Moreover, one of the features of relying on
nationwide technology-based standards, is that they are nationwide.
States also don't have to worry that, if they
set standards, it will chase industry to surrounding states.
By having one technology based
standard for an industry no matter in what
state it's located, we would have effective pollution control
over and above the ineffective regulation that had
taken place on a more regional Balkanized level beforehand.
Not only must EPA determine that the technology for it's control
exist, and is practicable and available, it does have to consider the cause and
related benefits of various types of technologies.
But EPA is given a lot of discretion in
determining what the overall cost and benefit picture is.
And the mere fact that something costs a lot of
money, and there might be jobs lost, is not fatal.
Famously, the court summed up what
this approach, this technology-based approach, did.
No longer, the court said would the polluter have the right
to pollute until it could be proven that the pollution was harmful,
something very hard to know, as we know, because of the difficulty of getting
this type of public goods, this type of ecological information.
Instead, henceforth, the court said it will be the people and the environment
that enjoys the default protection, and the
polluter will have to comply with technology-based standards.
In fact, it soon became apparent that states could be
free to go above this minimum federal floor of regulation.
The most famous case on this is a
U.S. supreme court case, International Paper versus Ouellette.
In this case, a paper company, just like the sort of
paper mill we saw in the Weyerhauser case, was locating itself
on Lake Champlain, a beautiful lake in the American northeast that
serves as the boundary between the states of New York and Vermont.
This in fact is a picture of a current paper
mill owned in fact by International Paper also at Lake Champlain.