A federal appeals court refused Thursday to make a resistant Bush administration speed up a decision on whether greenhouse gases and global warming threaten public health and welfare.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a petition by 17 states and several environmental groups asking it to order the Environmental Protection Agency to make that determination within 60 days.

Such a finding is a necessary first step to regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicle tailpipes and the smokestacks of refineries, power plants and factories. The Supreme Court more than a year ago ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, a step President Bush has repeatedly refused to take.

Instead, EPA is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that seeks public comment on a range of options the agency could take to control greenhouse gases under current law.

Three states are defending their ability to sustain a gray wolf population in the Northern Rockies, asking to be heard in a federal lawsuit that seeks to return the wolves to the endangered species list.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to remove the gray wolf from the list in March, saying the species had recovered from near-extermination in the region. That transferred wolf management to Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, which are planning what would be the first public hunts in decades.

The lawsuit filed last week by 12 environmental and animal rights groups seeks to block the hunts, but the three states that filed paperwork with the court Monday and Tuesday hope to fend off the litigation so the hunts can proceed.

Officials from the states said Tuesday that they can be trusted to sustain wolves without federal oversight. The hunts, they said, are needed in part to control wolf packs that have been killing an increasing number of livestock.

"People have supported wolf recovery on the belief that being successful would mean a return of state authority over the animal," said Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

At least 39 wolves already have been killed in the region since federal protection was lifted. Those deaths came under more relaxed rules for ranchers responding to livestock conflicts and a shoot-on-site designation for the predator across most of Wyoming.

An estimated 1,500 wolves now roam the three states. Federal biologists say that is much more than needed to sustain the species, but critics say only a larger population could prevent inbreeding and offset the impact of hunting.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a $112 million punitive damage award against Exxon Mobil over radioactive contamination at an industrial site in Louisiana. The world's largest oil company had unsuccessfully argued that the award exceeded constitutional limits on punitive damages.

The high court's refusal to overturn the massive verdict means that landowner Joseph Grefer and his siblings may keep the $146 million Exxon paid in 2006 to satisfy the judgment plus interest.

The Grefers claimed Exxon left them with a huge cleanup bill after a company Exxon hired polluted a 33-acre site near New Orleans with radioactive residue from an oil pipe-cleaning facility. The award covered cleanup costs and damages for the potential health problems suffered by neighbors and workers at the site.

American anti-pollution campaigner Erin Brockovich has announced that at least two American law firms are prepared to pursue Alcoa in the United States on behalf of residents who live near its alumina refineries south of Perth, at Wagerup, Pinjarra and Kwinana.

The residents say their health has been adversely affected by emissions from the refineries. Simon Morrison from Shine Lawyers says the residents will not have to pay any money initially to join the claim.

"The US law firms involved in this claim do operate claims on what we call a contingent basis, which means no fee is payable to them unless the claim succeeds," he said.

"The next step for them is to obviously conduct some investigations of their own on the core issues surrounding the litigation.

"That would then follow what we call a forum application, in other words, bringing the matter in front of a judge in America, to test that issue of whether this is a case that can actually be brought in the United States."

Alcoa says any legal action will be vigorously defended.

A federal appeals court Wednesday rejected a state regulation that reduced emissions from ships, dealing a blow to California's attempt to combat one of the major sources of smog-forming pollution in the Los Angeles region. The ruling means that the state must seek federal approval before imposing pollution limits on the thousands of cargo ships, cruise ships and other marine vessels that visit its ports.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's new regulation is preempted by federal law. The Clean Air Act allows California to set its own standards for various vehicles and engines if it receives waivers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The state argued that in this case it didn't technically need a waiver, but the judges disagreed.

Ships sailing into the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered a major source of particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulfur, pollutants that cause the region to frequently violate federal health standards.

Microscopic soot from diesel engines can lodge in lungs, triggering heart attacks, asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory problems, scientists say. Diesel exhaust has also been linked to lung cancer.

The ruling is the second setback in two months to California's efforts to combat air pollution rather than wait for federal action.

For four decades, the state has adopted its own regulations for cars, trucks, factories, consumer products and other sources of air pollution, often prompting the federal government to set similar standards.

Microscopic soot from diesel engines can lodge in lungs, triggering heart attacks, asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory problems, scientists say. Diesel exhaust has also been linked to lung cancer.

The ruling is the second setback in two months to California's efforts to combat air pollution rather than wait for federal action.

For four decades, the state has adopted its own regulations for cars, trucks, factories, consumer products and other sources of air pollution, often prompting the federal government to set similar standards.

Nearly 19 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill fouled Alaska's Prince William Sound, the Supreme Court debated Wednesday how much money the company responsible for the disaster should pay in punitive damages.

A jury in Alaska said $5 billion. An appeals court said $2.5 billion. And Exxon's answer Wednesday was nothing at all, because the company said it already had paid plenty.

Justices explored just about every possible alternative through intense questioning during 1 ½ hours of arguments before a packed courtroom. By the end, it seemed several held the view that the company could be found liable for punitive damages, but perhaps not as much as even the appeals court had found.

There were several unusual aspects to Wednesday's arguments in a case that has bounced through the legal system for 14 years.

Justice Samuel Alito is recused because of his Exxon stockholdings, so even a 4-to-4 tie on the court would affirm the lower court's decisions that punitive damages are owed to nearly 33,000 fishermen, native Alaskans, businessmen and others consolidated into the single suit against Exxon.

And, as Justice David Souter noted, the court for a decade has struggled with determining whether punitive damages awarded by state courts were excessive. Now, he suggested, it is the Supreme Court's turn to "come up with a number."

Exxon has acknowledged that the captain of the Exxon Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, was drunk at the time of the March 24, 1989, accident, and the corporation has paid about $3.4 billion in fines, compensation and cleanup costs.

Maritime law has shielded ship owners from being punished for damage caused by their vessels. This made sense during the era of sailing ships, Souter said. "In those days, when a ship put to sea, the ship was sort of a floating world by itself," he said.

Walter Dellinger, representing Exxon, cited this principle of maritime law and urged the court to throw out the entire punitive verdict. He cited the case of the Amiable Nancy in 1818 as having a historic precedent shielding ship owners.

But his argument quickly ran aground. "It's rather, I think, an exaggeration to call it a long line of settled decisions in maritime law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

As a fallback, Dellinger argued that the $2.5 billion verdict was too high. He cited several federal laws that, for example, fine those who pollute the environment. Typically, these legal fines may total millions of dollars but not billions, he said.

For many in this coastal town, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster was an event so crushing that hard-bitten fishermen still get teary-eyed recalling ruined livelihoods, broken marriages and suicides.

But mostly, people in Cordova talk about the discouraging wait for legal retribution for the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

It's been almost 19 years since the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground at Alaska's Bligh Reef, spurting 11 million gallons of crude into the rich fishing waters of Prince William Sound. In 1994, an Anchorage jury awarded victims $5 billion in punitive damages. That amount has since been cut in half by other courts on appeals by Exxon Mobil Corp.

Now the town of 2,200 looks anxiously to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments Wednesday from Exxon on why the company should not have to pay punitive damages at all.

Scores of Cordova residents are among almost 33,000 plaintiffs — including commercial fishermen, Alaska Natives, landowners, businesses and local governments — who could see the $2.5 billion judgment taken away by the high court.