The United States Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Good Neighbor Plan,” a sweeping initiative aimed at regulating air quality across the nation.
This decision comes as a major win for the states of Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, who had fiercely challenged the EPA’s overreach and the potential consequences of the plan on their respective power grids and industries.
The EPA’s “Good Neighbor Plan” was designed to address the interstate transport of air pollutants, with the goal of improving air quality nationwide. However, the states of Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia argued that the EPA had overstepped its authority by overruling their own air quality plans, which they believed were better suited to their local needs and conditions.
Read: Alabama, Iowa Senators Lead Effort To Protect Unaccompanied Migrant Children From Exploitation
The states contended that the EPA’s plan would “cause electric-grid emergencies as power suppliers strain to adjust to the federal plan’s terms.” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey warned that the country’s power grid was already under stress, and the additional regulations imposed by the EPA would only exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asserted that the plan would have “imposed undue regulatory burdens on states,” arguing that the EPA lacked the power to do so.
In response to the states’ concerns, the Supreme Court issued a stay, temporarily halting the implementation of the EPA’s “Good Neighbor Plan” while the issue works its way through the lower courts.
This decision was hailed as a “significant victory for states’ sovereignty and the rule of law” by Ohio Attorney General Yost, who emphasized the importance of defending the prerogatives of states against federal encroachment.
“This is a significant victory for states’ sovereignty and the rule of law,” Yost said. “This plan, if implemented, would have imposed undue regulatory burdens on states – and the EPA doesn’t have the power to do that.”
Read: Tennessee Sen. Blackburn, California Sens Demand Answers On Spotify’s Royalty Slashing Moves
In a brief filed in October 2023 seeking the stay, Yost and two other state attorneys general assert that the EPA acted unlawfully by failing to consider key aspects of a collective problem.
“The EPA cannot impose such immense regulations on the States without having thought through all critical aspects of the problem it set out to solve,” the brief says.
In arguments presented before the Supreme Court in February, Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan called the EPA’s actions arbitrary and capricious.
Even after nearly half of the states dropped out of the federal plan, Sridharan said, the EPA failed to acknowledge that “the math doesn’t work when the inputs, 23 states, don’t match the outputs, now the 11 states that remain in the plan.”
She argued that the EPA overstepped its authority by pushing forward without considering the consequences of partial participation.
“Today’s decision ensures that federal agencies are held to their obligation to be reasoned and thorough in their decisions, especially those that impose extraordinary burdens on the states, their industries and their residents,” said Ohio AG’s Office.
Yost has repeatedly warned of federal overreach, filing multiple lawsuits to stop the implementation of rules imposed by federal agencies that exceed the powers granted to them.
“We are committed to defending the prerogatives of states against federal encroachment,” he said.
Help support the Tampa Free Press by making any small donation by clicking here.
Android Users, Click To Download The Tampa Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our free newsletter.