EPA Air Quality Rules Challenged by States Led by Florida

Rutledge’s announcement said the new rule – which she said “illegally” requires states such as Arkansas to change their previously approved plans of compliance with air standards – was the result of a lawsuit settled between the EPA and the Sierra Club, an environmental group.

In an August. 10 motion filed with the D.C. Circuit for White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA (12-1100), the EPA said it intends to seek remand without vacatur (which would leave the rule in effect for now) to address the Supreme Court’s “limited holding” in Michigan v. EPA that requires the agency to complete cost considerations.

This renewed call is based on new evidence that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers believes EPA used flawed technical and scientific analysis in crafting the regulation that was so indefensible that the Corps demanded that it be distanced from the rule.

In a petition for review, the states argue that EPA “erroneously concluded” that their plans to reduce pollution were “inadequate” to address emissions that occur during those times.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is leading 16 other attorneys general in a legal action against the United States Environmental Protection Agency for illegally invalidating the individual air quality protection plans in those states. The rule came after the agency agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, according to the release. ADEQ will also monitor pollutants, identifying major and minor sources of air pollution that may affect the state. The adoption and adherence to Florida’s SIP has helped to tremendously and measurably improve the state’s air quality.

“Today [Tuesday] I join a broad coalition of attorneys general in challenging the EPA’s latest tax on America’s consumers”, said Olens.

In addition to Arkansas and Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia have also joined the challenge. “In yet another “sue and settle” case, the EPA is rushing to appease the interests of the Sierra Club and force 35 States to alter their SIPs even though the plans are already succeeding”.

“But it is absolutely scandalous that EPA disregarded the objections of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which expressed strong concerns that the rule was arbitrarily written, is legally indefensible and would be extremely hard to implement”, he added.