Feb., 28 2001 In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled (on Feb. 27) that EPA had exercised proper authority in promulgating its 1997 clean air standards on ozone (smog) and particulate matter (soot). This represents a major victory for public health advocates and a major blow to industry polluters – which argued, first, that EPA had taken on powers reserved to Congress and, second, that it had improperly excluded cost considerations in developing the rules. The Supreme Court’s action overturns an earlier ruling by a U.S. appeals court, which threw out EPA’s standards. In justifying their decision, two of the three ruling judges in that case (both Reagan appointees) invoked the pre-New Deal “nondelegation doctrine,” which holds that certain issues are too important for Congress to delegate. This decision raised concerns beyond the particular issue of clean air by suggesting that Congress cannot delegate authority to federal agencies – which have scientific expertise that Congress lacks – to develop standards for public health, safety and the environment. Fortunately, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that EPA’s rulemaking “fits comfortably within the scope permitted” by past precedent. The Supreme Court also rejected industry’s claim that EPA must consider costs in developing clean air standards. Lower courts – including the court that threw out EPA's clean air standards – have previously interpreted the Clean Air Act to explicitly forbid EPA from basing its decisions on costs to business; instead, rules must be based on what’s best for the public health – EPA estimated the 1997 standards would prevent 15,000 premature deaths a year – and costs are to be considered during the implementation phase. Industry plaintiffs thought they might be on the verge of a coup when the Supreme Court unexpectedly agreed to hear this part of the case. But the Court found the industry argument lacking. The Clean Air Act “unambiguously bars cost consideration from the [standard]-setting process, and thus ends the matter for us as well as EPA,” Scalia wrote. Industry wasn’t completely shut out, however. Echoing briefs filed by Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, the Court ruled that EPA had provided industrial states an unreasonably short amount of time to come into compliance with the new standards for ground-level ozone (or smog). This will hold up implementation of these standards until EPA can devise a plan consistent with the Court’s findings.