1 00:00:01,466 --> 00:00:03,266 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a 2 00:00:03,266 --> 00:00:07,433 major environmental case over a rule that requires states to stop their 3 00:00:07,433 --> 00:00:10,866 air pollution from drifting over to neighboring states. 4 00:00:10,866 --> 00:00:14,833 Three states, led by Ohio, are claiming the rule is too costly, 5 00:00:14,833 --> 00:00:18,900 and they're asking the court to block the so-called good neighbor plan. 6 00:00:18,900 --> 00:00:22,533 Coral Davenport is following all this closely. She covers energy 7 00:00:22,533 --> 00:00:25,033 and environmental policy at The New York Times. 8 00:00:25,033 --> 00:00:27,333 Coral, great to have you back on the program. 9 00:00:27,333 --> 00:00:31,833 So, the good neighbor plan, as I mentioned, says that states have to do everything they 10 00:00:31,833 --> 00:00:36,533 can to stop their pollution from sullying their neighbors' air. 11 00:00:36,533 --> 00:00:40,700 The states that are protesting this rule, what is it that they don't like about it? 12 00:00:40,700 --> 00:00:45,033 CORAL DAVENPORT, The New York Times: So this rule is the Biden administration 13 00:00:45,033 --> 00:00:49,033 strengthening a rule that was already on the books from the Obama administration. 14 00:00:49,033 --> 00:00:54,000 The Obama rule said that power plants had to control their pollution that goes over 15 00:00:56,133 --> 00:01:01,100 state lines and pollutes in other states. The law actually says that governments have to go 16 00:01:03,100 --> 00:01:07,100 back and strengthen this rule every number of years. The Trump administration did not 17 00:01:07,100 --> 00:01:11,000 do that. The Biden administration went back, they expanded the rule and said, 18 00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:16,000 we're also going to apply this to a lot of other industrial pollution, steel mills, 19 00:01:17,866 --> 00:01:21,300 factories, cement plants, so a really significant expansion of these controls. 20 00:01:23,900 --> 00:01:26,733 And this is what the industrial states say, 21 00:01:26,733 --> 00:01:31,733 this is too much. This is going to cost millions, if not billions of dollars. 22 00:01:33,633 --> 00:01:36,866 It's a burden. It's a tremendous economic imposition on the engines of our state. 23 00:01:38,866 --> 00:01:40,966 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And what is the argument for it? I mean, I guess broadly speaking, 24 00:01:40,966 --> 00:01:45,200 we could say air pollution is bad. But the argument for stopping this pollution is what? 25 00:01:46,533 --> 00:01:48,666 CORAL DAVENPORT: So, again, 26 00:01:48,666 --> 00:01:53,633 the Clean Air Act specifically stipulates that the federal government has to do this. 27 00:01:55,666 --> 00:01:59,233 It says that there's -- and this is sort of interesting because it has to do with the 28 00:01:59,233 --> 00:02:04,200 way the winds blow. You have heard the phrase the westerly winds that blow across the United 29 00:02:06,433 --> 00:02:09,233 States. That's real. So when you have a lot of air pollution, smog in the middle of the country, 30 00:02:11,500 --> 00:02:16,500 it is very well-documented that winds actually blow that to the eastern part of the country. 31 00:02:18,466 --> 00:02:22,333 So when you have a lot of smog in states like Ohio and Indiana, it ends up in the 32 00:02:24,266 --> 00:02:28,233 air of Delaware and Connecticut. The senator from Delaware recently said, 33 00:02:28,233 --> 00:02:32,700 we are the tailpipe of the United States. And there's a lot of evidence that that's true. 34 00:02:32,700 --> 00:02:37,700 So the law created this specific regulation, essentially saying, 35 00:02:39,300 --> 00:02:41,800 you states in the middle of the country where this is coming from, 36 00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:46,133 you have to clean up to protect your neighbors. Well, that's part of it. And the other part 37 00:02:46,133 --> 00:02:51,133 is that there's a lot of evidence that this smog is really devastating for human health. 38 00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,733 The EPA finds that this rule would indeed be very costly. It would cost the industry about 39 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:02,833 $900 million a year to comply. That's huge. It also finds that it would save the economy, 40 00:03:05,533 --> 00:03:10,533 in terms of work days, sick days, increased asthma, respiratory diseases, it would save 41 00:03:12,566 --> 00:03:16,333 the economy about $13 billion a year in costs that are measured in public health impacts. 42 00:03:19,166 --> 00:03:21,666 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that seems like a pretty clear cost-benefit analysis. 43 00:03:21,666 --> 00:03:24,400 CORAL DAVENPORT: It is a magnitude of difference. 44 00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:27,666 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The court took up this case on what's known as its emergency 45 00:03:27,666 --> 00:03:32,666 docket. And several of the justices today, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, 46 00:03:34,133 --> 00:03:36,933 seemed to take issue with that, asking why this was so urgent. 