Lawyers Suggest States Have Strong Chance of Winning Initial Battle Over Fighting Smog at Supreme Court
Legal experts predict that the Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of Republican-led states and the energy industry in the ongoing battle over fighting smog. The case centers around the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “good neighbor” rule, which aims to crack down on states whose industries contribute to smog. While the court may suspend the regulation that states claim will cause blackouts, it will not fully resolve the dispute.
The states argue that the regulation could lead to blackouts, while the EPA argues that it is urgently needed to combat air pollution. The states and various companies also claim that the EPA’s plan is an illegal overreach that undermines the principles of the federal Clean Air Act. This act allows states to propose their own air pollution control measures.
Legal battles between the EPA and states have become increasingly common in recent years. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA widespread power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. In 2023, the court voted to limit the power of the EPA to regulate wetlands in Sackett v. EPA.
The current case, Ohio v. EPA, involves a challenge to the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule. The court declined to block the regulation itself but agreed to expedite consideration of the case. Oral arguments will be heard on February 21, 2024, and will also encompass three other applications filed against the EPA by Kinder Morgan Inc., American Forest and Paper Association, and U.S. Steel Corp.
The EPA’s “good neighbor” plan, finalized in June 2023, imposes emissions standards on 23 “upwind” states in an effort to address cross-state air pollution. According to the EPA, pollutants emitted in one state can travel and contribute to air pollution in neighboring states. The plan aims to ensure that upwind states do not hinder downwind states’ ability to meet federal air-quality standards.
The EPA argues that the plan will reduce ground-level ozone and improve air quality for millions of people living in downwind communities. However, the affected states claim that air quality is largely affected by out-of-state emissions, making it difficult for them to control. They argue that complying with the EPA’s standards would be virtually impossible and could lead to blackouts.
The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the “good neighbor” plan should remain in effect while the legal challenges are sorted out by lower courts. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court to allow the rule to remain, citing the public health benefits of controlling pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in downwind states. Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan, on the other hand, called the plan a failed experiment that inflicts economic injuries on the states.
Critics of the EPA’s approach argue that it undermines the principles of cooperative federalism established by the Clean Air Act. They believe that states should have more control over their own air pollution control measures and that the EPA’s disapproval of state plans was arbitrary and capricious.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future environmental regulations and the balance of power between federal and state governments. While legal experts believe that the states have a strong chance of winning this initial battle, the ultimate resolution of the case is still uncertain. However, it is clear that the fight over smog regulation is far from over.
