This post was originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.
EPA has just issued a rule tightening the air quality standard for PM2.5 — the tiny particles most dangerous to health — from an annual average of 12 μg/m³ (micrograms per cubic meter) down to 9 μg/m³. EPA estimates that, by the time the rule goes into effect in 2032, it will avoid 4,500 premature deaths, 800,000 asthma attacks, and 290,000 lost workdays.
Most likely, by the time this post goes up, someone will have filed a lawsuit to overturn the EPA rule. What legal arguments will challengers raise, and what are their chances of winning? Let’s consider the possible challenges one by one.
First, challengers may argue that the science does not support the choice of the 9 μg/m³ standard. The version of the rule that was just released has about 200 double-spaced pages analyzing the research on the health impacts of PM2.5. There are many, many studies, done at different times, in different areas, with different methodologies. Mostly they indicate that the previous standard was too lax.
Here’s a sample that gives a sense of the level of detail in EPA’s discussion, in this case relating to studies using one particular methodology for estimating PM2.5 exposure levels. As you’ll see, it’s not exactly light reading unless you happen to be an expert on health impacts of air pollution:
While these studies provide a broader estimation of PM2.5 exposures compared to monitor-based studies (i.e., PM2.5 concentrations are estimated in areas without monitors), the hybrid modeling approaches result in study-reported means that are more difficult to relate to the annual standard metric and to the use of maximum monitor design values to assess compliance. In addition, and to further complicate the comparison, when looking across these studies, variations exist in how exposure is estimated between such studies, which in turn affects how the study means are calculated. Two important variations across studies include: (1) Variability in spatial scale used (i.e., averages computed across the nation (or large portions of the country) versus a focus on only CBSAs) and (2) variability in exposure assignment methods (i.e., averaging across all grid cells [non-population weighting], averaging across a scaled-up area like a ZIP code [aspects of population weighting applied], and/or applying population weighting).
It’s OK if your eyes glazed over a bit — I imagine that most judges’ eyes would, too. And if that one passage wasn’t enough, imagine a couple hundred double-spaced pages of similar analysis. It would take a very brave judge to look over the lengthy, detailed discussion of the evidence and say that EPA had failed to provide a reasoned justification for its views.
A variation on that argument is that EPA failed to explain why its conclusion now is different from its conclusion under former President Trump. EPA explained that part of the difference related to giving different weight to some of the evidence considered back then, but that there was also a significant number of new studies that hadn’t been considered at all back then or had come in too late for careful analysis. Again, it’s going to take a very brave judge to read those studies and decide that they don’t provide significant new evidence.
Putting aside quarrels over the science, a natural ground for attacking the standards is that they will be too costly to meet. The problem is that an opinion by Justice Scalia ruled squarely that EPA can only consider public health, not cost. And as he himself would have said, he was doing no more than following the plain language of the Clean Air Act. The statute says EPA must set the standards to protect public health with an adequate level of safety. There’s nothing there about using cost considerations to reduce the level of protection.
This brings us to more sweeping legal claims. Justice Scalia also rejected a claim that the statute was unconstitutional because it gave too much discretion to EPA. There are some current members of the Supreme Court who want to cut back the amount of discretion that Congress can constitutionally give agencies. But it seems unlikely that they would want to start down this road by overruling a Scalia opinion and in the process declaring most of the Clean Air Act unconstitutional.
Alternatively, challengers might want to argue that the major questions doctrine applies because national air quality standards are such a big deal. But EPA has been setting air quality standards for a very long time, during which Congress has significantly amended the Clean Air Act at least twice without changing this section.
It is hard to argue with a straight face that EPA has gone off on a tangent without a clear congressional mandate. EPA has done exactly what Congress has told it to do, setting standards that protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. As in previous cases, it has done so by setting the 9 μg/m³ standard a little below the lowest air concentration shown in studies to have produced negative effects (9.3 μg/m³). This provides a margin of safety because monitors are generally placed where concentrations are high, meaning that in most places, the actual concentration will be below 9 μg/m³.
I don’t want to underestimate the creativity of lawyers or the unpredictability of the judicial process — especially given the anti-regulatory bias of some recent appointees. But overturning the new particulate standard in court is going to be an uphill battle.
Showing 2,829 results
Daniel Farber | February 13, 2024
EPA has just issued a rule tightening the air quality standard for PM2.5 — the tiny particles most dangerous to health — from an annual average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter down to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA estimates that, by the time the rule goes into effect in 2032, it will avoid 4,500 premature deaths, 800,000 asthma attacks, and 290,000 lost workdays. Most likely, by the time this post goes up, someone will have filed a lawsuit to overturn the EPA rule. What legal arguments will challengers raise, and what are their chances of winning? Let’s consider the possible challenges one by one.
Daniel Farber | February 8, 2024
In 2023, the Supreme Court ended 50 years of broad federal protection of wetlands in Sackett v. United States. It is only when you look back at the history of federal wetlands regulation that you realize just how radical and destructive this decision was.
Daniel Farber | February 2, 2024
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument about whether to stay a plan issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit upwind states from creating ozone pollution that impacts other states. As I wrote before the Court decided to hear the arguments, the issues here seem less than earthshaking, and for that matter, less than urgent. It was puzzling to me why after many weeks, the Court was still sitting on the “emergency” requests of the upwind states to be rescued from the EPA plan. Given that the Court seems to think the issues are important enough to justify oral argument, however, it’s worth examining what seems to be bothering the Court about implementing the EPA plan.
Richard Pierce, Jr. | February 1, 2024
I find the Center for Progressive Reform’s pursuit of environmental justice inherently appealing, but this work raises provocative questions: Should U.S.-focused groups like the Center and policymakers pursue an environmental justice mission that does not account for potentially negative trade-offs in developing countries? Or, are there ways to account for those trade-offs to ensure environmental justice work and efforts to address climate change benefit people across the globe?
James Goodwin, Will Dobbs-Allsopp | January 31, 2024
What if we told you that every day, tens of millions of Americans are exposed to something that contributes to neurological disease, depression, and an increased risk of heart disease and stroke? What if we also told you that in causing these health harms, it was disproportionately affecting low-wealth communities and communities of color? What is this dangerous “something”? It’s excessive noise. And, as it happens, more than 50 years ago, Congress recognized the seriousness of the harms that excessive noise causes and, as a result, passed a law directing the EPA to take aggressive action against it.
Robin Kundis Craig | January 11, 2024
Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved. Part II of this post covers state climate action from New Jersey to Washington State during the second half of 2023, as well as multi-state efforts.
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2024
State climate policy is a big deal. State governments began cutting emissions at a time when the federal government was essentially doing nothing about climate change. Since then, more states have become involved, and state policies have become more aggressive. It’s not for nothing that 2023 was called a banner year for state climate action. The state developments in just the second half of the year make up an impressive list. Part I of this post covers state climate action from California to Michigan.
Dan Rohlf, Zygmunt Plater | January 2, 2024
In the history of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) — which President Richard Nixon signed just over 50 years ago on December 28, 1973 — no creature looms larger than the snail darter. As some lawmakers today seek to weaken the law’s promise to avoid human-caused extinctions, the long-ago battle over this little fish points […]