Cross-state air pollution limits
Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation
In brief
The Supreme Court backed the EPA’s cost-based approach and ruled that the law does not require a second chance for states to file plans, overturning the appeals court.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-2 · April 29, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- At issue was whether EPA could allocate upwind states’ pollution cuts by cost and whether it had to let states submit new plans after quantifying their pollution obligations.
- Who it affects
- The ruling allows the EPA to assign required pollution cuts among upwind states based on cost-effectiveness, without giving states another chance to file plans after their obligations are calculated.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back (reversed and remanded), allowing EPA’s cost-based approach and ruling that the Clean Air Act did not require another chance.
The Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision addresses air pollution that crosses state lines and affects downwind states.
Question presented
1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have jurisdiction to hear this case? 2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly interpret the statutory language in the Clean Air Act when it reviewed the EPA's actions? 3. Is an upwind state free from any obligations under the Transport Rule until the EPA has quantified that state's contribution to downwind states' air pollution?
What the Court decided
Holding
1. The CAA does not command that States be given a second opportunity to file a SIP after EPA has quantified the State’s interstate pollution obligations. 2. EPA’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. 696 F. 3d 7, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
From the opinions
“It specified quite precisely the responsibility of an upwind State under the Good Neighbor Provision: to eliminate those amounts of pollutants that it contributes to downwind problem areas.”
What's next
The D.C. Circuit will take up the case again after the Supreme Court sent it back.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Opinion
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.