ILNews

Indiana among states wanting SCOTUS to clear the air on pollution standard

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A coalition of 14 states, including Indiana, are headed to the Supreme Court of the United States Dec. 10 to argue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has overstepped its authority, again, in trying to regulate air pollution in upwind states.

At issue is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, known as CSAPR or the Transport Rule. This regulation requires upwind states to reduce their power plant emissions that contribute to the ozone and fine particle matter in downwind states.

The 14 states assert the EPA overreached its statutory authority by imposing a federal implementation plan before allowing the states to submit their own implementation plans. Under the terms set by the Clean Air Act, Washington, D.C., and the individual states engage in a regime of cooperative federalism where the federal administration sets the standards then the states offer their proposals for meeting those standards.

The EPA contends it had previously found that the states subject to the Transport Rule had either submitted an inadequate SIP or failed to tender a plan altogether.

“Fundamentally, this case is about federalism and agency consideration of undefined statutory terms,” said Kevin Lyskowski, partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Faegre Baker Daniels. “It’s an interesting and significant case. There’ll be a lot of people looking to see how the Supreme Court rules.”

Neither side disputes that the Clean Air Act employs a regime of cooperative federalism and that states get the first crack to meet the federal standards, Lyskowski said. The disagreement centers about what “first crack” means.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consolidated two cases concerning the Transport Rule, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 12-1182, and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, 12-1183, and is allowing 90 minutes for oral arguments.

Twenty-eight states are subject to the Transport Rule. They have split into two groups with one group supporting the standard and the other group opposing. Fourteen states, led by Texas and including Indiana, are fighting the rule.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office as the state of Indiana’s lawyer signed on the respondent brief filed by Texas.

“Challenges filed by states are one way federal regulatory actions are tested to determine whether they are valid,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana Attorney General. “Such challenges are a normal and healthy part of the process and they respectfully bring to the nation’s highest court the question of federal overreach so the Court can decide.”

The Transport Rule was formulated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the EPA exceeded its statutory authority with the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule.

The court allowed the agency to develop a replacement rule but kept the CAIR in place until a new standard took its place.

Finalized in July 2011, the Transport Rule was immediately challenged. A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the new rule in August. 2012, finding, again, the EPA had overstepped.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the EPA did not allow the states to develop their own plans for emission reductions. It also held that the Transport Rule could require upwind states to cut their pollution by more than their own contributions to downwind states’ nonattainment.

“I think it’s significant when any court strikes down a federal regulation,” Lyskowski said. “This is a regulation that had broad impact.”

In March 2013, the EPA petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The agency questioned whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the challenges to CSAPR. It also raised the issues of whether states are excused from reducing emissions until the EPA adopts a new rule and whether the Clean Air Act requires the agency to consider only each upwind state’s proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem.



 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Should be beat this rap, I would not recommend lion hunting in Zimbabwe to celebrate.

  2. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  3. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  4. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  5. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

ADVERTISEMENT