Supreme Court Questions EPA's Cross-State Pollution Rule
The court's conservative majority expresses doubt over the effectiveness and implementation of the EPA's 'good neighbor' rule, which aims to reduce air pollution from power plants affecting downwind states.
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared skeptical about the EPA's 'good neighbor' rule aimed at reducing cross-state air pollution from power plants.
- Three states and industry groups have challenged the rule, arguing it is costly and ineffective, leading to its suspension in a dozen states.
- The EPA argues the rule is crucial for protecting downwind states from smog-causing pollution, emphasizing the health impacts and federal clean air deadlines.
- Justices questioned the EPA's decision to proceed with the rule for 11 states despite initial plans for 23 states, and the case's urgency before other legal challenges are resolved.
- Environmental and public health advocates support the rule as a life-saving measure, while industry critics claim it has an anti-coal bias and could increase electricity costs.
PBS NewsHour 
UPI 
Portland Press Herald 
SCOTUSblog 
Truthout 
USA TODAY 
Financial Post 
Associated Press 
The Hill 
Time 
CNN 
Washington Post 
NBC News 