High Court to Decide Major Environmental Case

W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 7, 2000 -- Nationwide clean-air standards are at stake in a major environmental case that asks the Supreme Court whether thegovernment must consider compliance costs — and not just healthbenefits — in setting air-quality limits.

Industry groups are asking the justices to rule that theEnvironmental Protection Agency must weigh the cost of reducingharmful emissions against the benefits of improved air quality.

The Clinton administration argues that the EPA is not supposedto consider costs in setting the national air-quality standard. Thegovernment wants the justices to reverse a lower court ruling thatsaid the EPA went too far in adopting tougher clean-air standardsin 1997.

The case has “profound implications for the health of theAmerican public,” government lawyers said in court papers.“Congress did not intend EPA to base [air-quality standards] onconsideration of any effects except those posed by the presence ofthe pollutant.”

Common-Sense Standards

But lawyers for the American Trucking Associations, U.S. Chamberof Commerce and other businesses contend the government must“engage in a commonsense weighing of benefits and costs” insetting the nationwide standard.

After hearing arguments today, the justices are expected toissue a ruling by July that could have a major impact on clean-airrules and possibly on regulatory actions by other federal agencies.

The Clean Air Act, adopted in 1970, requires the EPA to adoptnational air-quality standards to “protect the public health.”The agency is to use criteria that “accurately reflect the latestscientific knowledge” for identifying pollution’s effects onhealth.

In 1997, the EPA adopted air standards that imposed new limitson soot and ozone, a major component of smog. They were challengedby industry groups, and a federal appeals court in Washington,D.C., blocked the EPA from enforcing the rules in May 1999.

Appeals Court: EPA Went Too Far

The appeals court said the EPA overstepped its authority byinterpreting the Clean Air Act’s 1990 amendments “so loosely”that it amounted to unlawful delegation of Congress’ power. Thecourt said the EPA’s interpretation left it free to set almost anystandard.

Nonetheless, the court rejected the industry groups’ argumentthat the EPA should consider the cost of compliance in settingair-quality standards. The appeals court noted that it ruled in1980 that the Clean Air Act bars the agency from doing so.

The industry groups appealed that portion of the appeals court’sruling, while the government appealed the part that blockedenforcement of the 1997 standard.

Not since 1935 has the Supreme Court thrown out federalregulations on grounds that Congress improperly handed an agencytoo much power.

Some observers believe that if the Supreme Court decided the EPAtook too much of Congress’ power when it set the clean-air rules,it could affect the regulatory power of other federal agencies withbroad congressional mandates. For example, federal law directs theFederal Communications Commission to regulate broadcasting in the“public interest.”

Three states — Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia — joined theindustry groups in the case, also supported by Virginia in afriend-of-the-court brief. Lining up on the federal government’sside were Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, California,Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, RhodeIsland, Vermont, North Carolina, Iowa, New Mexico and Washingtonstate.