Supreme Court will review ‘good neighbor’ air pollution plan 

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to review federal regulations aimed at reducing cross-state air pollution. 

An emergency appeal from Republican-led states and the petroleum industry asked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule to be put on hold in Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia. Instead of just acting on the emergency applications, the high court decided to grant the issue full review during its February argument session. 

Born out of the Clean Air Act, the “good neighbor” rule aimed at regulating ground-level ozone that can travel from one state to another. This is an issue for states like Connecticut which have the highest ground-level ozone levels in the eastern half of the country but only actually produce 5% of that pollution. 

Oblivious to state boundaries, air pollution is transient and can move from state to state. When an upwind state’s emissions drift into a downwind state, the downwind state suffers the brunt of a problem it did not create. 

Smog is generated by vehicles, factories, and power plants and can lead to serious health conditions like asthma attacks, heart and lung diseases, and premature deaths. By developing the “good neighbor” rule, the EPA aimed at reducing smog production in upwind states to lower pollution for their downwind neighbors. 

In 2015, the EPA updated its air quality standard for ozone, forcing states to submit new plans to comply with the new guidelines. Two dozen states decided to take no action to prevent pollution from spreading to their downwind neighbors, so the EPA implemented its own plan. 

Many of these states challenged the government plans in court. Three of those states — Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia — argue the agency went beyond its charge by substituting its own plan. 

After initially appealing to the D.C. Circuit to block the rule, the conservative states asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention. 

Led by Ohio, the states argue the government has violated the Clean Air Act’s cooperative federalism mandate. Ohio also claims the EPA’s plan would only reach one fourth of the emissions it was intended to regulate. 

“In reality, the federal plan was always doomed; the EPA’s carefully timed gambit to work around the Clean Air Act’s structure of cooperative federalism was never going to work,” Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan wrote. “With any reasoned consideration, the EPA would have known as much.” 

Ohio told the justices that implementing the “good neighbor” rule will result in serious risks to the electric grid. 

“The plan inflicts irreparable, economic injuries on the states and others every day it remains in effect,” Sridharan wrote. “Worse still, the plan is likely to cause electric-grid emergencies, as power suppliers strain to adjust to the federal plan’s terms. To prevent these harms, the court should step in now.” 

The states were joined by representatives from the gas and petroleum industry who argued the federal plan would be impossible to accomplish. Trade associations and electric companies claim the needed changes would cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars if it were to go into effect. 

The government rebutted these claims, stating that the states had not demonstrated the harm in implementing the EPA’s plan. 

“Many of the rule’s challenged aspects do not alter applicants’ obligations until 2026,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. “EPA’s analysis indicates that near-term capital expenditures to achieve compliance need not be extensive and will not endanger natural-gas supply or power-grid operations.” 

In contrast, the government claimed the public could be harmed should the “good neighbor” rule be put on pause. 

“It would delay efforts to control pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in downwind states, which is contrary to Congress’ express directive that sources in upwind states must assume responsibility for their contributions to emissions levels in downwind states,” Prelogar wrote. “By leaving air pollution caused by upwind states unabated, applicants’ requested extraordinary relief would impose negative health consequences and additional regulatory burdens on downwind states and their citizens — thus violating the central aim of the good neighbor provision.” 

All the applications before the court will be heard in one consolidated case asking if the government’s actions were reasonable regardless of the number of states covered by the rule. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit