EPA v. Eme Homer City Generation (572 U.S. 489)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 29, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 489 · 134 S. Ct. 1584
- Decided
- April 29, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases concern the efforts of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to cope with a complex problem: air pollution emitted in one State, but causing harm in other States. Left unregulated, the emitting or upwind State reaps the benefits of the economic activity causing the pollution without bearing all the costs. See Revesz, Federalism and Interstate Environmental Externalities, 144 U. Pa. L.Rev. 2341, 2343 (1996). Conversely, downwind States to which the pollution travels are unable to achieve clean air because of the influx of out-of-state pollution they lack authority to control. See S.Rep. No. 101-228, p. 49 (1989), 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385. To tackle the problem, Congress included a Good Neighbor Provision in the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). That provision, in its current phrasing, instructs States to prohibit in-state sources "from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will ... contribute significantly" to downwind States' "nonattainment ..., or interfere with maintenance," of any EPA-promulgated national air quality standard. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) (i). Interpreting the Good Neighbor Provision, EPA adopted the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (commonly and hereinafter called the Transport Rule). The rule calls for consideration of costs, among other factors, when determining the…
Excerpt of a 102,371-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.