The Supreme Court Ok’s CSAPR, but Implementation Remains Stalled

by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)1 requires that states be “Good Neighbors” and regulate their in-state sources of pollution so that those sources do not “contribute significantly” to pollution in other states downwind.2  Congress assigned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the unenviable task of orchestrating compliance through the cooperative federalism framework of the CAA, and over the last two decades, the EPA has made repeated, and highly controversial, attempts to implement the “Good Neighbor Provision.”3  The most recent of these efforts, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)4 received a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court on April 29, 2014 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation.5  However, despite the EPA now having a regulatory framework that passes muster, increased neighborliness does not appear imminent.

CSAPR is designed to provide a solution to a seemingly intractable problem: “Most upwind States propel pollutants to more than one downwind State, many downwind States receive pollution from multiple upwind States, and some States qualify as both upwind and downwind.”6  The EPA found and evaluated nearly 2,500 such “linkages” between downwind and upwind states.7 The challenge, then, was to create a legal framework for reducing these streams of pollution, but only to the extent that they “contribute[d] significantly” to the non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs) by downwind states. 

To solve this problem, the EPA first developed a procedure for determining when a state “contribute[s] significantly” to a downwind state’s non-attainment of a relevant NAAQs.8  First, the EPA excluded as de minimis any impacts that resulted in less than 1 percent of the NAAQs  in any downwind state.  States with only de minimis impacts were excluded from regulation under CSAPR.  For the remaining 27 states, the EPA developed an “emissions budget” using a complex model.  This model took into account not only the emissions produced by each state and its contribution to downwind pollution, but the amount of reduction that could be achieved at certain cost thresholds.

In EME Homer City Generation v. EPA,9 the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR on two primary grounds.  First, it found that it was unfair to the states to expect that they would develop their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) without knowing what their obligations were under the Good Neighbor Provision. Under the CAA, a state must propose a SIP within three years of the EPA issuing new NAAQS.10  If the EPA judges that a SIP is inadequate, then within two years it must issue a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for that state.  But CSAPR was promulgated after the states had submitted their SIPs.  When the EPA promulgated CSAPR, it deemed those existing SIPs inadequate with regard to the Good Neighbor Provision, and simultaneously issued FIPs. 

The second issue on which the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR was the allocation of emissions reductions among the upwind states.  The D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA’s method, which took into account the cost-effectiveness of reduction measures, was not supported by the statute.  The D.C. Circuit held that the EPA must require that states reduce their emissions by an amount strictly proportional to the amount to which they contributed to their downwind neighbors’ non-attainment of NAAQS.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, disagreed (Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, and Justice Alito recused himself).  With regard to the SIPs, the Court concluded that the plain text of the statute supported the EPA’s issuance of FIPs concurrently with CSAPR, because the EPA’s power to issue a FIP adheres when it finds a SIP inadequate.  The EPA may have two years in which to issue a FIP, but it can do so immediately if it so chooses. 

With regard to the allocation of the emissions budgets, the Supreme Court found that the EPA’s cost-based approach was a permissible reading of the statute.  A strictly proportional approach would likely result in “over-control” of emissions, and would be more costly than the EPA’s approach.  In particular, the Court was concerned that a strictly proportional approach would harm states that have higher emissions due to a higher population or more industry, but that have already implemented costly pollution control measures.  In a proportional approach, those states would have to implement even more expensive measures to achieve incremental reductions in emissions, while a neighboring state that had not yet implemented less expensive measures could continue to “free-rid[e] on their neighbor’s efforts to reduce pollution.”11

The Court did agree, however, that there were limits.  A state cannot be required to reduce its emissions below the de minimis threshold of a 1 percent contribution to the NAAQS of any downwind state, nor can it be required to reduce its emissions below that required to bring any downwind state into attainment.  States are free to file as-applied challenges to CSAPR on that basis.

Although EPA v. EME Homer City Generation represents a victory for the EPA, it is unclear if the decision will have any practical effect in the near future.  The Supreme Court remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit, where outstanding issues in the case remain to be resolved, including whether a FIP can be imposed on a state for which a SIP had been approved under CSAPR’s processor regulation.  CSAPR will likely remain stayed until those issues are resolved.  Moreover, there are multiple other outstanding legal challenges to aspects of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit and elsewhere that have not been consolidated with Homer City and must also be resolved.  The implementation schedule in CSAPR has also passed; the EPA will have to establish a new one prior to the regulation going into effect.  Meanwhile, changes in the industry, including the increasing use of natural gas, have changed the amount and kind of emissions from that used in the EPA’s CSAPR model.

The EPA may have a regulatory framework, but it still lacks a functional cross-state air pollution regulation.  Neighborliness will have to wait. 

1 Id. §§ 7401-7671q (2011).  

2 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) ( a state implementation plan shall include 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 such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.) (“Good Neighbor Provision”).

3 See Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

4 Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208 (Aug. 8, 2011) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, 52, 72, 78, 97).

5 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014).

6 Id., slip op. at 3.

7 Id. at n.1.

8 The NAAQs at issue are those for ozone and fine particulate matter; however, CSAPR does not regulate the emissions of those substances but rather their upwind precursors, nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) and sulfur dioxide (“SO2”).

9 EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

10 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1)(1).

11 EPA v. Homer City at 27. 



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.

© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.