High Court Upholds EPA Clean-Air Rule Method

Reuters 1mar01

WASHINGTON - In one of the most important environmental decisions in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld how the federal government sets air pollution standards, rejecting industry arguments that public health benefits should be weighed against compliance costs.

The nation's high court also said in the unanimous landmark ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not usurp Congress's lawmaking power when it set the strict standards for ozone and soot in 1997.

But in a third part of the ruling, the court said the EPA's implementation policy for the ozone standard in areas where ozone exceeds the maximum allowable level was unlawful, and the agency must develop a reasonable interpretation.

The EPA says the standards, which have yet to take effect, will save tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health costs by reducing air pollution. The EPA estimated the rules will protect 125 million Americans, including 35 million children, from adverse health effects caused by air pollution.

Attorneys representing industry groups opposed to the standards have said the rules would cost businesses nearly $50 billion a year, a financial factor never considered by the EPA.

The EPA and environmentalists hailed the decision while business groups expressed disappointment.

``The Supreme Court today issued a solid endorsement of EPA's efforts to protect the health of millions of Americans from the dangers of air pollution,'' EPA Administrator Christie Whitman said in a statement.

``The Supreme Court's historic decision confirms what was clear 3-1/2 years ago: That EPA's new standards to limit the pollution levels of smog and soot were based on sound science, sound policy and a sound reading of the law,'' said Vickie Patton of the group Environmental Defense.

``It looks like it's a big victory for clean air,'' said Frank O'Donnell of the Clear Air Trust. ``The Supreme Court has agreed with the fundamental principle that the Clean Air Act is designed to protect people's health without regard to cost.''

The air standards limit the allowable level of ozone, a key ingredient in smog, to 0.08 parts per million, instead of the 0.12 parts per million under the old rules.

States for the first time must regulate microscopic particulates, or soot, from power plants, cars and other sources down to 2.5 microns.

FIRST TIME HIGH COURT REVIEWS EPA METHOD

The case gave the Supreme Court its first chance to review how EPA sets national air quality standards. Environmentalists called it the most important case since Congress adopted the clean air law 30 years ago.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the main opinion for the court, rejected the argument by business groups that the clean air law required the government to go beyond the public health benefits of reducing air pollution and take into account the economic costs as well.

``The EPA may not consider implementation costs in setting'' the standards, Scalia wrote. He said that under the law the standards must be set at a level required to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety.

Scalia noted the law allows regulators to consider costs when determining how to implement the air quality standards.

The other key issue was whether the law, as interpreted by the EPA, handed such a broad authority of a legislative nature to a regulatory agency that it amounted to an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of its law-making power.

Rejecting the argument of business groups, Scalia said the clean air law did not delegate legislative power to the EPA in violation of the Constitution.

Scalia said the law's delegation of authority to EPA ``fits comfortably within the scope of discretion permitted by our precedent.''

The American Lung Association welcomed the decision, and urged the EPA and states to proceed quickly in implementing new soot standards that will save an estimated 15,000 lives a year.

``The Supreme Court has upheld the Clean Air Act's central mandate to protect the public health against pollution that kills tens of thousands of people each year,'' said Howard Fox of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, which represented the American Lung Association in the case.

The National Association of Manufacturers expressed profound disappointment over the ruling. The group still ``is determined to work with the White House and Congress to rein in regulatory excess by the EPA and other agencies,'' said Michael Baroody, its executive vice president.