The Biden administration’s federal air quality law, which was issued last year, was blocked by the Supreme Court on Thursday, which limited the flow of tainted air toward the East Coast due to polluted air coming from power plants and professional sites in the Midwest.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three democrats in dissention in the ballot, which was 5 to 4.
The Environmental Protection Agency says the so-called” good neighbor” concept is a part of the Clean Air Act because it requires options of air pollution in “upwind state” to take steps to address it if it is “affecting air quality in wind says.”
In its latest release, the EPA targeted 23 says for more demanding legislation, including California in component.
However, the concept was ensnared in a legal battle between the Republican-led states and the Democratic administration before it could become effective.
Twelve says, led by Texas, won decisions from U. S. appeals judges reversing the EPA’s resolve that its air pollution standards were limited.
These decisions kept the state safe from the fresh law.
Undaunted, the EPA pressed forward to maintain its new” great neighbor” rule in the Midwest says which had yet to get exemptions.
The Biden management claimed that a court-ordered “delay would significantly harm the downwind states that suffer from their upstream neighbors ‘ emissions, placing all responsibility for achieving good air quality on those states and exposing their residents to people- health risks.”
But , Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia went directly to the Supreme Court, seeking an order to block the EPA’s rule, at least for now.
They argued that the Clean Air Act’s “primordial responsibility” for assuring air quality in this country falls to states, and they urged the justices to stop the “EPA’s power grab.” They claimed that by reducing the production of electricity, the EPA’s stricter controls would harm their businesses and “destabilize their power grids.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said,” Because the states bear primary responsibility for developing compliance plans, EPA has no authority to question the wisdom of a state’s choices of emission limitations.’
The Supreme Court made an unusual procedural choice due to the case’s unusual legal posture. Following a ruling from a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, the justices typically agree to review cases.
However, in this case, the justices consented to hear arguments and write a decision in the Ohio v. EPA case before any lower court had issued a decision regarding the new rule.
Because the new EPA rule did not have an impact on power plants in the state, California was largely a bystander in this clean-air fight. It would, however, apply to industrial sites beginning in 2026.
___
© 2024 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
