|
back | home > society > policy > caa
The Clean Air Act of 1990
Major relevant cases (annotated)*
Union Electric Co. v. Environmental
Protection Agency 427 U.S. 246 (1976).
The court found that the EPA could not reject a state
implementation plan (SIP) based on claims of economic or
technological infeasibility. It pointed out it was the
clear congressional intent of the Clean Air Act is to force
regulated industries to develop new pollution control devices
in the face of serious public health concerns. EPA’s
approval or rejection of an SIP must be based only on the
criteria specifically outlined in the act, which do not
include economic or technological considerations (§ 110(a)(2)(A).
Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus 344
F. Supp. 253 (United States District Court of Columbia, 1972).
An existing EPA regulation allowed states to submit SIPs
to permit deterioration of air quality of existing clean
air areas (where air quality exceeds secondary standards).
The court rejected this regulation as being contrary to
the Clean Air Act. This decision was eventually upheld
in both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and
led to the development of separate deterioration standards
for Class I, II, and III areas.
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations 531
U.S. 457 (2001).
In this review of American Trucking Associations and
others v. EPA (175 F.3rd 1027, D.C. Cir. 1999), the court
determined that:
-
The costs of implementation cannot be taken into consideration
in setting primary NAAQSs (National Ambient Air Quality
Standards) due to an overriding concern for public health,
and
-
EPA had not taken on unconstitutional powers of legislation
in its interpretation of the Clean Air Act in setting
NAAQSs. In other words, the EPA is allowed to “to
determine how much of a public health threat [from certain
pollutants] it will tolerate at non-zero levels” (Meltz & McCarthy
2001).
* Adapted in part from Weinberg
(2001) and Coggins
et al. (2001).
summary | flowchart |
cases | document | references
|
Home
