ms. vale. oral argument of judith n. vale on behalf othstate respondents ms. vale: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: in the odeighbor provision, congress protected downwind states from pluon emitted in upwind states. a stay of e od neighbor rule would undermine that statutory goal and the public interest by sending ozone pollution into downwind states, including connecticut, wisconsin, and new rk, that receive substantial pollution from the particular upndtates that are currently in heritage reporting rporation who the rule, including ohio and indiana. the harms from a stay willlo to both the residents of downwind states, whoil experience health dangers, and to downwind industry, which pa increased costs to compensate for upwind pollution and comy with the current, more stringent standard. for example, connecticut sources currently pay up to $13,000 per ton of ozone precursor reduced while, in the near term for power plants under this rule, just to turn on controls costs about $1,600 per ton. by contrast, apply -- and a's why applying the rule to the upwin