D.C. Circuit Upholds U.S. EPA’s 2021 Interstate Ozone Transport Rule
On March 3, 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an industry challenge to the April 2021 Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update Rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), which required power plants in 12 “upwind” states to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx), an ozone precursor, emissions such that those states did not inhibit downwind states’ ability to comply with the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
EPA Acts on Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone Under State Implementation Plans
On Tuesday, January 31, EPA Administrator Michael Regan finalized EPA’s disapproval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions for 19 states regarding the interstate transport of ozone under the 2015 eight-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion. Under the Clean Air Act, states were required to submit SIPs for the 2015 eight-hour ozone standard by October 1, 2018. The Clean Air Act required the SIPs to include “good neighbor” provisions, which prohibit emissions that either significantly contribute to nonattainment in a neighboring state or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state.
EPA Proposes “Good Neighbor” Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
On April 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish its proposed Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), otherwise known as the latest iteration of EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or “Good Neighbor” Plan. The proposal would subject 26 upwind states to the “good neighbor” or “interstate transport” provision of the Clean Air Act because EPA is proposing to find that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which are a precursor to ozone formation, from the upwind states significantly contribute to downwind states’ attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Texas Challenges EPA’s Ozone Nonattainment Designation for El Paso County
On Friday, the state of Texas and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) November 2021 designation of El Paso County as a nonattainment area for ozone. (more…)
Fourth Circuit Vacates Mountain Valley Pipeline Approval
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated, for the second time, the record of decision issued by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management allowing the Mountain Valley pipeline to cross three and a half miles of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia. (more…)
EPA Grants States’ Petition for Reconsideration of Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted petitions to reconsider air quality standards for ground-level ozone pollution set under the Trump administration in December 2020. Petitions were filed by a number of states, including New York, California, and the District of Columbia as well as various environmental groups. Currently, both primary and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards remain at their 2015 levels of 70 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour period. (more…)
Ninth Circuit Sends San Joaquin Valley Ozone Plan Back to EPA
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule approving the State of California’s plan for meeting the ozone air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley and remanded the plan to EPA for further consideration. EPA approved the plan in 2019, which included a single contingency measure that would be activated if the plan did not achieve reasonable further progress toward meeting the ozone standard. A local environmental group, the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), challenged the approval and argued that the single contingency measure was arbitrary and capricious because it provided for only nominal emissions reductions. (more…)