Against the backdrop of the Harrison Power Station’s billowing stacks in Haywood, West Virginia, a pivotal legal showdown awaits as the U.S. Supreme Court has announced its intent to examine a legal challenge aiming to impede the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing a pivotal federal regulation. The regulation, a linchpin in curbing ozone emissions that could exacerbate air pollution in neighboring states, faces resistance from Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with key players such as pipeline operators, power producers, and U.S. Steel Corp.
This unfolding narrative, set to be argued in February, follows last year’s significant ruling by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which imposed restrictions on the EPA’s jurisdiction to enact comprehensive regulations for reducing carbon emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants under the auspices of the Clean Air Act.
The crux of the ongoing dispute lies in an EPA rule, sanctioned in June under President Joe Biden’s administration, that targets ozone, a critical element of smog, in a cluster of states. The EPA has determined that these states’ individual plans fall short of satisfying the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, mandating efforts to address pollution that could migrate into states located downwind.
In response to the inadequate plans across 23 states, the EPA advocated for a federal program to cut emissions from major industrial polluters in those regions. However, legal skirmishes in lower courts have already halted the enforcement of the rule in a dozen states.
The legal drama unfolds with Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with pipeline operators like Kinder Morgan, U.S. Steel, and regional electricity generators and energy trade associations, challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Their contention centers on the assertion that the EPA’s actions violate federal law, designed to ensure the agency’s actions remain reasonable.
Amidst the legal wrangling, industry stakeholders have made specific requests, such as Kinder Morgan seeking an injunction against the regulation concerning natural gas pipeline engines, while U.S. Steel endeavors to shield its operations from enforcement, particularly iron and steel mill reheating furnaces and boilers.
Following the D.C. Circuit’s refusal in September and October to suspend the rule during its review, the challengers have now turned to the Supreme Court for intervention. The states, in a written brief, argue that the EPA’s plan would impose unreasonable costs on them and jeopardize the stability of their power grids.
The Justice Department, representing the EPA’s position, contends that blocking the rule for these challengers would “seriously harm downwind states that suffer from their upwind neighbors’ emissions” and expose their residents to public health risks.
As the legal battle looms, the outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for environmental regulations and interstate cooperation in tackling air pollution.
