The U.S Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a collection of challenges for ozone regulation, a selection from the justices’ “shadow docket”, i.e., emergency appeals. The petitioners, comprising three states, various companies, and trade associations, have requested the court temporarily suspend a “Good Neighbor” regulation, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule, which aims to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states, could have potential ramifications in terms of environmental protection and public health.
Specifically, the challenge arises from a part of the Clean Air Act known as the “good neighbor” provision. This requirement necessitates “upwind” states to take proactive measures to reduce emissions adversely affecting the air quality in “downwind” states. A continuation of the dispute is slated for argument in the Supreme Court’s February session during the coming week.
Concerns raised by the challengers paint the federal rule as potentially disastrous, warning of possible “electric-grid emergencies”. Their argument mainly advocates that the EPA has overstepped its authority and bypassed crucial reasoned decision making. Alternatively, the agency cites court rulings and legal provisions to argue it had to issue its plan in the wake of insufficient state plans. The agency and its supporters highlight the potential health risks and competitive disadvantages that would occur if the federal rule is put on hold, along with disputing any adverse impact on grid stability.
Meanwhile, the implications of this debate ripple through different industries. Power companies and trade associations, the owners and operators of U.S. natural gas pipelines, emphasize the impracticality of the anticipated timeline to meet the emissions targets. Similarly, U.S. Steel presents its concerns regarding the financial burden of compliance, which magnify when viewed in conjunction with other EPA regulations for the domestic steel industry. While the official one-hour allocation for the case may sound brief, a longer period is expected due to the complexity and importance of the case, along with the number of advocates participating in the argument.
You can read the original coverage of this case in further detail here.