New Jersey, Connecticut Sue EPA Over Air-Pollution Hazards
The suit is one of several environment-related complaints filed by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong since he took office a year ago.
October 31, 2019 at 12:53 PM
4 minute read
The attorneys general from Connecticut and New Jersey have joined forces to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for allegedly failing to take required steps to control cross-state air pollution.
The lawsuit maintains that without federal intervention, residents of both states can be harmed by high ozone levels. It is one of several environment-related complaints filed by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong since he took office a year ago. Tong has maintained the federal government, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has not acted in the best interests of resident of the Nutmeg State.
The latest lawsuit is an example of that lack of leadership, Tong maintains. It seeks a finding that the EPA in violated the federal Clean Air Act and demands the agency work with Pennsylvania and Virginia to have those states submit Good Neighbor implementation plans, as required by federal guidelines.
Tong and New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal say residents of their states face inherent dangers from upwind air pollution.
"Breathing ozone can cause coughing, throat irritation, lung tissue damage, and can aggravate conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, and emphysema," according to the 11-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. "Exposure to ozone has also been linked to premature mortality."
The newest complaint maintains the EPA failed to insure that upwind states from Connecticut and New Jersey, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, submit plans to comply with the "Good Neighbor" provision of the federal Clean Air Act. Failure to comply with the Good Neighbor provision has meant the two plaintiff states continue to suffer from high ozone levels caused, in part, from upwind air pollution, the lawsuit says.
The EPA declined to comment.
The Good Neighbor provision requires states to submit plans to prohibit in-state emissions of air pollutants in significant amounts.
"More than four years have passed since EPA promulgated the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards, on Oct. 1, 2015," The lawsuit says. "Yet, Pennsylvania and Virginia still have not submitted Good Neighbor state implementation plans."
The deadline for the EPA to find that states, like Pennsylvania and Virginia, have not filed Good Neighbor state implementation plans was April 1, 2019. But the complaint alleges the EPA has failed to ensure states file those plans.
"EPA's delay is prejudicial to state plaintiffs," the lawsuit alleges.
In a press release Tong wrote, "Connecticut has taken strong action to protect our air quality, but we are at the mercy of upwind states. We sit at the end of our nation's tailpipe, with pollution from our south and west blowing downwind into our state. We cannot control our geography, but we can take steps to compel the EPA and our neighbors to comply with federal ozone standards."
Similarly, Grewal said via press release: "Out-of-state power plants continue to operate without any regard for the ozone they're introducing to New Jersey's air and the health and safety consequences that follow for our residents and children … EPA is responsible for keeping us safe from this kind of harm, but the agency has fallen down on the job."
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250