does not apply to EPA in administering the Clean Air
Act); Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Pro. Agcy., 477
F.2d 495, 508 (4th Cir. 1973) (the Court stating that NEPA does
not apply to EPA in administering the Clean Air Act); Portland
Cement v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (the Court
holding that NEPA does not apply to EPA when administering the
Clean Air Act); Duquesne Light Co. v. Environmental Protection
Agcy., 481 F.2d 1, 9 (3d Cir. 1973) (the Court noting that NEPA
does not apply to EPA in administering the Clean Air Act); and
Buckeye Power, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agcy., 481 F.2d
162, 174 (6th Cir. 1973) (the Court holding that NEPA does not
apply to EPA in administering the Clean Air Act).

0 St ies Te le PES oP Ao ae ell

13

gress from compliance with NEPA.‘' Whatever may be
the language and the legislative history of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,‘? the legislative his-
tory upon which EPA relies is far too slim,*? EEI submits,

41. International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615
(D.C. Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486
F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Environmental Defense Fund et al. v.
E.P.A., 6 E.R.C. 1112 (D.C. Cir. Nos. 72-1548 et al., Dec. 13, 1973).

42. 33 U.S.C. $1151 et seq., Pub.L.92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (Oct. 18,
1972). Pursuant to Section 511(c), 33 U.S.C. §1371(c) (Supp. II,
1970), Congress expressly exempted EPA from NEPA require-
ments for carefully specified portions of the Act: “(c)(1) Except
for the provision of Federal financial assistance for the purpose of
assisting the construction of publicly owned treatment works as
authorized by section 201 of this Act, and the issuance of a permit
under section 402 of this Act for the discharge of any pollutant by a
new source as defined in section 306 of this Act, no action of the
Administrator taken pursuant to this Act shall be deemed a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852); and (2) nothing in the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852) shall be deemed
to— (A) authorize any Federal agency authorized to license or per-
mit the conduct of any activity which may result in the discharge of
a pollutant into the navigable waters to review any effluent limitation
or other requirement established pursuant to this Act or the adequacy
of any certification under section 401 of this Act; or (B) authorize
any such agency to impose, as a condition precedent to the issuance
of any license or permit, any effluent limitation other than any such
limitation established pursuant to this Act.”

43. Compare, Statements of Senators Jackson and Muskie, 115
Cong. Rec. 40417, 40418 and 40423 (1969) with Statement of Sena-
tor Allott, 115 Cong. Rec. 40422 (1969). See also, Statement of
Administrator Ruckelshaus during the NEPA Oversight Hearings:
Joint Hearings Before the Senate Committees on Public Works and
Interior and Insular Affairs on the National Environmental Policy
Act, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., at 564 (1972). Note that, The Council
on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) initially issued regulations
which stated that EPA should not have to prepare impact statements
for “environmental protection regulatory activities,” 36 Fed. Reg.
7725 (Apr. 23, 1971). However, recently the CEQ has revoked this
interpretation in its revised NEPA Guidelines. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.4,
38 Fed. Reg. 20550 (Aug. 1, 1973); for an explanation of the revo-
cation, see 38 Fed. Reg. 10856, 10865 (May 2, 1973).

CEE) wrerere

TOTAL NOG SE

Besson nee oeeomy trom oye rammpeeninmstpReMaR NEE ete ys cet

14

to base an exemption from compliance with the express lan-
guage of Section 102(C) of NEPA.

Nevertheless, should it be thought that the National
Environmental Policy Act does not apply, then the Clean
Air Act as a whole and, in particular, Section 111 when
properly construed, requires EPA in the performance of
its regulatory obligations under that Act to prepare, as
has sometimes been held, “the functional equivalent of a
NEPA Impact Statement” and requires the courts to test
such actions in light of that responsibility.** Edison Elec-
tric Institute submits in short that EPA cannot free itself
from the obligations of NEPA and, as well, the obligations
to make an analysis which is the functional equivalent of a
NEPA analysis pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

Moreover, EEI believes that such analysis is particularly
important in light of existing technology which may be
implemented now and which promises substantial progress
toward achieving ambient air quality standards in timely
fashion. What should have been done by EPA was to
develop a uniform plan (consistent with the over-all policy
of the Clean Air Act to eliminate hazards to public health
attributable to air pollution within three years of the adop-
tion of a state implementation plan) which: (1) allocates
the short supply of low sulfur fuels to some plants, where
land restrictions, plant age, and population density preclude
use of other methods; (2) permits other plants to solve
the primary and secondary air quality standard problems
presently and often forever with high stack technology;
and (3) perhaps obligates some plants, where no other
solution is available, to use stack gas removal systems when
such systems have, in fact, been “adequately demonstrated”.

44. International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615

(D.C. Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486
F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

BA as Tae SR nee ea ee a

15

At such time, because the use of tall stack technology is
much less expensive than the use of scrubber systems,* it
may be appropriate consistent with Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act to consider cost.*° These costs are estimated to be
$400 in annual environmental incremental costs per family
each vear after 1980.*

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated the Petition for Certiorari should
be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Cameron F. MacRae
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Attorney for
Edison Electric Institute
Of Counsel
James H. Duranp

February 1, 1974

45. Report of the EPA Hearing Panel, at 55, 56 (n. 14, supra).

46. Id. For example, it is estimated that the scrubbing of 90,000
megawatts of generation needed by 1980 to meet primary standards
amounts to an investment of about $5.4 billion. Additionally, the
costs of installing and operating flue gas desulfurization systems will
ultimately result in increased costs to the consumer. In this connec-
tion, it is estimated that consumer rates on some utility systems
could increase by as much as 15-20 percent annually.

47. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Staff Paper
Prepared As Background For Official DHEW Comments On The
Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rulemaking On Pre-
vention Of Significant Air Quality Deterioration, at 17 (Oct. 1973).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_1739%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.