47 00:03:36,933 --> 00:03:38,666 We talked with our Supreme Court analyst, 48 00:03:38,666 --> 00:03:41,800 Marcia Coyle, about this earlier. Here's what she had to say about this. 49 00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:45,900 MARCIA COYLE: Justice Jackson said she didn't see the emergency. In fact, 50 00:03:45,900 --> 00:03:50,900 she wondered if this was not just a case of the states and industry wanting 51 00:03:52,666 --> 00:03:57,233 not to obey the law as the lawsuit proceeded through the D.C. Circuit. 52 00:03:59,266 --> 00:04:02,600 So what the court has is very unusual here right now. They always claim that they are 53 00:04:04,566 --> 00:04:08,066 court of review, not first view. And they have nothing to review in front of them, 54 00:04:08,066 --> 00:04:13,066 because no lower court has yet to look at the merits of the good neighbor plan. 55 00:04:14,700 --> 00:04:17,366 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And yet the court seemed very eager to hear this. 56 00:04:17,366 --> 00:04:19,866 CORAL DAVENPORT: And it's very surprising. 57 00:04:21,766 --> 00:04:26,233 One reason is that the entities that are specifically the plaintiffs in this case 58 00:04:27,700 --> 00:04:30,733 are the newly covered entities. So the power plants had already 59 00:04:30,733 --> 00:04:35,733 been covered. This regulation expands the rules and the controls to steel, 60 00:04:37,466 --> 00:04:41,433 cement, power plants factories. Those rules don't kick in, in until 2026. 61 00:04:41,433 --> 00:04:43,166 And yet -- so they're not... 62 00:04:43,166 --> 00:04:45,000 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Directly impacted now. 63 00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:47,066 CORAL DAVENPORT: They're not directly impacted. And yet they brought this 64 00:04:47,066 --> 00:04:51,266 case to the Supreme Court on this emergency filing, saying that this is going to have 65 00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:58,200 an emergency impact right now and that the rule essentially needs to be frozen, 66 00:04:59,666 --> 00:05:03,266 not implemented at all, until all the litigation is complete. 67 00:05:05,300 --> 00:05:09,133 But it is extremely unusual for the Supreme Court to even hear a case like this. And that 68 00:05:11,066 --> 00:05:16,000 is kind of part of a trend that we're starting to see in this Supreme Court. 69 00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:18,266 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But this court has shown a 70 00:05:18,266 --> 00:05:22,833 good deal of skepticism towards a lot of environmental regulations. 71 00:05:22,833 --> 00:05:27,833 CORAL DAVENPORT: Well, that's always true of a conservative court historically, ideologically. 72 00:05:29,900 --> 00:05:33,233 There's more justices appointed by Republican presidents on this court. That's not surprising. 73 00:05:35,100 --> 00:05:38,600 Here's what's new. This is the third in cases that they are taking where, again, 74 00:05:40,566 --> 00:05:44,300 the regulation is not fully implemented. Last year, the Supreme Court heard a case 75 00:05:46,166 --> 00:05:50,000 on a water regulation that was not yet implemented, not yet fully on the books. 76 00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:53,500 Very surprising. Again, analysts said they were surprised that they took that case. 77 00:05:53,500 --> 00:05:58,500 They ended up choosing to sharply limit the regulation. So even before the government was 78 00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:03,800 done writing the regulation, the court had told it, you have to really rein back what you're 79 00:06:05,833 --> 00:06:08,800 doing. Same thing happened the year before on a major climate change regulation. Again, 80 00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:13,800 very unusual for the court to have even taken up the case before the regulation was even done. 81 00:06:15,833 --> 00:06:19,833 The court told the government, you're really restricted in what kind of regulating you do. 82 00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,933 That regulation still isn't out. But the government has -- is taking its marching 83 00:06:24,933 --> 00:06:29,833 orders from the court on how it can write these rules. This is a new trend where 84 00:06:29,833 --> 00:06:34,833 it's not just conservative justices expressing skepticism of regulation. 85 00:06:36,300 --> 00:06:40,466 It's taking it to a new level of ruling on these policies before 86 00:06:42,466 --> 00:06:47,266 they're even on the books and dictating to the federal agencies what they can then do, 87 00:06:48,900 --> 00:06:51,100 kind of handcuffing them before they're even done with their work. 88 00:06:51,100 --> 00:06:52,666 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And it sounds like, from the arguments today, 89 00:06:52,666 --> 00:06:54,933 that the same thing might happen again. 90 00:06:54,933 --> 00:06:58,133 Coral Davenport of The New York Times, always great to see you. Thank you. 91 00:06:58,133 --> 00:06:59,400 CORAL DAVENPORT: Always great to be here.