Supreme Court sides with EPA in clean air battle (5-4)

[Endangered Specie]

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 3:54 p.m. ET Jan. 21, 2004WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency may override states and order some anti-pollution measures that may be more costly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-4 decision, a victory for environmentalists, found the EPA did not go too far in 1999 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.

"This is a clear-cut victory for clean air and underscores the appropriate need for the EPA to act as a backstop if a state is improperly enforcing the Clean Air Act," said Frank O'Donnell, head of the Clean Air Trust.

<cut>


Battle background
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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4017685/

[girl gone mad]

1. Why is it always Alaska? n/t

[xxqqqzme]

3. technology has caught up.

once it was cost prohibitive to rape Alaska, which is why natural resources there have not been as exploited as in the lower 48. It is catch-up time.

[hatrack]

4. Two words - Ted Stevens n/t

.

[Sushi-Lover]

2. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=324048