Supreme Court Limits Power of EPA, Regulatory Agencies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-anticipated ruling on June 30, 2022, regarding the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In the opinion, West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (Case No. 20-1530), the Supreme Court ruled that EPA had exceeded the authority granted by Congress under the Clean Air Act in issuing limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
In a 6-3 opinion, with Justice Neil Gorsuch issuing a concurring opinion, the court determined that federal administrative agencies must point to "clear congressional authorization" when they claim the power to make decisions of "vast economic and political significance." The court concluded that EPA's power plant emissions regulations, originally undertaken under the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, involved such a "major question" and that EPA failed to demonstrate that Congress granted clear authorization to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The case is a continuation of a trend in recent years of the Supreme Court limiting the inherent authority of federal agencies to regulate matters absent specific Congressional authority. While the case did not directly address the "Chevron deference" doctrine, which is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer, the ruling reinforced the court's skepticism of agency authority to regulate matters of national importance without a clear mandate from Congress.1
With slim majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and a looming mid-term election, the case will likely impact the Biden Administration's climate change agenda.
Holland & Knight will continue to monitor developments and keep clients apprised of legal, regulatory and policy changes. If you have any questions, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Environment Team.
1 See Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.