April 29, 2014 Article

Supreme Court Finds Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Did Not Violate the Clean Air Act

Environmental Alert

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), ruling 6 to 2 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”) did not violate the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).

In August 2011, EPA promulgated the CSAPR, to target emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, two pollutants produced at coal and natural gas-fired power plants in 28 upwind states. The rule aimed to reduce air quality impacts to downwind states from upwind state emissions.

In the August 21, 2012 decision that was overturned, the D.C. Circuit Panel found that CSAPR exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act in two ways. First, EPA imposed “massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text,” which exclusively requires a consideration of an upwind State’s proportionate contribution, not costs. Second, because EPA failed to implement the so called “Good Neighbor Provision” by denying the States “the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders,” and imposed Federal Implementation Plans (“FIPs”) to require those obligations.

After the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR, EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) remained in place pending a valid replacement. The EPA, some states, and public health and environmental groups appealed the D.C. Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA reasonably interpreted the Good Neighbor Provision of the Clean Air Act when it issued CSAPR. In particular, the Supreme Court held that: (1) “EPA’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision;” and (2) “The CAA does not command that States be given a second opportunity to file a SIP after EPA has quantified the States’ interstate pollution obligations.”

The cases are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. EME Homer City Generation LP et al., case number 12-1182, and American Lung Association et al. v. EME Homer City Generation LP et al., case number 12-1183, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you have questions regarding this decision and the impacts that it may have for you or your company, please contact Jeffrey Talbert of Preti Flaherty's Environmental Practice Group.

Firm Highlights


Litigation and Arbitration Venue Provisions in Construction Contracts: When and How They Work

Venue and choice-of-law provisions are fairly standard in construction contacts, but can be overlooked due to their location within a contract. When drafted effectively, these provisions can help limit uncertainty about where and how...


2020 Employment Law Series: A Legislative Update for HR Professionals

For more than 25 years, Preti Flaherty's Employment Law Group has been keeping clients, business partners, and friends up to date on recent developments in employment law. Join us as we continue that tradition...

Press Coverage

Bangor superintendent blocked BDN reporter on Twitter after critical news coverage

In an apparent violation of the First Amendment, Bangor schools superintendent Betsy Webb temporarily blocked a journalist on Twitter following a report that news of a student suicide was announced over the loudspeaker at...

Press Coverage

Maine State Police May Be Spying on You

Police and governments are increasingly turning to new tracking and monitoring methods in their efforts to prevent and record evidence of crimes. A Portland Press Herald investigation examines these expanding law enforcement abilities and the...


Preti Flaherty Attorney Benjamin S. Piper Promoted to Partner

Preti Flaherty is pleased to announce that the firm’s partnership has named attorney Benjamin S. Piper as a partner. Ben is a member of the firm's Environmental, Litigation, and Media Law Practice Groups and works...


The Potential of the Blockchain for Asset Protection Planning

While many legal scholars focus on the challenges and complications seemingly inherent to blockchain and cryptocurrency, others look past the fear and see potential. In this article for Cumberland Law Review , Ian Huyett and Brian Quirk...


2020 Employment Breakfast Series: Strengthening Your Company's Management of Accommodation Requests

For more than 25 years, Preti Flaherty's Employment Law Group has been keeping clients, business partners, and friends up to date on recent developments in employment law. Join us as we continue that tradition...


ConsensusDocs vs. AIA - Which Contract Is Best for Contractors?

Choosing the right contract is essential to protecting your rights as a contractor. AIA Contracts have long been the industry standard, but Consensus Docs are fast becoming a reasonable option. In this article, Nathan...


2020 Cannabis Law Breakfast - Winter Update


Preti Flaherty Welcomes Government Relations Liaison Andrew I. Roth-Wells to the Firm

Preti Flaherty is pleased to announce that Andrew I. Roth-Wells has joined the firm as a Government Relations Liaison. Andrew will help manage legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts for the firm’s Government Affairs Team...