Utah won’t have to implement federal air quality standards anytime soon.
Last week, the Supreme Court barred the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, also known as the ozone transport rule, across the U.S. The regulation aims to reduce the spread of ozone-forming emissions across state lines and associated health risks.
The regulation isn’t dead yet, but the court’s ruling puts its implementation years behind schedule.
“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.”
The EPA says that reducing nitrogen oxide emissions under the good neighbor rule would prevent premature deaths, hospital visits, asthma cases and school absence days.
The health and environmental benefits, the agency claims, would total nearly $10 billion — and only increase the cost of generating electricity by 1%.
In 2023, the EPA concluded that ozone-forming nitrogen oxide emissions from Utah power plants were blown downwind to Colorado. Utah developed a plan to implement the rule, but the EPA rejected it, arguing it was insufficient.
Utah challenged the EPA’s decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. That court sided with Utah, ruling that the state did not have to enforce the “good neighbor” rule until their litigation in the court was resolved.
Utah separately challenged the merits of the “good neighbor” rule in 2023, along with several other states, in a Washington appeals court. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling means that other states won’t have to implement “good neighbor” plans until that case is closed.
“That will take years,” said Hanna Larsen, staff attorney for the environmental nonprofit Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “It ruins Utah’s chances of having any sort of pollution control within the foreseeable future.”
“The impacts of this preemptive decision will be felt in Utah and across the nation by increasing pollution, harming ecosystems, and threatening public health,” she said.
More Utah Republicans praised the court’s 5-4 ruling.
“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.”
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.”
“We will continue pursuing a balanced approach, prioritizing both economic growth and environmental stewardship, ensuring a more prosperous future for our state,” Stuart continued.
U.S. Rep. Blake Moore agreed. “I support the Supreme Court’s decision to block this rule. Simply put, the EPA has overreached in numerous ways,” he said, “and this could have cost states like Utah millions in order to comply.”
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz posted on social media Thursday, calling the decision “A big win that will help keep energy affordable and reliable.”
His post continued. “Glad to see the Supreme Court striking down the overreaching Biden administration agencies!”
