Clean Air Task Force Federal Court Intervention – Test
Name
State of North Dakota v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Date Filed
June 3, 2024
Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Parties Involved
US EPA, State of North Dakota, Movants; Air Alliance Houston, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Downwinders at Risk, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Montana Environmental Information Center, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Ohio Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Sierra Club
Key Legal Questions
Whether, under the CAA, it is “appropriate and necessary” for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose more stringent regulations on the hazardous air pollutants.
Status:
The Clean Air Act (“the CAA”) is a comprehensive federal law detailing regulation of air emissions, specifically, §112 of the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “agency”) to regulate major sources of hazardous air pollutants by drafting and placing reduction standards on those emissions. Once the EPA establishes these standards, the agency is required to strengthen the standards within eight years if it is required to prevent negative effects to the environment and to protect public health. The EPA refers to this review as the “residual risk review.”
In 1990 amendments to the CAA required the agency to regulate power plants’ emissions of hazardous air pollutants under section 112 if the agency concluded that it would be “appropriate and necessary” after analyzing reasonably anticipated resulting public health hazards. The EPA made this finding in 2000 and reaffirmed it in 2012. After about a decade of litigation surrounding the “appropriate and necessary” finding, in 2023 the EPA reaffirmed its initial finding that the agency needed to impose more stringent standards on power plants gas emissions under the CAA. Many of the Movants urged the EPA to reaffirm that finding in 2023, this resulted in the EPA publishing a proposed rule in 2023, that revised standards to the Mercury and Air Toxin Standards by strengthening them, this is the MATS Updated Rule.
The Movants, including the Ohio Environmental Council, believe that hazardous air pollutant emissions from power plants are a threat to public health and our environment, arguing that the stronger limits imposed on these emitters by the EPA would lead to a reduction in these pollutant emissions. The Movants intervene in this case in order to defend these positions and environmental and public interests. The EPA’s indecisiveness on the issue does not adequately represent the interests of the Movants, including the Ohio Environmental Council, which believes that it is necessary for pollutant emissions to be regulated on a more stringent level in order to prevent adverse effects to the public and environment. The Ohio Environmental Council’s continuous involvement in litigation surrounding these issues ensures that the interests of those living in the State of Ohio are represented when issues as important as this are the topic of litigation.
Documents
Document 1
Suspendisse dictum vehicula nisl in condimentum.
Document 2
Duis magna diam, feugiat sit amet odio quis, fermentum porttitor odio.
Document 3
Quisque interdum ullamcorper augue a aliquam.
