New Supreme Court Decision Threatens Biden’s Efforts to Cut Tailpipe Emissions
In a recent 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court overturned the longstanding “Chevron deference” precedent. This decision could have far-reaching implications for federal agencies and their ability to interpret and enforce ambiguous laws. Environmental law attorneys are warning that President Joe Biden’s ambitious plans to reduce tailpipe emissions from the country’s vehicle fleet could face significant challenges as a result.
The ruling has raised concerns among environmentalists and legal experts, who fear that it may impede the efforts to combat climate change. The Clean Air Act, a key piece of legislation in the fight against air pollution, falls under this category of ambiguous laws. The Chevron deference previously required judges to defer to reasonable interpretations of such laws by federal agencies. However, with this precedent now overturned, federal agencies will face greater scrutiny when defending stringent regulations, including those related to emissions from cars and trucks.
One of the main areas of vulnerability lies in the regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, such as vehicles. The ambiguity surrounding whether regulators have the authority to regulate these sources has long been a subject of debate. According to Sherry Jackman, an environmental litigator at Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles, the authority of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate emissions from mobile sources has been a contentious issue.
Transportation accounts for approximately 25% of carbon output in the United States. Consequently, it is a crucial sector President Biden aims to tackle as part of his broader efforts to decarbonize the economy and address climate change. David Pettit, a senior attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that critics of vehicle emission rules will seize upon the Chevron decision to challenge regulations pertaining to greenhouse gases. He specifically highlights the potential argument that the Clean Air Act does not explicitly grant the EPA authority over GHG emissions from mobile sources.
Critics, including automakers, oil companies, and agricultural groups, have long contested the Biden administration’s plans to reduce vehicle emissions. They argue that these rules would necessitate the costly transition to electric vehicles for a range of vehicles, from passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks. These interest groups have a history of successfully weakening EPA tailpipe emissions rules through legal challenges. Furthermore, some of these ongoing challenges might now leverage the Supreme Court’s Chevron decision.
Despite the concerns surrounding vehicle emissions regulation, environmental groups remain hopeful that the EPA’s other climate rules, such as those pertaining to power plant emissions, will be less affected by the Chevron decision. They argue that the agency has been working to establish regulations without heavily relying on the Chevron deference in recent years.
As the Biden administration seeks to navigate these challenges, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court’s ruling will impact its efforts to reduce tailpipe emissions effectively. The decision has undoubtedly created a more uncertain landscape for federal agencies and their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists and climate advocates will closely monitor the developments and potential legal battles that may arise as a result of this decision.
