The Supreme Court suspends the ‘Good Neighbor’ EPA air quality rule
Just prior to the devastating Chevron ruling, the Supreme Court canonized another major environmental/public health setback. It suspended a crucial air quality rule designed to protect states and residents from their neighboring states’ inadequate industrial pollution controls. UPHE and other environmental groups have supported the EPA in court on this rule, called the “Good Neighbor Rule,” after the state of Utah attempted to dodge the regulations.
Utah News Dispatch quoted me in their recent article on the ruling, “Essentially, the Supreme Court has made another ruling that ties the hands of federal agencies in protecting the public.”
“The court’s action to delay any sort of reasonable increase in the pollution controls of these power plants is going to cost people’s lives. It’s undoubtedly going to cost thousands of lives. It’s going to affect the health of hundreds of thousands of children, or even more.
“We now know that air pollution affects the functioning of every single organ system. It can even penetrate every single organ system, including individual cells within all critical organs, the brain, the heart, the lungs, kidneys, liver, etc.”
Last year, UPHE submitted a summary (over 100 pages long) of medical literature that should compel the EPA to make stricter national air quality standards. Unfortunately, the EPA only went half way. But several Wasatch Front counties are out of compliance with even these far- too- weak federal air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5.
A Salt Lake Tribune headline on the Court ruling said, “Utah leaders celebrate as Supreme Court blocks federal air quality standard.” Our governor and legislature have badly misplaced, myopic priorities. Poor air quality is just as bad for our economy as it is for our health. But they have taken great pride in fighting this rule, bellowing “federal overreach.” On the contrary, this is the court’s “Supreme overreach.” We need the federal government to step in when state laws and regulations don’t protect us, and now that will be even harder.
When you read what other Utah lawmakers said, it makes you wonder just whose interests they are serving:
“The EPA’s proposed Ozone Transport Rule is yet another example of federal overreach,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said in a statement. “This is one that would have dire consequences for energy security and reliability in Utah.” Yes, governor, this will have dire consequences, on the health and well being of all your constituents.
“The EPA’s rule has been punitive instead of productive,” said U.S. Rep. John Curtis. “I am pleased the Supreme Court ruled in Utah’s favor.” No, Rep. Curtis, they did not rule in Utah’ s favor; they ruled in favor of big polluters.
Utah Senate President, Stuart Adams, said that the decision “empowers our state to reclaim control over environmental regulations, allowing us to develop air quality measures specifically tailored to Utah’s unique needs.” Sen. Adams, Utah residents don’t have a special,”unique” need for dirty air.
It’s hard to state how frustrated and disappointed we are that the Supreme Court continues to make these kinds of rulings, basically mocking decades of public health research, regulatory experience and decades of climate science. It’s inexplicable and inexcusable.
We encourage you, as a voter and concerned citizen, to call or write Governor Cox, and your local representatives. Let them know what you think about the state’s unwillingness to protect your health and about their “celebration” over the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Utah News Dispatch article was also published on KPCW and on Yahoo News.