U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to EPA’s ‘Good Neighbor’ Air Pollution Rule

The United States Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear oral arguments in a case looking to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing a federal regulation — the “Good Neighbor” Rule — that protects people in states downwind from industrial and coal plant pollution that drifts across state lines, a press release from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said.

The request was made by the states of Indiana, West Virginia and Ohio; the U.S. Steel Corporation; pipeline operators; and energy providers. The court will hear the oral arguments in February of 2024.

“EPA’s Good Neighbor Protections will ensure healthier longer lives for millions of people impacted by upwind smokestack pollution. The law and the science are clear and compelling that EPA’s common sense pollution limits are vitally needed and thoroughly reasonable,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel for EDF, in the press release. “It would be a radical departure from settled law for the U.S. Supreme Court to damage these proven life-saving protections under our nation’s clean air laws – based on the same bedrock legal protections overwhelmingly affirmed by the Court in 2014.”

Last year, the Supreme Court voted to limit the authority of the EPA to establish broad rules for reducing carbon emissions from gas- and coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA), reported Reuters.

The current disagreement involves the regulation of ozone gas in states the EPA said did not comply with the Good Neighbor provision of the CAA.

“Every community deserves fresh air to breathe. EPA’s ‘Good Neighbor’ plan will lock in significant pollution reductions to ensure cleaner air and deliver public health protections for those who’ve suffered far too long from air-quality related impacts and illness,” said Michael S. Regan, EPA administrator, when the Good Neighbor Plan was announced in February, according to a press release from the EPA. “We know air pollution doesn’t stop at the state line.”

The EPA said a federal program was necessary to reduce emissions in 23 states with insufficient plans, Reuters reported. Lawsuits brought in several lower courts have already paused the rule’s enforcement in a dozen states.

The plaintiff states argue that the EPA rule will cause the destabilization of their power grids and require them to have to pay unreasonable costs.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice defended the EPA, saying to block the rule would “seriously harm downwind states that suffer from their upwind neighbors’ emissions” and endanger public health, as reported by Reuters.

“With more than 127 million people residing in regions plagued by harmful ozone levels, the Good Neighbor Rule protects public health,” said Earthjustice attorney Kathleen Riley following a September U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in favor of the EPA, a press release from Earthjustice said.