The High-Civil Court Revisited a Clean State-Boundary Plan for Indoor Air Quality and the Good Neighbor Plan
The Supreme Court decided to press pause on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to prevent smog-forming pollutants from drifting across state borders.
The EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan compels 23 “upwind” states to curb certain pollutants from power plants and other industrial facilities before it drifts to other states downwind of them. It applies to nitrogen oxides, a key ingredient for smog (also called ground-level ozone), and replaces state plans that the EPA found to fall short of updated national air quality standards. The EPA expects its plan to prevent 1,300 premature deaths and more than 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits in 2026. It’s also supposed to ensure that those downwind states aren’t burdened by pollution they didn’t create and are able to meet national air quality standards despite their geographic disadvantage.
The rules wouldn’t be fully enforced until 2026, but many states were quick to object. Lower courts have already stayed the plan in 12 states challenging the EPA. If forced to comply, Ohio and the other states would be hurt, they say. They also argue that the EPA’s measures would put undue pressure on the power grid and wouldn’t make sense to start to implement since they believe the plan will ultimately get struck down in court.
The Supreme Court decision could cause courts to bebogged down with detailed questions. They were able to put most of that over to the federal agencies before now.
Net neutrality in the US is tied to Chevron deference. Courts have shied away from defining broadband in the past. Is it an information service or a telecommunications service? If it’s telecommunications, then it’s subject to common-carrier regulations and restrictions placed on public utilities to ensure fair access. The FCC has flip-flopped on the issue between the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations — with the FCC deciding in April to restore net neutrality rules.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.