Supreme Court to hear red-state challenge to EPA’s ‘Good Neighbor’ emissions plans

The Supreme Court has announced it will hear a challenge over a federal rule on pollution across state lines after a group of red states challenged the regulation.

Three states petitioned the Supreme Court to step in and immediately stop the federal government from imposing a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from state to state, as their appeal is pending in lower courts. They say if the justices don’t intervene now, the states would suffer economic harm and potential damage to the power grid.

The high court did not halt the Good Neighbor Plan in Wednesday’s announcement and scheduled oral arguments for February.

Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia told the high court that the Environmental Protection Agency has usurped the Clean Air Act, misunderstanding the federal government’s role. The Biden administration has issued aggressive plans that impose requirements on the states, setting up a conflict with regard to federalism.

The states say that, under the regulation, they are required to develop plans to reduce emissions and improve air quality from one state to another.

As long as a state shows it has reduced emissions, the federal government is supposed to approve the plan, the states argue. Instead, they say, the government has rejected plans from nearly two dozen states and moved to impose its own agenda.

“The EPA’s rulemaking ignored obvious problems with its attempt to twist the Clean Air Act into a system of top-down regulation instead of the system of cooperative federalism that Congress intended,” the states said in their petition to the high court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not agree to halt the federal plan. However, the states noted in their filing that six other circuit courts have halted the government’s plan in other cases contesting the same issue.

“The plan inflicts irreparable, economic injuries on the states and others every day it remains in effect. Worse still, the plan is likely to cause electric-grid emergencies, as power suppliers strain to adjust to the federal plan’s terms. To prevent these harms, the court should step in now,” the states said.

At issue is the Good Neighbor Plan, which is aimed at improving air quality across states’ borders.

Pipeline companies have joined the legal battle, telling the high court that the federal plan imposes “impossible” standards on their industry.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Environmental Protection Agency, had told the justices in their filing not to halt the Good Neighbor Plan because there would be harmful health consequences.

“It would delay efforts to control pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in downwind States, which is contrary to Congress’s express directive that sources in upwind States must assume responsibility for their contributions to emissions levels in downwind States,” Ms. Prelogar wrote.