The Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn Chevron deference has opened the floodgates for legal challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
According to the Tampa Free Press, the high court's emergency docket is currently inundated with 18 applications, 11 of which directly target the EPA's power plant regulations finalized in April.
This surge in emergency appeals follows the landmark June ruling that curbed the agency's power.
The influx of cases seeking immediate relief from EPA rules signals a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding federal agency authority. Former high-ranking EPA officials suggest that this trend is likely to continue in the post-Chevron era, particularly when agencies attempt to expand their reach beyond congressional intent or longstanding regulatory practices.
The EPA's power plant rules, finalized in April, require existing coal plants to control 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to continue operating after 2039. New natural gas-fired plants face similar requirements to remain open beyond 2039.
Critics argue that these regulations are an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which overturned the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The new rules have drawn significant opposition from various states and industry stakeholders.
Among the plaintiffs challenging the EPA's regulations are states such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, as well as industry players like Continental Resources and America's Power. These parties are seeking immediate relief through the Supreme Court's emergency docket.
Andrew Wheeler, former EPA administrator under President Trump, commented on the situation:
I do think we're going to see more of this in a post-Chevron world, particularly when an agency tries to go beyond the congressional intent or the longstanding regulatory practices of the agency. This power plant rule is supposed to be fuel switching, and this section of the Clean Air Act has not done that in the past.
Wheeler suggests that deviations from standard practices are likely to face increased legal scrutiny in the wake of the Chevron deference overturn.
The Biden administration's approach to major regulations has been described as strategic but potentially flawed. Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff for the Trump EPA, characterized it as "a little bit of the spaghetti-against-the-wall approach."
Both Wheeler and Gunasekara suggest that the EPA may have made a miscalculation by rushing to finalize major rules quickly. This haste was likely an attempt to avoid potential Congressional Review Act (CRA) actions in the event of a change in administration and Congressional control after the November elections.
Wheeler argued that the administration should have waited for the Loper decision to incorporate the Supreme Court's ruling into their regulations, potentially making them stronger against legal challenges. Instead, they prioritized beating the CRA deadline.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference has created a new legal landscape for challenging EPA regulations. The flood of emergency applications targeting recent EPA rules, particularly those related to power plant emissions, reflects this shift. Former EPA officials suggest that the Biden administration's strategy of rapidly finalizing regulations may face increased scrutiny and legal challenges in the post-Chevron era.
