A coalition of 25 US states recently sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging a final rule titled “Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities: Implementing Regulations Under Clean Air Act Section 111(d).” The case is now before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, states are required to present plans to the EPA that set, implement, and enforce performance standards for existing energy sources. The new rule not only establishes stricter deadlines for state compliance but also has invoked heated debates concerning the EPA’s statutory authority.
The complaint asserts that the final rule “exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, in his response to the new rule, harshly criticized it as an excessive power grab by the Biden administration at the cost of state autonomy.
During the rule proposal phase, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey challenged it, stating that the EPA lacks the authority to implement such an action. He also argued that the rule imposes burdensome restrictions on states seeking to utilize their local-level discretion.
Following the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act, agencies are required to publish proposed rules and respond to public comments before finalizing them. The EPA’s action has instigated concerns about its adherence to this administrative regulation.
This is not the first time the EPA’s pollution management policies have been legally questioned. In July 2023, several US conservation groups sued the agency for allegedly failing to update air pollution limits as required.
The full details of this ongoing case could be further explored on the Jurist’s website.