Air pollution knows no boundaries, as evidenced by last summer’s occurrence of orange-colored air in New York City due to forest fires in Canada. Thankfully, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate business practices that extend beyond state lines in the United States.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds the authority to regulate air pollution under the Clean Air Act, which includes provisions for controlling cross-state air pollution. The EPA’s website explains that the Act’s “good neighbor” provision requires both the EPA and states to address the transport of air pollution across state lines, which can impact downwind states’ ability to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is authorized to develop Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to complement or replace state actions if they fail to meet the requirements.
However, the EPA’s regulatory powers regarding cross-state air pollution are currently facing scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether the agency has exceeded its authority by attempting to curb air pollution that travels from one state to another. This review comes in response to requests from states such as Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, as well as pipeline operators, power producers, and U.S. Steel Corp, seeking relief from complying with the federal “Good Neighbor” plan aimed at reducing ozone pollution from upwind states.
The focus of this dispute is an EPA rule that was finalized under President Joe Biden’s administration in June. This rule aims to regulate ozone, a major component of smog, in a group of states whose individual plans did not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision. The EPA identified inadequate plans in 23 states, which prompted the implementation of a federal program to reduce emissions from major industrial polluters within those states.
Critics of the EPA’s authority argue that the Supreme Court should question the scientific validity of ozone pollution’s harmful effects. This parallels the trend of some courts disregarding scientific expertise in favor of legal arguments, as seen with the challenges to women’s reproductive rights post-Roe v. Wade. Such cases demonstrate a troubling trend of undermining actions based on scientific recommendations from regulatory agencies like the EPA.
The current dispute revolves around the evaluation of state air pollution control plans, with the EPA identifying inadequacies in the plans of 23 states. However, several conservative red state governments are increasingly resistant to federal efforts to enforce national policies, refusing to collaborate and instead engaging in political battles against federal agencies for media attention and political gains. This opposition to federal oversight extends to environmental issues, with power companies and polluters resisting adherence to national air pollution standards.
It is crucial to remember that air pollution affects not just neighboring states but also the residents within the polluting state itself. For example, pollution generated in Ohio does not solely impact New Jersey; it first affects cities like Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The concentration of pollutants is likely higher near the emission source, demonstrating the urgency for comprehensive air pollution regulations.
The elected officials who oppose the Clean Air Act should consider the health risks posed to their own constituents. The reluctance to adhere to national policies primarily stems from the influence of power generation and manufacturing companies unwilling to invest in cleaner technologies or retrofit outdated, polluting infrastructure. Coupled with right-wing ideologies advocating against regulations and suspicions of a “deep state” agenda, this opposition undermines efforts to ensure clean air for all.
Politicians such as Donald Trump and many conservatives tend to view government regulations as detrimental to businesses, innovation, and job opportunities. However, the absence of sufficient regulations is a more pressing problem in the United States, with numerous instances of under-regulation leading to negative consequences. Contrary to popular belief, regulations often stimulate innovation and lead to the development of more efficient and cost-effective solutions. The introduction of automobile safety and fuel economy regulations, for instance, prompted the automotive industry to adopt advanced technologies and enhance overall competitiveness.
While concerns about overreach and an overbearing regulatory environment are valid, it is crucial for decision-makers to recognize the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of the modern world and economy. Regulation needs to be agile and responsive to keep pace with technological advancements and unforeseen consequences. If we are unable to effectively regulate and address the harmful effects of air pollution, how can we expect to tackle more complex issues, such as social media algorithms and artificial intelligence misbehavior?
It is imperative that we prioritize the health and well-being of our citizens by supporting scientifically sound regulation of air pollution. By doing so, we can ensure cleaner and safer environments for all, regardless of state boundaries.
*Note:
1. Source: Coherent Market Insights, Public sources, Desk research
2. We have leveraged AI tools to mine information and compile it