US Supreme Court blocks EPA's 'Good Neighbor' air pollution plan
Adds comment from EPA, advocacy group Earthjustice
By Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states, handing a victory on Thursday to three Republican-led states and the steel and fossil-fuel industries that had challenged the rule.
The 5-4 decision granted requests by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as U.S. Steel Corp X.N, pipeline operator Kinder Morgan KMI.N and industry groups, to halt enforcement of the EPA's "Good Neighbor" plan restricting ozone pollution from upwind states, while they contest the rule's legality in a lower court.
It was the latest ruling by the conservative-majority court restricting the powers of the EPA.
The EPA issued the rule at issue in March 2023 intending to target gases that form ozone, a key component of smog, from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 upwind states whose own plans did not satisfy the "Good Neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law, requiring steps to reduce pollution that drifts into states downwind.
The agency said the rule would result in cleaner air for millions of people, saving thousands of lives.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the court granted the challengers' request because they are likely to ultimately prevail in the litigation, saying the EPA did not reasonably explain its actions.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court's three liberal justices.
"The court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits," Barrett wrote.
The EPA said it was disappointed with the ruling but looked forward to defending the plan as the matter is further litigated. Thursday's action by the court "will postpone the benefits that the Good Neighbor Plan is already achieving in many states and communities," an EPA spokesperson said.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the decision "is correct but the EPA will keep trying to legislate and bypass Congress's authority -and it has been settled by the Supreme Court: the EPA must regulate within the express boundaries of the statute that Congress passed."
The challenge followed a major 2022 ruling by the court imposing limits on the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions, undermining President Joe Biden's plans to tackle climate change. The court last year also hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution.
The challenge to the "Good Neighbor" rule was brought by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia - all targeted by the rule - as well as pipeline operators, U.S. Steel, regional electricity generators and energy trade associations. In their suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, they argued that the EPA violated a federal law aimed at ensuring agency actions are reasonable.
The D.C. Circuit refused to block the rule pending its review, prompting the challengers to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
Opponents have said the rule would impose unreasonable costs and destabilize power grids. The Justice Department, defending the EPA, urged the Supreme Court to consider the serious harms to public health that would result from blocking it.
'OPEN SEASON'
Environmental groups denounced the ruling. Sam Sankar, senior vice president of programs at environmental law group Earthjustice, called the ruling part of a growing pattern of anti-environmental decisions by the Supreme Court.
"The court's order puts thousands of lives at risk, forces downwind states to regulate their industries more tightly, and tells big polluters that it's open season on our environmental laws," Sankar said.
The rule implemented a federal program that applied to 23 states, but separate challenges in lower courts have already paused enforcement in 12 of them, including West Virginia.
During arguments in the case on Feb. 21, some of the conservative justices focused on the EPA's lack of explanation for how the plan can work when it now regulates just 11 states instead of 23 as intended. Liberal justices expressed concern about whether the case warranted emergency intervention by the Supreme Court at this time.
Some of the industry requests of the Supreme Court were specific. Kinder Morgan asked the justices to block the regulation as it applies to natural gas pipeline engines. U.S. Steel sought to prevent its enforcement against iron and steel mill reheating furnaces and boilers.
On Jan. 16, the EPA issued a proposed rule to enforce the "Good Neighbor" plan in five more states: Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico and Tennessee.
US Supreme Court raises doubts about EPA's 'Good Neighbor' ozone rule nL2N3F61RC
US Supreme Court rules against EPA in wetlands regulation challenge nL1N37M1MW
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
