Court to Weigh Cost Effect of Clean-Air Plans
American business advocates persuaded the Supreme Court on Tuesday to consider forcing the government to take costs into account before it sets national air quality standards.
If the business lawyers prevail, the court’s decision--due next year--could force the government to pull back from a series of anti-pollution standards.
At issue is when, if ever, the government should weigh the cost of combating pollution.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 appeared to put the focus on public health alone. It says the government must set air quality standards for ozone, lead and other pollutants that, “allowing [for] an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect public health.”
These standards are the targets cities and states must meet.
From the start, the Environmental Protection Agency interpreted the law to mean that it should set the standards based on a concern for the breathing public, not the polluting industries. However, state officials are permitted to consider costs when they devise plans for meeting the targets.
This year, however, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the trucking industry urged the Supreme Court to rethink this approach. They said the Clinton administration’s proposed new standards for ozone and soot would cost the economy $46 billion per year.
“There’s a huge difference in costs [if the acceptable level of ozone is lowered], and there’s no scientific justification that shows it’s worth the difference,” said Robin S. Conrad, a Chamber of Commerce lawyer.
Last week, the court announced that it would hear the administration’s appeal, which seeks to revive the disputed standards. A lower court had struck them down on the ground that the regulators had taken on too much power for themselves.
On Tuesday, the court agreed to broaden the case by also considering the business community’s focus on compliance costs.
“This is terrific. Clearly, the court is interested in cost-benefit analysis,” Conrad said. “There is a lot of money at risk here. These standards affect every industry group--the oil companies, auto companies, iron and steel, the power plants.”
However, EPA Administrator Carol Browner said that millions of Americans would breathe easier if the air were cleaner, and hundreds of thousands would avoid asthma and respiratory ailments. Her agency also estimated the cleaner air would save 15,000 lives a year.
Environmentalists were dismayed at Tuesday’s announcement. Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense, a New York-based group, said forcing the EPA to use a cost-benefit analysis “would tip the scales away from public health concerns and toward the economic concerns of major polluters.”
While the issue is technical, the outcome will likely shape the next decade’s efforts to achieve cleaner air. The justices will hear arguments in the fall in the two related cases, Browner vs. American Trucking Assn., 99-1257, and American Trucking Assn. vs. Browner, 99-1456.
Meanwhile, the court also agreed to referee a current version of one of America’s oldest disputes.
Control of the Potomac River between Maryland and Virginia was contested in the 1700s and nearly resulted in hostilities. A trade pact between the states laid the groundwork for the U.S. Constitution.
Now the two are fighting over water rights.
The court will appoint a special master to hear Virginia’s claim seeking a new water intake pipe on the floor of the river. Under a land grant in 1632, Maryland owns the riverbed, and it has so far refused to give Virginia a permit for the intake pipe.
