States and fossil fuel industry associations welcomed the Supreme Court’s recent decision to temporarily halt the implementation of the federal “Good Neighbor” plan. Advocacy groups criticize the decision, stating it cuts back essential ozone protections. The plan’s contested provisions aimed to enforce new ozone limits by rejecting inadequate state air plans and substituting a federal replacement.
The ruling pauses the second part of the rule, which opponents argue would overburden utility operators and accelerate the retirement of critical coal-fired plants. American Petroleum Institute general counsel Ryan Meyers remarked that the decision averts the risk of power outages and industrial supply chain delays. Similarly, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson stated that the ruling underscores the severity of the EPA’s rule on the American economy and lifestyle.
The Supreme Court’s decision, detailed in Ohio v. EPA, concluded that the EPA’s rule did not adequately explain how its two-part ozone plan would function without states temporarily exempt from the initiative. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, one of the applicants in the case, hailed the decision as a victory for states’ sovereignty and the rule of law.
The frozen rule comes during the height of summer when ozone pollution is at its peak. Critics argue that EPA’s failure to implement the national replacement rule endangers public health in regions severely impacted by ozone pollution. Clean Air Task Force attorney Hayden Hashimoto, involved in the case, expressed disappointment but remained optimistic about the rule’s ultimate validation in court.
The ongoing litigation, now paused on a national scale, awaits further proceedings in various regional circuits. With 21 states’ air plans initially disapproved to make room for a more robust federal alternative, the EPA responded by instituting an interim rule. This new rule only applied to 11 states until the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Legal experts like Alston & Bird partner Kevin Minoli believe the Supreme Court’s decision to use the emergency docket in addressing EPA regulations marks a significant judicial stance on federal environmental governance.
Details of the case are documented in Ohio v. EPA, U.S., No. 23A349.