Term: 2013
Docket: 12-1182
Epa v. Eme Homer City Generation
- Pro
12-1182 EPA V. EME HOMER CITY GENERATION DECISION BELOW: 696 F.3d 7 LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IN NO. 12-1182. CONSOLIDATED WITH 12-1183 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. ORDER OF 11/26/2013: JUSTICE ALITO TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 6/24/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (Act or CAA), requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particular pollutants at levels that will protect the public health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7408, 7409. "[W]ithin 3 years" of "promulgation of a [NAAQS]," each State must adopt a state implementation plan (SIP) with "adequate provisions" that will, inter alia, "prohibit[]" pollution that will "contribute significantly" to other States' inability to meet, or maintain compliance with, the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), (2)(D)(i)(I). If a State fails to submit a SIP or submits an inadequate one, the EPA must enter an order so finding. 42 U.S.C 7410(k). After the EPA does so, it "shall promulgate a [f]ederal implementation plan" for that State within two years. 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). The questions presented are as follows: 1.Whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenges on which it granted relief. 2.Whether States are excused from adopting SIPs prohibiting emissions that "contribute significantly" to air pollution problems in other States until after the EPA has adopted a rule quantifying each State's interstate pollution obligations. 3.Whether the EPA permissibly interpreted the statutory term "contribute significantly" so as to define each upwind State's "significant" interstate air pollution contributions in light of the cost-effective emission reductions it can make to improve air quality in polluted downwind areas, or whether the Act instead unambiguously requires the EPA to consider only each upwind State's physically proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-1302, et al.
In the 2013 case of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), upholding its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule under the Clean Air Act. The rule requires states to reduce their emissions that contribute significantly to air pollution problems in other states. A group of upwind states and industry groups challenged this rule, arguing it overstepped federal authority and was unfair as they were not given an opportunity to create a plan before facing potential sanctions for non-compliance with emission reduction requirements set by EPA. However, the court held that these arguments lacked merit because nothing in law guarantees States a right to implement exclusively intrastate measures or prohibits Federal implementation planning when necessary.
In the dissenting opinion for EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act. They contended that states should have been given a chance to create their own plans to reduce air pollution before the EPA imposed federal implementation plans (FIPs). The majority's interpretation of "significantly contribute," they argued, gave too much power to the EPA and was not in line with Congress' intent when it passed the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, they disagreed with how costs were considered in determining whether an upwind state significantly contributed to nonattainment in a downwind state. In their view, considering costs allowed for arbitrary decision-making and could lead some states being required to reduce emissions more than what would be proportional to their contribution.
