**Supreme Court Blocks EPA Plan to Limit Downwind Pollution from Power Plants**
In a significant decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court halted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “good neighbor” rule, which aims to limit air pollution from power plants and other industrial sources in nearly a dozen states. This ruling comes as various legal challenges to the regulation continue across the country.
The “good neighbor” rule was designed to reduce smokestack emissions that contribute to smog in downwind areas. States such as Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with the steel industry and other groups, challenged the rule, arguing it was both costly and ineffective. The Supreme Court’s decision to put the rule on hold marks another instance of the conservative-led court curbing federal regulatory powers.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly limited the authority of federal agencies like the EPA in recent years. Notably, a landmark 2022 ruling restricted the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a significant contributor to global warming.
### The “Good Neighbor” Rule Explained
The EPA’s “good neighbor” rule was implemented to protect states from air pollution originating in other states. This rule is crucial for states like Wisconsin, New York, and Connecticut, which struggle to meet federal air quality standards due to pollution drifting across their borders from out-of-state power plants, cement kilns, and natural gas pipelines.
Ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, forms when industrial pollutants react chemically in the presence of sunlight. High levels of ozone can cause respiratory issues, including asthma and chronic bronchitis, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.
Judith Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, highlighted that up to 65% of smog pollution in some states comes from outside their borders. States contributing to ground-level ozone are required to submit plans ensuring that their industrial sites do not significantly add to air pollution in other states. If a state fails to submit an adequate plan, the EPA is supposed to implement a federal plan to protect downwind states.
### Implications of the Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision sends the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is currently considering a lawsuit challenging the regulation brought by 11 predominantly Republican-leaning states.
An EPA spokesperson expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that it would delay the benefits the “good neighbor” plan is already achieving in many states and communities. The spokesperson, Timothy Carroll, emphasized that the delay would expose Americans to higher levels of ground-level ozone, resulting in costly public health impacts, particularly for children, older adults, and vulnerable populations.
Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that the rule posed immediate harm to industry and consumers. He stated that the mining industry looks forward to making its case in court that the EPA rule is an excessive overreach and must be struck down to protect American workers, energy independence, the electric grid, and consumers.
### Participation and Challenges
The EPA’s rule was intended to provide a national solution to ozone pollution, but it relied on the assumption that all 23 targeted states would participate. As of early this year, only about half of those states were participating. Industry groups challenging the rule argue that it imposes significant and immediate costs that could affect the reliability of the electric grid. With fewer states participating, the rule may result in only a small reduction in air pollution, with no guarantee that the final rule will be upheld.
The EPA reported that power-plant emissions dropped by 18% in 2023 in the 10 states where it has been allowed to enforce its rule, which was finalized last year. These states include Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In California, limits on emissions from industrial sources other than power plants are set to take effect in 2026.
The rule is currently on hold in another dozen states due to separate legal challenges. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
### Administrative Overstep or Life-Saving Protection?
Critics, including Republicans and business groups, view the “good neighbor” rule as an example of government overreach. They argue that the rule and other Biden administration regulations are designed to hasten the elimination of fossil fuels in the U.S. power sector by significantly increasing operating costs, potentially forcing the premature retirement of power plants.
Supporters of the rule argue that it is critical for addressing interstate air pollution and ensuring that all Americans have access to clean air. Charles Harper of the environmental group Evergreen Action criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it would prevent 1,300 Americans from dying prematurely each year from pollution that crosses state borders. He emphasized that low-income and disadvantaged communities with poor air quality would bear the brunt of this delay.
Roger Reynolds, senior legal director of the environmental group Save the Sound, expressed concern that the decision hinders the EPA’s ability to protect states like Connecticut and New York from ozone pollution generated in the Midwest. He stressed that achieving healthy air quality for residents requires addressing both upwind and local sources of pollution.
### Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to block the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule underscores the ongoing tension between federal regulatory authority and state and industry interests. As the case continues in the lower courts, the future of the rule and its potential impact on air quality and public health remains uncertain.
Source: Associated Press, Washington Post
