New York Leads Suit Against EPA Over Decision Not to Curb Interstate Smog Pollution
State officials had been seeking to compel the federal agency to identify emissions from approximately 350 sources in nine states to the south and west of New York as a contributing factor to unhealthy air quality for several residents.
October 29, 2019 at 05:49 PM
5 minute read
Attorneys for New York state are asking a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., to invalidate a decision by the Trump administration that declined to identify hundreds of sources of emissions as a contributing factor to smog pollution in New York.
That decision, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will allow the federal government to forego placing restrictions on those emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act.
State officials had been seeking to compel the federal agency to identify emissions from approximately 350 sources in nine states to the south and west of New York as a contributing factor to unhealthy air quality for several residents.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said more than two-thirds of New York's population, from the New York City metropolitan area and Chautauqua County in western New York state, experience unhealthy air quality.
"More than two-thirds of New Yorkers regularly breathe unhealthy air due to interstate smog pollution, yet the EPA continues to ignore the Clean Air Act," James said. "We will not remain idle when a federal agency called the 'Environmental Protection Agency' routinely refuses to protect the environment or the health of millions of people."
Georgia Pestana, the acting corporation counsel for New York City, and New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal also signed onto the lawsuit with New York state.
A spokeswoman for the EPA said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation.
Nine counties in New York are currently considered by the EPA to be out of compliance with federal health standards for smog, according to the Attorney General's Office. Officials from New York state have largely attributed that to pollution from other states.
That's because New York, according to the Attorney General's Office, has some of the strictest air quality regulations in the country. Emissions of pollutants that cause smog are aggressively regulated, which has led to some of the lowest emissions of those toxins nationwide.
Those pollutants, when emitted, can travel hundreds of miles from their source, according to the Attorney General's Office. That means that states upwind of New York, like Illinois and Virginia, can cause higher smog pollution downwind.
The federal Clean Air Act's "Good Neighbor" provision allows the EPA to step in and create plans to curb pollution in downwind states when the actions of upwind states aren't enough to reduce smog elsewhere. That's where New York's petition to the EPA earlier this year comes in.
New York was seeking to have the EPA recognize that emission sources in the nine states it identified were significantly contributing to the state's smog problems. That way, under the Clean Air Act, the federal government could step in and help curb those emissions.
The EPA, in its decision, said it couldn't find evidence, nor was it provided with information, to show that those emission sources were directly causing New York's smog problem.
"The EPA is denying the petition because the petitioner, New York, has not demonstrated, and the EPA did not independently find, that the group of identified sources emits or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision," the EPA said.
The two-page lawsuit brought against the agency by James on Tuesday is essentially seeking to strike down that finding. The challenge was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
It's not the first time New York state has brought litigation against the EPA over interstate smog.
James, leading a coalition of six states and New York City, sued the federal agency in January over a proposed rule that would have allowed states to avoid taking any additional action to curb interstate smog. That rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit.
New York state also challenged the EPA's alleged failure to intervene in the planned emission reduction plans of states that were identified in 2015 as not doing enough to curb interstate pollution.
The decision, handed down in the Southern District of New York, ordered the EPA to address emission levels in states whose pollution traveled into New York. There was no appeal.
READ MORE:
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 AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Trending Stories
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