|
Supreme Court Backs Clean Air Act | |
|
Dateline: 02/27/01
In what anti-air pollution groups are calling one of its most important environmental decisions in history, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously rejected an industry challenge to U.S. air pollution standards.
By its 9-0 ruling today, the court found that sections of the Clean Air Act of 1970 used by the Environmental Protection Agency in creating its regulations do not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and that the government is not required to consider financial impact when setting air quality standards.
However, the court's ruling did include one setback for environmentalists by finding the EPA's policy for implementation of the federal ozone standards to be unlawful and ordering the agency to develop a more reasonable interpretation of the standards.
"We
therefore find the EPA's implementation policy to be unlawful," wrote
Justice Scalia. "It is left to the EPA to develop a reasonable
interpretation" of the ozone standards. Challenging the EPA regulations
were a large group of electric utilities and transportation-related
businesses in Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia who had filed suit in federal
court claiming the clean air regulation would cost them over $50 billion to
implement. Attorneys for the industry group argued that the EPA had refused to consider
these costs while developing the regulations and implementation standards. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is directed to set pollution limits that
"accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare
which may be expected from the presence of a pollutant." Calling for sizable reductions in allowable levels of ozone and allowing the
states to regulate the release of air-borne particulates smaller than the width
of a human hair, the EPA claimed the new regulations would reduce air pollution
by 10 percent over the next decade. The EPA argued that reduced air pollution
would result in the saving of lives and billions of dollars in health care
costs. A federal appeals court had originally ruled that the EPA had, indeed, illegally assumed legislative powers
reserved to Congress by "loosely" interpreting the requirements of the
Clean Air Act. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
rejected the industry's claim that the EPA was required to consider the
financial impacts of its regulations. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
rejected industry's argument that the government must weigh financial costs
against health benefits. It relied on a 1980 appeals court ruling that barred
the EPA from considering costs when it set air-quality standards. Industry groups joining in the original suit included the American Trucking
Associations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
Manufacturers and the states of Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia.
The appeals court cases involved were Browner
v. American Trucking Associations, and American
Trucking Associations v. Browner. The case as argued before the Supreme Court was Whitman v. American Trucking
Assns., Inc.
This a .PDF document. You will need the free Adobe
PDF file reader to view it. Get it here.
