Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Baltimore G. & E. Co. v. NRDC
Reference: 462 U.S. 87
Term: 1983
Important Dates
Argued: April 19, 1983
Decided: June 6, 1983
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opinion reversed
Majority
Sandra Day O'Connor • Byron White • John Paul Stevens • John Brennan • Thurgood Marshall • Harry Blackmun • William Rehnquist • Warren Burger

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is a United States Supreme Court case applying hard look review to rules made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC had instructed nuclear powerplant licensing boards to assume that permanently storing some nuclear waste would have no significant environmental impact. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required the NRC to consider the environmental impact of any major federal action. Petitioners challenged the way the NRC used the assumption about nuclear waste to keep those considerations from affecting whether to license specific powerplants.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted in an arbitrary and capricious way when it passed a rule saying that permanent storage of some nuclear waste should not affect whether to license a particular powerplant.
  • The issue: Whether the NRC acted in an arbitrary and capricious way when it instructed licensing boards to assume that some nuclear waste storage would have no significant environmental impact.
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling. The opinion held that the NRC adequately considered the environmental impact of nuclear waste storage before making its licensing rules.


    • Why it matters: The ruling endorsed a version of hard look review that required agencies to consider all relevant facts, as defined by law, before making their regulatory decisions.[1]

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.

    Arbitrary-or-capricious test

    The arbitrary-or-capricious test is a legal standard of review used by judges to assess the actions of administrative agencies. It was originally defined in a provision of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which instructs courts reviewing agency actions to invalidate any that they find to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The test is most frequently employed to assess the factual basis of an agency's rulemaking, especially informal rulemakings.[3][4][5][6]

    The case

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of major federal actions. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted rules to evaluate the environmental impact of the life cycle of nuclear powerplants. To meet NEPA requirements, the rules instructed licensing boards to assume that storage of certain nuclear wastes would have no significant environmental impact (the zero release assumption) and should not affect licensing decisions for particular plants.[1]

    The DC Circuit ruled that the NRC rules were arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with the NEPA. The court held that not allowing licensing boards to consider the uncertainties surrounding the zero release assumption in making their decisions was unacceptable. The case then came before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]

    Oral argument

    Oral arguments were held on April 19, 1983. The case was decided on June 6, 1983.[1]

    Decision

    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling with a unanimous vote. The majority opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice Lewis Powell took no part in the consideration or decision.[1]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the NRC complied with the NEPA and did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it made rules including the zero release assumption. The Court held that the zero release assumption was "within the bounds of reasoned decision-making required by the APA," (Administrative Procedure Act). O'Connor quoted Vermont Yankee in order to articulate the Court's view of its role in the process of regulating nuclear power:[1]

    “ Much of the debate focuses on whether development of nuclear generation facilities should proceed in the face of uncertainties about their long-term effects on the environment. Resolution of these fundamental policy questions lies, however, with Congress and the agencies to which Congress has delegated authority, as well as with state legislatures and, ultimately, the populace as a whole. Congress has assigned the courts only the limited, albeit important, task of reviewing agency action to determine whether the agency conformed with controlling statutes. As we emphasized in our earlier encounter with these very proceedings,


    '[a]dministrative decisions should be set aside in this context, as in every other, only for substantial procedural or substantive reasons as mandated by statute . . . , not simply because the court is unhappy with the result reached.' [7][1][8]

    		”

    The opinion continues by outlining the NEPA requirement that agencies take a hard look at relevant environmental concerns before making major decisions:

    “ Congress in enacting NEPA, however, did not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations. Rather, it required only that the agency take a 'hard look' at the environmental consequences before taking a major action. The role of the courts is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions, and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious. [9][1][8] ”

    The Court concluded that the NEPA did not require agencies to adopt particular decision-making structures and that the generic rules governing licensing boards were made following the required hard look at potential environmental costs. Given the conservative estimates the NRC made about the potential environmental risks and the disclosures the NRC made about the relevant scientific literature showing uncertainty about the safety of nuclear waste disposal, the Court held that the agency properly considered the relevant data. When agencies make decisions like these, the Court ruled that reviewing courts ought to defer to agency expertise:

    “ [A] reviewing court must remember that the Commission is making predictions, within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science. When examining this kind of scientific determination, as opposed to simple findings of fact, a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential. [...]


    In sum, we think that the zero release assumption -- a policy judgment concerning one line in a conservative Table designed for the limited purpose of individual licensing decisions -- is within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking. It is not our task to determine what decision we, as Commissioners, would have reached. Our only task is to determine whether the Commission has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.[10][1][8]

    		”

    Impact

    In this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed a version of hard look review that required agencies to consider all relevant facts, as defined by law, before making their regulatory decisions. Reviewing courts could overturn agency decisions if they found that agencies did not fully consider the facts relevant to their regulatory actions.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 JUSTIA, "Baltimore G. & E. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)" accessed September 12, 2018
    2. ↑ Oyez, "Baltimore Gas & Electric Company v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.," accessed September 12, 2018
    3. ↑ The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 4, 2017
    4. ↑ Electronic Privacy Information Center, "The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)," accessed August 14, 2017
    5. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act," accessed August 14, 2017
    6. ↑ Center for Effective Government, "Arbitrary-or-Capricious Test," accessed August 15, 2017
    7. ↑ Internal citations and quotations have been omitted
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Internal citations and quotations have been omitted
    10. ↑ Internal citations and quotations have been omitted
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Baltimore_Gas_%26_Electric_Co._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&oldid=9173974"