Supreme Court upholds EPA decision-making process

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 28, 2001) – The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected arguments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in setting air-quality standards under the Clean Air Act.

However, the court threw out the EPA’s policy for implementing new ozone rules and ordered the agency to come up with a more “reasonable” interpretation of the law.

In setting air-quality standards, the EPA is required to use criteria that “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge” for identifying pollution’s effects on health.

A group led by the American Trucking Associations said the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997.

An industry victory would have given engine builders some measure of increased control over operating costs. According to Allen Schaeffer of the Diesel Technology Forum, a requirement that EPA consider financial costs when it drafts the rules could have led to a relaxing of current ambient standards for ozone and fine particles, which in turn would restrain fuel and engine costs.

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman gave no indication of what EPA might do to implement the tougher standards, which had been withdrawn to await a ruling from the Supreme Court.