• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

liskow_lewis_white_new

future-focused

  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
Blogs

Update: Supreme Court Will Review EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

07.01.13 | 2 minute read

By Lesley Foxhall Pietras

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the American Lung Association in the litigation involving EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”). The CSAPR sets limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28 upwind states in the eastern part of the country. On August 21, 2012, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule, concluding that EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by forcing states to reduce their emissions by more than an amount determined to be their “significant contribution” to nonattainment in other states, and that EPA improperly issued federal implementation plans to implement the CSAPR without providing the states with an initial opportunity to implement the required reductions for sources within their borders.

The Supreme Court limited its review to the questions presented in EPA’s petition, which are: (1) whether the D.C. Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenges on which it granted relief; (2) whether states are excused from adopting state implementation plans prohibiting emissions that “contribute significantly” to air pollution problems in other states until after EPA has adopted a rule quantifying each state’s interstate pollution obligations; and (3) whether EPA permissibly interpreted the statutory term “contribute significantly” so as to define each upwind state’s “significant” interstate air pollution contributions in light of the cost-effective emissions reductions it can make to improve air quality in polluted downwind areas, or whether the Clean Air Act instead unambiguously requires EPA to consider only each upwind state’s physically proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem.

The two consolidated cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear are EPA v. EME Homer City (No. 12-1182) and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation (No. 12-1183). Both the Supreme Court’s order (pdf) and EPA’s petition (pdf) are available online.

Primary Sidebar

Liskow & Lewis, APLC
Arrow Icon

future-focused

  • Baton Rouge
  • Houston
  • Lafayette
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • © 2026 Liskow & Lewis, APLC
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Employee Login
Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
  • Offices
  • Pro Bono
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • DEI
  • The Energy Law Blog
  • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
  • The Maritime Law Blog