Appalachian Power Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Intervenors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a rule was a logical outgrowth where commented “clearly understood” that a matter was under consideration, since “the agency received comments on [the matter] from several sources”
• finding that a rule was a logical outgrowth where commenters ‘‘clearly understood’’ that a matter was under consideration, since ‘‘the agency received comments on [the matter] from several sources’’
• \[O]ur consideration of EPA's use of computer models proceeds with considerable deference to the agency's expertise.\
• “[0]ur consideration of EPA’s use of computer models proceeds with considerable deference to the agency’s expertise.”
• “the Calsim II to Dayflow comparison has the potential to introduce significant, if not overwhelming, bias”
• “the word ‘reasonable’ cannot be read out of the statute in favor of a hair-splitting approach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).