The US Supreme Court has denied a request to block two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules from being enforced while they are under appeal. The decision means these rules must remain in effect until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues a ruling on the matter. Documents from the Supreme Court reveal that the orders were issued without a written opinion.
The rules in question impose stricter environmental standards. One rule, documented in 89 FR 16820, requires the reduction of methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations, while the second rule, detailed in 89 FR 38508, targets the reduction of hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal and oil-fired electricity generators.
The challenge to these regulations was spearheaded by 23 Republican-led states, alongside industry groups, power plants, and mining companies. These challengers argue that the rules impose significant economic burdens on power plants, potentially to the tune of billions of dollars, while allegedly lacking substantial public health benefits. They also contend that the EPA overstepped its authority, suggesting that the agency is pursuing a broad climate change agenda beyond its statutory remit. For more details, see this analysis.
The ongoing litigation will further explore whether these rules align with the scope of the EPA’s statutory authority. This follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the long-standing Chevron precedent, which previously mandated that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own authority. More on this landmark decision can be found in this report. As the DC Circuit delves into the legal merits of the new EPA rules, the broader implications for administrative law and regulatory authority in the United States continue to unfold.