Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

16 

OHIO v. EPA 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

  The  Court,  perhaps  recognizing  the  problem  that  the 
FIP’s  seemingly  state-agnostic  methodology  poses  for  its 
theory,  throws  at  the  wall  a  cherry-picked  assortment  of 
EPA statements mentioning state data.  See ante, at 5–6, 
19, n. 14.  None stick.  The fundamental problem with the 
Court’s citations is that they discuss analyses that EPA per-
formed after  it chose  cost thresholds  and emissions  limits 
based on nationwide industry data.  EPA did assess the im-
pact on  downwind  States  if  particular  upwind  States met 
the proposed emissions limits, and that impact depended on 
the States included in the modeling.  Ante, at 5, 19, n. 14.  
But EPA said that these “ ‘findings regarding air quality im-
provement,’ ” ante, at 19, n. 14 (quoting 88 Fed. Reg. 36741), 
served only to “cement EPA’s identification of the selected 
. . .  mitigation  measures  as  the  appropriate  control  strin-
gency,” 88 Fed. Reg. 36741 (emphasis added); see Denial 18.  
EPA explained that the statutory requirement to “eliminate 
significant contribution” depends on the implementation of 
cost-effective  emissions  controls  at  individual  “industrial 
sources,” not some overall impact on “downwind areas’ non-
attainment  and  maintenance  problems.”    88  Fed.  Reg. 
36741.  EPA assessed the FIP’s impact assuming the par-
ticipation of particular States primarily to ensure that its 
emissions limits did not result in “overcontrol”—i.e., more 
reductions than necessary to help downwind States comply 
with the NAAQS.  Ibid.; see EME Homer City, 572 U. S., at 
521.  The technical document that the Court cites, ante, at 
5,  makes  this  point  clear:  “The  downwind  air  quality  im-
pacts  are  used  to  inform  EPA’s  assessment  of  potential 
overcontrol.”  Proposed Ozone Analysis 31. 
  EPA’s analysis confirmed that its chosen emissions limits 
would not result in overcontrol if they were implemented in 
the  States  originally  covered  by  the  FIP.    88  Fed.  Reg. 

—————— 
emissions limits for cement kilns on the types of limits being met across 
the nation”).