462 U.S. 87 (1983) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v.
Does NEPA permit the NRC to address the long-term environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal through a generic rulemaking and to rely on a predictive assumption of no significant environmental release from future deep geologic repositories, subject to deferential judicial review of the agency's scientific judgment?
NEPA imposes procedural duties requiring agencies to take a "hard look" at environmental consequences and to disclose and consider them before acting; it does not mandate substantive outcomes. Judicial review of NEPA compliance proceeds under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the agency but ask whether the agency considered relevant factors, explained its decision, and made a reasoned choice. When an agency makes predictive judgments about matters within its technical expertise and under scientific uncertainty, a reviewing court must be "at its most deferential." NEPA also permits agencies to address environmental effects generically by rulemaking where appropriate, rather than through repetitive case-by-case adjudications.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the NRC's generic rule and accompanying environmental analysis, including its predictive assumption that deep geologic repositories will not result in significant environmental releases over the long term, satisfied NEPA's procedural requirements and were not arbitrary or capricious. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and upheld the NRC's rule.
Baltimore Gas & Electric is a touchstone for two propositions: (1) NEPA is procedural, and courts review agency compliance through the APA's deferential lens, especially when scientific predictions and uncertainty are involved; and (2) agencies may employ generic, rule-based NEPA analyses to address common, technically complex issues rather than redoing them in every adjudication. The case equips agencies with flexibility to manage uncertainty through reasoned predictions and disclosures, and it signals to courts and litigants that the proper role of judicial review is to ensure a hard look—not to demand worst-case speculation or to second-guess expert technical judgments. For law students, the case pairs naturally with Vermont Yankee (deference to agency procedures) and later NEPA cases emphasizing that disclosure and reasoned decision-making, not substantive environmental mandates, are NEPA's essence.