Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (35895)	1/21/2004 5:25:24 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

Court Backs EPA on Anti-Pollution Rules Wed Jan 21, 1:15 PM ET ! By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) can override state officials and order some anti-pollution measures that may be more costly. The 5-4 decision, a victory for environmentalists, found the EPA did not go too far when it overruled a decision by Alaska regulators, who wanted to let the operators of a zinc and lead mine use cheaper anti-pollution technology for power generation. The four justices who dissented said the ruling undercut the states' power to control their environmental policies. The Alaska case was the first of eight environmental cases on the court's docket this term, an unusually high number. The fight was over whether the Red Dog Mine must use equipment that would reduce pollution from a new generator by 90 percent. The state wanted to allow the mine operator, a major employer in a particularly rural area of Alaska, to use equipment that would only reduce pollution by 30 percent. The Clean Air Act allows state officials to make some decisions involving facilities within their borders, but still gives the EPA wide authority to enforce the anti-pollution law passed by Congress in 1970. "We fail to see why Congress, having expressly endorsed an expansive surveillance role for EPA," elsewhere in the law, "would then implicitly preclude the agency from verifying substantive compliance," with the portion of the law at issue in this case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) wrote for the majority. Ginsburg's usual allies on the court's ideological left joined her in the ruling: Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites). The crucial fifth vote came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), who usually votes with the court conservatives in states' rights cases. The four dissenters argued that the decision undercuts states' power to control their environmental policies. "This is a great step backward in Congress' design to grant states a significant stake in developing and enforcing national environmental objectives," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites). "After today's decision, however, a state agency can no longer represent itself as the real governing body. No matter how much time was spent in consultation and negotiations, a single federal administrator can in the end set all aside by a unilateral order," Kennedy wrote. The case is State of Alaska v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 02-658.