US Supreme Court’s ‘Good Neighbor’ ruling deals a blow to Environmental Protection Agency powers

The ruling is a loss for the Biden administration and the EPA’s regulatory efforts; the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is skeptical of perceived federal overreach, and Republican officials and industry groups have “long griped about the EPA’s aggressive use of its regulatory powers,” NBC News wrote. In the latest case, plaintiffs claimed the agency had a “dictatorial approach.” Nearly all of the EPA’s major rules have faced legal challenges, and the court has a “hair trigger” on cases involving the agency, an environmental attorney said. In the last two years, the court has also limited the EPA’s ability to use the Clean Air Act to combat emissions, and weakened the landmark Clean Water Act.

The “Good Neighbor” plan was specifically aimed at cutting air pollutants that form ozone, the main ingredient in smog, from coal-fired facilities. The agency estimated the rule would halve nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants by 2027 and prevent over 1,000 premature deaths and 1.3 million cases of asthma in 2026 alone, Grist reported. An American Lung Association official called ozone’s health effects “a sunburn of the lungs.” But the rule has sparked interstate disputes, on top of the federal legal challenge: Some Coloradans had accused Utah of not being a “good neighbor” for not adhering to EPA rules, as ozone drifts to the east into Colorado. But Utah lawmakers argued the federal plan would lead to the closure of vital power plants.