Supreme Court Reinstates Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

by Perkins Coie
Contact

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court by a 6-2 vote reversed the D.C. Circuit and  upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s Transport Rule, which imposed specific Clean Air Act limits on emissions in certain states to prevent them from “contribut[ing] significantly” to failure to attain air quality standards in other states.  See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., Case No. 12-1182, 2014 WL 1672044 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014).    

The Clean Air Act’s Cooperative Federalism Model

The case involves a portion of the Clean Air Act that follows a “cooperative federalism” model for reducing air pollution.  It charges states in the first instance with establishing plans to achieve national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) set by EPA.  See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7408, 7409.  

Once EPA sets such a standard, each state must submit to EPA a State Implementation Plan, or SIP, to EPA to attain it.  Id. § 7410(a)(1).  A SIP must also “contain adequate provisions . . . prohibiting . . . any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . . contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].”  Id. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added).  If EPA determines that a SIP is inadequate, EPA has two years to issue a superseding Federal Implementation Plan for the state.  Id. § 7410(c)(1).   

EPA’s Arguably Less Than Fully Cooperative Approach for Addressing Cross-Border Air Pollutants

In August 2011, EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (dubbed the “Transport Rule” by the Supreme Court), which interpreted when upwind states emitted air pollutants in “amounts which will . . . contribute significantly” to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of NAAQS by a downwind state, thus requiring the upwind states to reduce the offending emissions.  See 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208-01, 48,254 (Aug. 8, 2011).  EPA set forth a “two-step approach” under which an upwind state must reduce emissions of exported pollution that both (1) exceeds an initial threshold of air quality impact in neighboring states, and (2) could be eliminated cost-effectively, as determined by EPA.  See id. at 48,254. 

Applying this standard, EPA determined that 27 states had failed to submit SIPs that sufficiently reduced their cross-state emissions.  Rather than allowing each state to revise its SIP to comply with its interstate pollution obligations set forth in the Transport Rule, however, EPA issued a Federal Implementation Plan for each state contemporaneously with the Transport Rule.  Each state was thus denied an opportunity to allocate its emission budget among its in-state sources.  

Reversing a D.C. Circuit Decision, the Supreme Court Upheld the Transport Rule

A group of state and local governments and several industry and labor groups petitioned for review of the Transport Rule in the D.C. Circuit.  The D.C. Circuit invalidated the rule.  The court held that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority in two respects.  First, the court held that EPA had failed to give states a reasonable opportunity to allocate their emission budgets before issuing Federal Implementation Plans.  Second, the court found EPA’s approach untenable, since the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision required EPA to disregard costs and consider exclusively each upwind state’s physically proportionate responsibility for air quality problems in downwind states. 

But the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and reinstated the Transport Rule.  The Court held that the statute was ambiguous and thus the agency’s interpretation should prevail.  Specifically, the Court held that the terms “contribute significantly” and “amounts” in the Good Neighbor Provision were open to interpretation and did not prevent EPA from allocating emission reduction obligations to the states that could achieve them most cost-effectively, once a threshold level of air quality impact had been reached.  As the Court explained, there are different ways to reduce emissions in upwind states to protect air quality in downwind states, and EPA’s approach was permissible under the statute.

The Court also held that the Clean Air Act’s plain language does not require EPA to give states a reasonable opportunity to file a SIP after EPA has quantified the state’s interstate pollution obligations and found the SIP inadequate.   

The Decision’s Impacts

This decision does not break new doctrinal ground.  But it will eventually allow new and tighter emissions standards to take effect for power plants in much of the country.  More importantly in the long run, the decision emphatically restates the duty of courts to defer to agency regulatory decisions in ambiguous cases.

Some obstacles to full implementation still remain.  Given the litigation delay, some compliance dates in the rule may need adjustment.  And various secondary legal challenges to the Transport Rule, held in limbo while the Supreme Court issues were addressed, now will need resolution.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie
Contact
more
less

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!