Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation

Docket No.: 12-1182
Argued: December 10, 2013
Consolidated with: 12-1183

PartyNames: Environmental Protection Agency, et al. v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al.
Petitioner: Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Respondent: EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Citation: 696 F.3d 7
Supreme Court Docket

Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al.
Background:

The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (Act or CAA), requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particular pollutants at levels that will protect the public health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7408, 7409. "[W]ithin 3 years" of "promulgation of a [NAAQS]," each State must adopt a state implementation plan (SIP) with "adequate provisions" that will, inter alia, "prohibit[]" pollution that will "contribute significantly" to other States' inability to meet, or maintain compliance with, the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1), (2)(D)(i)(I). If a State fails to submit a SIP or submits an inadequate one, the EPA must enter an order so finding. 42 U.S.C 7410(k). After the EPA does so, it "shall promulgate a [f]ederal implementation plan" for that State within two years. 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).

Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IN NO. 12-1182. ORDER OF 11/26/2013: JUSTICE ALITO TOOK NO PART.

Question Presented:

1.Whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenges on which it granted relief. 2.Whether States are excused from adopting SIPs prohibiting emissions that "contribute significantly" to air pollution problems in other States until after the EPA has adopted a rule quantifying each State's interstate pollution obligations. 3.Whether the EPA permissibly interpreted the statutory term "contribute significantly" so as to define each upwind State's "significant" interstate air pollution contributions in light of the cost-effective emission reductions it can make to improve air quality in polluted downwind areas, or whether the Act instead unambiguously requires the EPA to consider only each upwind State's physically proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem.

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 10, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)