The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
People walk outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington December 3, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst People walk outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington December 3, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst  

The EPA’s cross-state rule imperils state freedom

Photo of Josiah Neeley
Josiah Neeley
Analyst, Texas Public Policy Foundation

Today the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in a case with profound implications for the relationship between the federal government and the states.

The case, American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, involves a legal challenge to new regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which purport to deal with the problem of interstate pollution. Known alternately as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Transport Rule, or sometimes just as CSAPR (pronounced “Casper”), the rule requires severe emissions reductions from 27 states based on the theory that emissions from these states are hurting the ability of downwind states to meet federal air-quality standards.

In practice the Cross-State Rule bears little relation to this purpose. EPA included certain states in the rule based on computer models that suggested they were contributing to nonattainment of air-quality standards in another state. EPA then set out specific emissions “budgets” for each of the states under the rule. These budgets, however, were not based on the degree to which emissions from a state were doing harm to other states, but on EPA’s judgment about what level of emissions reductions could be achieved at a certain cost.

The result was that some states faced restrictions far out of proportion to their own contribution to the interstate pollution problem. Texas, for example, barely qualified for inclusion in the rule for particulate matter. Yet the Cross-State Rule required Texas to reduce precursor emissions of sulfur dioxide by more than 45 percent, a level similar to states like Illinois and Pennsylvania, even though by EPA’s own calculations, those states were contributing more than twice as much to the interstate-pollution problem.

Achieving such steep reductions in so short a time period would require sharp increases the price of electricity, and could even lead to rolling blackouts during periods of peak demand. Reliable electricity is central to the U.S. economy, and a sudden loss of power, whether in a hospital ICU or during a hot summer afternoon, can be a matter of life and death.

All this is despite the fact that, according to EPA’s own data, most of the country is already in attainment of the relevant air quality standards. The downwind states targeted in the Cross-State Rule violated the relevant standard for particulate matter less than one-half percent of the time from 2007 to 2009. A 2011 EPA report likewise found that of the 91 nonattainment areas in downwind states for ozone, 89 have reached attainment under the standard the Cross-State Rule purportedly aims to enforce.