Cross-state air pollution disputes
Cross-State Air Pollution Disputes
Background
Cross-state air pollution disputes arise when pollutants emitted in one state drift into neighboring states, causing harmful environmental and health effects. Such disputes often involve emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or ozone precursors.
The legal framework to manage these disputes includes:
The Clean Air Act (CAA) — particularly the “Good Neighbor Provision” (Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)), requiring states to prevent emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states.
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) by EPA to address interstate pollution when states fail to act.
Common law nuisance and public trust doctrines in rare cases.
Key Case Law in Cross-State Air Pollution Disputes
1. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Facts: Massachusetts and other states sued EPA, demanding regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Issue: Whether EPA must regulate GHGs emitted largely outside a state’s borders, impacting climate globally.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to regulate GHGs because they are air pollutants under the CAA.
Significance: This case established standing for states to sue EPA over cross-boundary air pollution harms and opened the door to regulating interstate/global pollution under the CAA.
Relation to Cross-State Pollution: It reinforced states’ rights to challenge EPA’s inaction on pollutants affecting them from external sources.
2. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014)
Facts: Multiple states challenged EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to limit power plant emissions causing downwind pollution.
Issue: Whether EPA’s rule was consistent with the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld EPA’s authority to implement CSAPR, including emissions trading among states, as a valid way to address interstate pollution.
Significance: Affirmed EPA’s broad authority to create cooperative market-based programs to reduce cross-state pollution.
Impact: Strengthened regulatory tools for states and EPA to control emissions crossing state lines.
3. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
Facts: North Carolina challenged EPA’s earlier “Clean Air Interstate Rule” (CAIR), which sought to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from upwind states.
Issue: Whether CAIR complied with statutory requirements.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit found CAIR flawed because EPA did not properly consider state-specific contributions, remanding the rule.
Significance: Pushed EPA to refine regulations to precisely address state contributions to downwind pollution.
Legacy: Led to the development of CSAPR as a replacement for CAIR.
4. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. (AEP), 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009)
Facts: Several states and environmental groups sued power companies under federal common law nuisance claims for GHG emissions causing climate change, which is a form of interstate pollution.
Issue: Whether federal courts could hear nuisance claims related to greenhouse gases.
Holding: The Second Circuit allowed the lawsuit but noted EPA’s regulatory authority under the CAA might displace common law claims.
Significance: Highlighted tension between federal regulation and common law remedies for cross-boundary pollution.
Follow-up: The Supreme Court later ruled in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) that the CAA displaced these federal common law claims.
5. New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
Facts: New York and other states challenged EPA’s failure to enforce the Good Neighbor Provision effectively.
Issue: Whether EPA’s rules adequately addressed interstate transport of pollutants.
Holding: The court ordered EPA to revise its State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and better enforce the Good Neighbor obligations.
Significance: Reaffirmed states’ rights to challenge EPA’s insufficient action on cross-state pollution.
Impact: Helped enforce stricter EPA oversight of interstate air quality management.
6. Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 F. Supp. 255 (E.D. Wis. 1976)
Facts: Illinois sued Milwaukee for pollution from Milwaukee’s sewage treatment that affected Illinois waterways (water pollution, but relevant for interstate environmental dispute analogies).
Holding: Court recognized state standing in interstate pollution cases and ordered corrective measures.
Significance: Although water-focused, this case demonstrates early judicial willingness to address cross-border environmental pollution.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Holding Summary | Impact on Cross-State Air Pollution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts v. EPA | EPA’s duty to regulate GHGs | EPA must regulate GHGs under CAA | States can challenge cross-boundary pollution |
| EPA v. EME Homer City | Validity of CSAPR rule | EPA’s emissions trading upheld under Good Neighbor Provision | Strengthened market-based cross-state control |
| North Carolina v. EPA | Validity of CAIR | CAIR remanded for flaws | Refined EPA’s state-specific regulatory approach |
| Connecticut v. AEP | Federal nuisance claims for GHGs | Allowed claims but EPA regulation may displace common law | Federal regulation prioritized over common law |
| New York v. EPA | Enforcement of Good Neighbor Provision | EPA ordered to improve SIP enforcement | Ensured stricter EPA oversight |
| Illinois v. Milwaukee | Interstate pollution standing (water) | State standing and remedies affirmed | Supports cross-border pollution accountability |
Conclusion
Cross-state air pollution disputes are complex due to the nature of air movement and differing state interests. Courts have played a critical role in defining EPA’s authority, ensuring states can seek relief, and encouraging cooperative regulatory frameworks like emissions trading. The Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision remains the key statutory mechanism, supplemented by judicial decisions ensuring EPA’s accountability and protecting downwind states from harmful pollution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments