Chamber wants Supreme Court to air EPA case.

Concerned that new federal air quality regulations will "cause severe economic and social dislocation to the Los Angeles area," the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce has joined the Environmental Protection Agency in requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether the EPA must develop and enforce such rules for the Southland.

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the EPA will be required under a federal appeals court ruling to develop and implement a plan to bring Southern California into compliance with federal air quality standards.

Chamber President Ray Remy said such a plan likely would be significantly more stringent than the current local regulations, which are said already to be driving businesses, especially manufacturers, from the area.

The EPA case originated with the Coalition for Clean Air and the Sierra Club Inc., which filed suit in the 1980s alleging Southern California's plans to clean up the air here did not meet federal standards and that the EPA, therefore, had an obligation to develop and enforce a federal plan for the region.

Although Southern California Air Quality Management District rules are among the strictest in the nation, the Los Angeles area also has some of the worst air pollution in the country, requiring stricter controls and clean-up to meet federal air standards than are necessary in other states, said Alan Waltner, attorney for the coalition.

The coalition's suit was successful at the federal circuit court level, and the decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Congress meanwhile amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, including a section devoted specifically to Southern California.

In court documents filed last month, the chamber alleges enforcement of a Federal Implementation Plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act would "deliver a damaging blow to the region's efforts to retain and attract businesses" and "promises widespread hardship" for the local business community.

On the other side, Joe Brecher, an attorney for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, said air quality rules are only an excuse used by companies to explain why they leave California in search of cheaper labor.

"Companies are leaving all right, but they're not leaving because of air quality rules. That's absurd," said Brecher. "Companies are probably leaving because the air quality is so bad." Tougher air quality regulations are good for the economy "in the long run," Brecher said.

The EPA and the chamber want the court to allow local regulatory agencies time to develop a new plan that meets the requirements of the amended act, said Remy.

"They always say that - 'Just one more chance. We'll be good this time. We promise,'" chided Brecher. "It doesn't get done."

The L.A. area chamber filed an "amicus curiae" or "friend of the court" brief with the Supreme Court, asking that it be allowed to present arguments on why the court should overturn the Ninth Circuit appeals court ruling.

The chamber's petition is being co-funded by the Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Edison Co. and Southern California Gas Co. SCAG also filed a separate petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Attorneys involved anticipate that the court will decide this month whether it will hear the case, and they say the odds are about even on whether the case will be decided by the nation's highest court.

The chamber's brief argues that it is in "a unique position to express the Southern California business community's concern about the severe and widespread effect of the Ninth Circuit ruling, and of a federal implementation plan, on persons other than (the EPA and other regulatory and environmental groups involved in the case) -- specifically, the people and business of Los Angeles."

"As a practical matter, enforcement of the Ninth Circuit's order would directly and adversely affect the region's economy without materially assisting the region in obtaining clean air," the chamber submitted. "It is difficult to imagine a worse time to impose duplicate environmental regulations on Southern California businesses."

Duplicate enforcement of a plan by the federal government would create confusion and drive more business away, the chamber argued.

Brecher said the Sierra Club actually hopes that if it wins the case, the local government will feel so threatened by the possibility of EPA regulations that it will rush to adopt its own rules bringing Southern California into compliance with federal standards.

However, coalition attorney Waltner pointed out that the Southern California Air Quality Management District has complained that it doesn't have enough authority to regulate all the industries necessary to bring the Southland into compliance.

Waltner agreed with Brecher that stricter air quality rules could be good for the economy because "there's money to be made in air pollution control and in building public transit." While some companies may leave the area because of stricter rules, other jobs may be created in environmental fields, Waltner said.