dictionary

U.S. Supreme Court lets stand EPA pollution rule

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

WASHINGTON -- In a defeat for utilities and industry groups, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday let stand a federal rule requiring a number of states to reduce interstate drifting of air pollution, mainly from power plant emissions.

The high court rejected without any comment or dissent a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule that had been brought by about 50 utilities, various industry groups and by eight states.

They claimed the EPA's rule, aimed at emissions largely from coal-burning power plants that drift into states mainly in the Northeast, exceeded the agency's authority under the clear air law to address interstate air pollution. The greatest reductions in emissions take place in Midwestern states.

The EPA in 1998 labeled 22 states and the District of Columbia as sources of interstate pollution and ordered them to sharply cut back on the amount of nitrogen oxide, a smog-causing chemical, starting in 2003 for some plants.

A U.S. appeals court last year upheld the rule. It said the EPA properly considered the cost of air pollution controls when determining which states should reduce their emissions and the amount by which each state must reduce its emissions.

The court told the EPA to reconsider the plan for three states -- Wisconsin, Missouri and Georgia.

But it upheld the rule for the District of Columbia and the other states -- Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the utilities, the industry groups and the states argued that the EPA may not consider the cost effectiveness of available pollution controls in identifying the emissions.

They also questioned the part of the appeals court ruling that held the EPA's authority was sufficiently defined under the clean air law.

The Justice Department, on behalf of the EPA, said the appeals should be rejected. Environmental groups, nine Eastern states and the Canadian province of Ontario also urged the Supreme Court to deny the appeals.

In a major environmental ruling last week, the Supreme Court upheld how the federal government sets air pollution standards, rejecting industry arguments that public health benefits should be weighed against compliance costs.

Copyright 2001 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For more LAW news, myCNN.com will bring you news from the areas and subjects you select.

Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University
On the Docket 2000-2001
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh
History of the Federal Judiciary

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.