by Dr. Freya Doughty-Wagner

Doughty-Wagner is the North American Director for GNHRE and the Chief Content Officer for the American Branch of the International Law Association. This post is written in her personal academic capacity and does not represent the position of any organization.

In 1984, in its landmark Chevron USA, Inc. v NRDC decision, the US Supreme Court held that government agencies must adhere to clear legislative statements. However, courts must give these agencies deference if the statement is vague and their chosen interpretation is “reasonable.” This case created the Chevron doctrine or ‘Chevron deference:’ if Congress has not discussed the question central to a dispute, a court must uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute, provided this interpretation was practical and logical. The Chevron doctrine was an essential ruling for specialized governmental bodies, allowing them to use their expert knowledge to make legislative decisions. Chevron has been one of the most cited rulings in administrative history, having been cited over 18,000 times in federal court decisions and “invoked to uphold at least hundreds of agency actions.”

The Chevron deference empowered various agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (‘EPA’), to be “more adventurous” in its interpretation; post-Chevron, “statutes no longer possess[ed] a single prescriptive meaning.” This post-Chevron freedom enabled the EPA to be far more ambitious in its policy decisions without unnecessary Congressional intervention. Congress has regularly proposed bills antithetical to best available science, including air quality, habitat protection, and biodiversity preservation. In 2015, President Obama announced the Clear Power Plan, an executive action that utilized the Chevron doctrine to extend the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector. The EPA projected the Clean Power Plan would reduce the electricity sector’s carbon pollution by 32% by 2030 and save the country $20 billion in climate-related costs.

The Chevron doctrine has been essential to the Environmental Protection Agency’s everyday operations and specialized powers for forty years. Overruling Chevron would be a “wrecking ball to federal agencies” and “incredibly dangerous to the protections and standards maintained by our country’s regulating authorities.” Three key regulations would be at stake: the oil and gas plant methane rule, vehicle emissions standards (light-duty/medium-duty vehicles; heavy-duty vehicles), and the fossil fuel power plant emissions standards. Without the Chevron deference, courts could strike down these crucial EPA decisions, which would be cataclysmic for the environmental health of the US and beyond.

Oil and Natural Gas Operations

December 2, 2023: the EPA ruled to significantly reduce methane and other harmful air pollutants from oil and natural gas operations. Methane is the “second-largest contributor to climate warming after carbon dioxide.” The methane concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled since 1820; methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is responsible for approximately one-third of human activity-caused warming. In the US, oil and natural gas operations are the largest industrial source of methane pollution, making limitations essential. The 2023 ruling tightened the restrictions against the practice of methane flaring and leaking at US oil and gas plants – critical restrictions to limit the impacts of global warming. Eliminating the Chevron deference would give courts more flexibility, enabling them to repeal this ruling and let methane leak into the atmosphere.

Vehicle Emissions Standards

March 20, 2024: the EPA announced its ‘Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.’ This introduced stricter emissions standards for all light-duty and medium-duty vehicles with model years 2027 through 2032. It also set new standards for battery durability and warranty requirements for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles.

March 29, 2024: the EPA applied similar rules to heavy-duty vehicles, including commercial trucks and buses, to control smog and soot, “significantly reduc[ing] […] harmful air pollution across the onroad sector.”

Increasing vehicle efficiency is mandatory to combat the consequences of anthropogenic climate change; greenhouse gas emissions from transportation make up 28% of total US emissions. Over the past 30 years, the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions increased in absolute terms more than any other US sector. Between the EPA and the Department of Transportation, the Chevron deference has empowered bodies to implement regulations that are projected to reduce CO2 emissions “by about 270 million metric tons over the life of vehicles built under the program, saving about 530 million barrels of oil,” and “[r]educe America’s dependence on oil.” Without the Chevron doctrine, the EPA’s ability to limit vehicular greenhouse gas emissions is decimated.

Fossil Fuel Power Plant Emissions

April 25, 2024: s111 of the Clean Air Act, together with the Chevron doctrine, empowered the EPA to establish its greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. This ruling limits CO2 emissions for new gas-fired combustion turbines and tightens standards for existing coal, oil, and gas-fired steam generating units. In the power sector, existing coal-fired power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and “[n]ew natural gas-fired combustion turbines are some of the largest new sources of greenhouse gas emissions being built today.” Burning fossil fuels at power plants releases more than just CO2: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, and other pollutants are produced, which can contribute to and lead to significant health problems, from respiratory issues to cancer. By 2047, these restrictions are projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons and make the air safer – especially for low-income neighborhoods. Again, striking down the Chevron doctrine would be disastrous for the future of the US climate, areas surrounding the dirtiest power plants, and globally: “[t]he most-polluting US power plants emit more than 2 percent of the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide pollution.”

June 28, 2024: the Supreme Court takes a “chainsaw” to Chevron

The Center for American Progress noted that “conservative jurists and advocates have long been hostile to the EPA’s exercise of […] authority.” On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along party lines, concluded: “it is hard to see how anyone could reasonably expect a court to rely on Chevron in any particular case or expect it to produce readily foreseeable outcomes.” Chevron was overturned because the Supreme Court decided this case had vested too much power in governmental agencies – despite said agencies being specialists at the height of their respective subjects. Now, vital environmental decisions will be made by uninformed courts, missing the necessary information to make fair and educated policy decisions. Justice Kagan, dissenting, said:

“It gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments. It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values. […] It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject – because there are always gaps and ambiguities in regulatory statutes, and often of great import. What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the Nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? […] It is not a role Congress has given to them, in the APA or any other statute. It is a role this Court has now claimed for itself, as well as other judges.”

– Justice Kagan, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v Raimondo Secretary of Commerce, et al. [2024] 32

The ultimate goal of the right was to “enfeeble the federal government’s ability to deal with the problems the modern world throws at us” – including climate change. A weaker federal government means primary polluting sources, from oil and natural gas operations and vehicles to fossil fuel plants, can operate without restraint and EPA intervention. The overturning of Chevron is not the end of deference – Congress may still delegate discretionary authority, but this requires express statements rather than the previous near open interpretation. In the short term, there could be a spike in lawsuits over the actions of federal agencies. These agencies will exercise caution, becoming hesitant rather than making decisions in line with scientific evidence and in response to the ever-changing environmental crisis. The Environmental Protection Agency is best suited to decide how to protect the environment. Overturning Chevron does an immense disservice not just to the EPA, but to the climate itself.