On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests from states and industry groups to block the implementation of two Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rules. The decisions did not include reasoning behind declining the stay requests. Both orders were unsigned and did not include recorded dissents. As a result of the denials, the methane rule and mercury rule will remain in effect while challenges proceed with litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
First, in Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, et al., the Court declined a request to stay the methane rule, which is aimed at reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations under the Clean Air Act (the “CAA”). In addition to methane emissions, this rule also focuses on other volatile organic compounds. EPA issued the final rule on March 8, 2024, and it became effective on May 7, 2024. The methane rule aims to reduce 58 million tons of methane emissions within the next 14 years. 45 states have appeared in challenges to the methane rule, either against its implementation or intervening in support of the rule. As a result of the stay denial, states will feel crescendoing pressure to develop plans for existing oil and gas facilities by the methane rule’s March 2026 deadline.
Second, the high court rejected a set of seven stay applications concerning the mercury rule, including North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al. Challengers include 23 states and multiple stakeholders. The mercury rule became effective on July 8, 2024, and implements national emission requirements for coal-fired plants under the CAA’s Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAP”) program. Targeted HAPs including mercury, arsenic, and nickel will be subject to new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”). In addition, the mercury rule increases monitoring and compliance requirements.
Notably, although the requests have been pending since July 26, 2024, the Court has not issued a decision addressing stay applications for the power plant greenhouse gas rule. Given that these stay applications were submitted earlier than the other rule challenges, legal experts predict the high court’s decision may entail detailed reasoning and/or recorded dissents. Also called the GHG rule, this regulation became effective on July 8, 2024 and imposes stringent reductions on CO2 emissions from power plants.
Although Loper Bright undoubtedly chipped away at Chevron deference, the Court’s recent rejections to intervene signify a new approach to agency action. Advocates and stakeholders will watch with bated breath as the Court navigates this uncharted territory of regulatory practice.
