Court Rules Against Obama's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

.
             If the regulations had taken place when originally scheduled, EPA officials calculated that the over 240 million Americans would reap health benefits by 2014, ultimately saving between 13,000 and 34,000 lives a year. In just two short years, the rule would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions nationwide by 73 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 53 percent from their 2005 levels (Eilperin). Furthermore, the rule would prevent 15,000 heart attacks and 400,000 cases of asthma, which would in turn save $280 billion a year in health costs (Winter). .
             Southern Company, EME Homer City Generation, and Energy Future Holdings Corporation in Texas all challenged Obama's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule because they did not believe they could meet the stringent requirements in time. Furthermore, the state of Texas, the National Mining Association, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers all brought separate cases against the EPA saying that the requirements came from false computer models and the companies would be forced to shut down older coal-fired plants which could take a toll on the nation's electricity supply (Eilperin). .
             Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Thomas Griffith pointed out that the EPA took advantage of a section in the Clean Air Act commonly known as the "good neighbor provision" to "impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA's Transport Rule violates the statute" (Eilperin). .
             "Thankfully we're seeing a growing pattern in the courts," said Griffith. "Today, a federal court found yet another example of the EPA exceeding its statutory authority" (Eilperin). .
             The third residing judge on the case, Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, wrote that Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Thomas Griffith were "trampling on this court's precedent on which the Environmental Protection Agency was entitled to rely on developing the Transport Rule rather than be blindsided by arguments raised for the first time in this court" (Winter).