University of Cincinnati law professor talks about Supreme Court decision

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Good Neighbor Plan to ensure compliance with the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Act. To comply with the law, the EPA required “upwind” states to reduce air pollution affecting “downwind” states. Under the Good Neighbor rule, states first have a chance to create a plan that complies with the agency’s ozone guidelines. If a state fails to submit an adequate plan, the EPA develops a compliance plan for the state. In February 2023, the EPA determined that 23 states had not submitted adequate plans and then decided to implement its own emission control program for those states.

Ohio, along with several other states, large industrial companies, and trade associations, challenged the EPA plan in court. They argued that the agency’s “dictatorial approach” failed to adequately consider the legal and practical implications of replacing state plans with its own. Opponents also argued that implementing the plan would cause significant economic and operational harm, particularly by forcing states to make costly modifications to their power plants, while judicial review is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

You can read more about this decision, its impact, and Professor Mank’s commentary in “Supreme Court temporarily blocks key air pollution rules.”

Main photo: istockphoto.com