We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
unambiguously bars cost considerations from the NAAQS-setting
process.
Nor was it going to rule that EPA should have taken background
ozone concentrations into account in setting the NAAQS. As the
Court recognized, the statute allows EPA to address background
issues in implementing the NAAQS, but
implementation issues are irrelevant to
setting the NAAQS at the level,
"allowing an adequate margin of safety, [that] are requisite
to protect the public health."
On the merits of EPA's decision to lower the primary ozone
NAAQS from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 PPM, the petitioners came squarely up
against the recommendation of the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee that EPA set the NAAQS at somewhere in the range of
0.060-0.070 ppm. The Court was never going to require EPA to pick a
level outside CASAC's recommended range. Indeed, had EPA done
so, the Court very likely would have vacated such a decision.
The more interesting aspect of the case was the Court's
decision to affirm the standard against environmentalists'
challenge arguing 0.070 ppm was not sufficiently stringent. CASAC
had recommended that EPA adopt a standard of 0.060 ppm. However, as
I predicted, EPA adequately protected its left flank. As the Court
noted, CASAC's scientific recommendation was that the standard
be in the 0.060-0.070 ppm range. EPA selected a standard from
within that range. CASAC's recommendation that EPA select 0.060
ppm was a policy judgment, not a
scientific judgment – and EPA gets
to make the policy judgments.
I have in the past noted that CASAC's
scientific recommendations are borderline sacrosanct and this case
does nothing to change that view. Thus, If this case highlights
anything, it is that this Administration's efforts to reshape
EPA's advisory committees are going to be really important.
What happens if a radically reshaped CASAC concludes that 0.075 ppm
is "requisite to protect the public health"? We may get
an answer to that question sooner than we ever thought.
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.
The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.
Keynote Address: FERC Commissioner Richard Glick
Innovative DER Projects/Use Cases
DER Policy Evolution & Integration with Wholesale Markets
Convener/Moderator: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates, Ltd.
Last week, BioScience published the "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency." It's actually a nice piece of work – short, readable, to the point.
This alert provides an update on steps the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken under Executive Orders (EO) promoting President Trump's deregulatory agenda.
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Citizen Plaintiffs Lose A Climate Suit — Let Me Count The Ways (Video)
