Supreme Court’s Revival of the Transport Rule Means a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay

by Anne Havemann

May 08, 2014

Air pollution is a complex problem. For one, it does not adhere to state boundaries; a smokestack in one state can contribute to pollution problems in another, even a downwind state hundreds of miles away. What’s more, air pollution’s impacts are not confined to just the air. What goes up must come down, and air pollutants are eventually deposited on the ground where they are washed into rivers, lakes, and streams. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tried for decades to address the thorny problem of interstate air pollution. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the agency’s most recent and comprehensive attempt to tackle the issue. The decision in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. will mean that large sources of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in certain states will be subject to more stringent air pollution requirements moving forward. 

Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Court deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the portion of the Clean Air Act that requires emission controls in states to ensure that no source “contribute[s] significantly” to violations of air quality standards in another state (known as the “good neighbor” provision). The EPA interpreted that directive to require emissions reductions by states based on the availability of cost-effective control methods, a reading of the law that the Court found not only reasonable but also “efficient and equitable.”

The decision has national implications, but holds particular promise for ongoing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Because more than one-third of the nitrogen pollution in the Bay comes from air pollution, stronger federal air pollution rules should mean that Bay states see reductions in pollution coming from upwind and in-state sources.

CPR Member Scholar Victor Flatt and I summarize the decision here. The Case Brief provides a history of EPA’s attempt to define the scope of the Clean Air Act’s good neighbor provision, a summary of the majority’s reasoning, and an analysis of how the decision might affect efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

By endorsing the EPA’s overall approach to reducing interstate air pollution, the Supreme Court allowed the regulation to move forward with the promise of cleaner air, and a cleaner Chesapeake.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Anne Havemann

Anne Havemann, J.D., is a former CPR Policy Analyst. She joined the organization in 2013 to work on its Chesapeake Bay program area, and left in 2015 to join the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015