24 State Attorneys General Appeal to Supreme Court Over EPA's Methane Rule

States Appeal Against EPA's Methane Standards

Attorneys General from 24 states have appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the implementation of the federal government's methane standards for the oil and gas sector. They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exceeded its authority by issuing the final rule. The EPA maintains that the new standards are part of a broader initiative to drastically reduce methane emissions and other harmful air pollution from oil and natural gas operations.

Emergency Appeal Led by Oklahoma

The appeal, led by the state of Oklahoma, was filed by attorneys general from states including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Virginia. They are seeking an emergency appeal to stop the EPA from enforcing the rule that was implemented this year. The states contend that while the federal government has the power to set emissions limits, the rule prescribes specific technologies, processes, and methods that the EPA believes states must use to meet certain emission-reduction targets, among other requirements. They argue that the EPA did not confine itself to its statutory role for existing sources and then allow the States to adopt appropriate standards of performance.

Concerns Over the Rule's Impact

The states further expressed concern that the rule's 'presumptive standards' are burdensome, imposing costs on the oil and gas industries that will inevitably be passed onto consumers across the country. The EPA's rule allows states and tribes that wish to regulate existing sources two years to develop and submit their plans for reducing methane from existing sources. The rule aims to reduce methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from new, modified, and reconstructed sources and provides emissions guidelines for states to follow as they develop plans to limit methane emissions from existing sources.

States Argue Against Enforcement of Rule

The attorneys general argue that enforcing the rule would also restrict the authority of states to establish their own standards for regulating methane and VOC emissions from existing facilities. They believe this would harm the public interest in the cooperative-federalism regime in the Clean Air Act, generally, and Section 111(d), specifically. The EPA describes methane as a "super pollutant" and states that oil and natural gas operations are the largest industrial source of methane pollution in the United States. The agency asserts that reducing methane emissions is a crucial addition to cutting carbon dioxide in slowing the rate of warming of Earth's atmosphere.

EPA's Predicted Benefits of the Rule

According to the EPA, the rules will reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations by nearly 80 percent through 2038 and avoid 16 million tons of smog-forming VOC emissions and 590,000 tons of air toxics. The agency also estimates that the rules will result in "net climate and ozone health benefits" of $97 to $98 billion dollars from 2024-2038, or the equivalent of $7.3 to $7.6 billion a year, after accounting for the costs of compliance and savings from recovered natural gas.

Appeal to Supreme Court

An appeals court in Washington denied a request by the states to put the new methane regulations on hold while their legal challenge continues in court, leading them to appeal to the nation's highest court. The EPA has been contacted for comment on the matter.

Bottom Line

The dispute over the EPA's methane rule highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state authorities over environmental regulations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of environmental policy in the United States. What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think the EPA has overstepped its boundaries, or are these regulations necessary for environmental protection? Share your thoughts and this article with your friends. Sign up for the Daily Briefing, available every day at 6pm.