Enron Mail

From:jeffrey.keeler@enron.com
To:kevin.presto@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com, george.hopley@enron.com,kevin.mcgowan@enron.com, jeff.andrews@enron.com, adam.siegel@enron.com, kristin.quinn@enron.com, john.massey@enron.com, julia.murray@enron.com, kristin.walsh@enron.com, clayton.se
Subject:Supreme Court rules in Ozone/PM case
Cc:michael.terraso@enron.com, susan.worthen@enron.com, marc.phillips@enron.com,henry.van@enron.com, gus.eghneim@enron.com, mary.schoen@enron.com, stacey.bolton@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, tom.
Bcc:michael.terraso@enron.com, susan.worthen@enron.com, marc.phillips@enron.com,henry.van@enron.com, gus.eghneim@enron.com, mary.schoen@enron.com, stacey.bolton@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, tom.
Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:07:00 -0800 (PST)

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in
Whitman (formerly, Browner) v. American Trucking Associations, the case
involving EPA's new rules setting standards for ozone and particulate matter
(PM). As you may recall, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
had ruled that EPA exceeded its constitutionally-delegated authority from
Congress in crafting the new ozone/PM rules, and also ruled that explicit
cost considerations could not be used in standard setting. The Supreme
Court considered arguments on both the delegation and the cost question.
Industry petitioners had strongly argued that the federal government must
consider cost and not just health benefits in setting national air pollution
standards.

The Supreme Court's ruling held the following:

1) Reversed the Circuit Court's ruling on delegation, holding that the EPA's
ozone/PM rules did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of
legislative power.

2) Upheld the Circuit Court's ruling on cost considerations, holding that
the Clean Air Act "unambiguously bars cost considerations" from the process
of setting air-quality standards."

3) Remanded the ozone/PM rules to EPA, holding that EPA's implementation of
the rules was unlawful and EPA must develop a reasonable interpretation of
the ozone standards.

In general, industry is not very happy with the result -- they lost arguments
1) and 2). The remand in 3) will lead to some changes in the way the new
standards are applied (and give the Bush Administration the chance to make
some cosmetic changes), and may lead to some delays in implementation of the
rules, but the bottom line is, the new EPA ozone/PM standards will move
forward. Among other things, the new rules set an 8-hour standard for
determining attainment status for ozone and PM.

We are in the process of analyzing the court's ruling in more detail, and
will circulate further analysis shortly. Please contact me with any
questions.

PLEASE FORWARD TO OTHERS WHO MIGHT FIND THIS INFORMATION USEFUL

Thanks,

Jeffrey Keeler
Director, Environmental Strategies
Enron
Washington DC office - (202) 466-9157
Cell Phone (203) 464-1541