Washington, February 21 (Reuters) – In a recent legal skirmish, the U.S. Supreme Court showcased its conservative leanings, entertaining the pleas of three Republican-led states and various energy entities aiming to stifle an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation targeting ozone emissions, which could exacerbate air pollution woes in neighboring regions.
Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with industry majors such as Kinder Morgan, U.S. Steel Corp, and power producers, are mounting a challenge against the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” initiative, designed to curb ozone pollution emanating from upwind states. They’re contesting the rule’s legality in a lower court while seeking exemption from compliance.
During the recent courtroom exchanges, conservative justices voiced skepticism about the necessity of Supreme Court intervention at this juncture. They probed whether the EPA’s regulations should be binding on the challengers, especially considering that the rule currently pertains to only 11 states instead of the intended 23, owing to legal actions pausing its effect in 12 states.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed uncertainty about the uniformity of requirements between 11 and 23 states, emphasizing a lack of clarity in the EPA’s explanations. Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the viability of the regulation for fewer states, given the substantial compliance costs anticipated by industry players.
The Supreme Court refrained from immediately acting on emergency requests filed by the challengers last October, choosing instead to deliberate further, including on the reasonableness of the EPA rule’s emissions controls.
This legal tussle follows a significant 2022 ruling that curtailed the EPA’s authority to issue broad regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuel-powered plants under the Clean Air Act.
At the heart of the current dispute lies an EPA rule, finalized during President Joe Biden’s administration, targeting ozone emissions in upwind states. The EPA initiated a federal program to mitigate emissions from major industrial polluters in these states, although enforcement has been halted in 12 states pending separate legal challenges.
The case before the Supreme Court involves litigation from Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, as well as industry stakeholders, contesting the EPA’s actions. The industry players have sought specific relief, such as exemptions for natural gas pipeline engines and iron and steel mill reheating furnaces and boilers.
Some justices questioned the urgency of Supreme Court intervention at this stage, particularly when the underlying litigation is pending in lower courts. The Justice Department defended the EPA, warning that halting the rule’s enforcement would jeopardize downwind states’ residents’ health and expose them to pollution risks.
As the legal saga unfolds, the EPA has proposed extending the “Good Neighbor” plan to five more states, underscoring the ongoing battle between environmental protection and industry interests.
