On Tuesday, November 7, Supreme Court justices voiced strong uncertainty about ordering the federal government to change long-standing clean-air policy and begin considering compliance costs—not just health benefits—in setting nationwide air-quality standards. An industry group is asking for a new interpretation of the Clean Air Act to require the agency to weigh the costs and benefits of each regulation, which would provide the statutory guidance the appeals court found lacking. Justice John Paul Stevens said the industry groups appeared to be seeking a rule that the EPA must set air-quality standards “to protect the public health, provided it doesn’t cost too much.”
The Clinton administration is asking the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) went too far in adopting tougher clean-air standards in 1997. The appeals court ruled in favor of the industry groups on that question, but rejected their argument that the EPA should consider the cost of compliance.
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July 2001. It could have a major impact on clean-air rules and even on regulatory actions by other federal agencies.
Based on reports from Associated Press in The Record (NJ) and The New York Times
