EPA can override state officials and order some anti-pollution measures that may be more costly if the agency can show that state regulators have unreasonably given industry the right to expand emissions in pollution-free areas.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can override state officials and order some anti-pollution measures that may be more costly in cases when the agency can show that state regulators have unreasonably given industry the right to expand emissions in pollution-free areas.

The 5-4 decision, found that the EPA did not go too far when it overruled a decision by Alaska regulators who attempted to allow the Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue, the world's largest zinc mine, to use cheaper, less effective anti-pollution equipment for power generation. Federal regulators disagreed.

The four dissenting justices said the ruling weakens a states' ability to control their environmental policies. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated the majority's ruling was in conflict with the Clean Air Act, administrative law and "principles that preserve the integrity of states in our federal system."

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the decision of the EPA was within its "ultimate authority" in such regulatory actions governing emissions. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the agency holds "supervisory authority over the reasonableness of state permitting." To view the decision, visit www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-658.pdf.