The EPA, acting under that law three years ago, set tough new smog regulations that some industry groups said were cost-prohibitive and of marginal value. In the ensuing lawsuit, the high court has been asked to determine whether the EPA must weigh the cost of reducing harmful emissions against the benefits of improved air quality. Much of the emphasis has been placed on the question of whether Congress actually intended the EPA to have the power essentially to write laws instead of simply enforcing them. A lot of time also has been spent debating whether Congress unconstitutionally usurped its own law-making power. But the core issue, we believe, is the matter of costs and benefits.
Nobody wants dirty air.
Pollutants, after all, can cause health problems. But Justice John Paul Stevens missed the point when he complained that critics wanted clean air only if it doesn't cost too much. Government has many responsibilities and a finite reservoir of money. When substantial air quality improvements can be achieved, even at a high price, few object. The Clinton administration's defense was that the EPA had been reasonable in the past.