Posted on April 30, 2018 by Seth Jaffe
There’s been a lot of discussion regarding EPA’s decision to withdraw EPA’s Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles. After pondering for a while, my question is how much deference courts will give to EPA’s decision.
I’ve previously speculated about whether the typical deference to agency decisions might eventually lose its luster, not because conservative judges hate Chevron, but simply because courts might get tired of agencies under this Administration abusing their discretion.
Contrary to the statements in the withdrawal decision, the Obama Mid-term Evaluation was exhaustive. The withdrawal decision itself, on the other hand, was, as far as I can tell, based largely just on what scientists might objectively describe in jargon as “bitching and moaning” by the auto industry.
I’ve also previously noted that, in the history of major environmental rules going back to the 1970s, the evidence shows that every single rule has cost less than estimated prior to implementation. And that’s less than EPA’s estimates of compliance, not just less than industry’s estimates, which have routinely been
wildly high. The reason is that compliance cost estimates never fully account for the ability of the market to respond efficiently to the new standards.
There is some question as to whether the recent withdrawal decision even constitutes final agency action, but the courts will get a crack at this at some point and I am waiting with bated breath to see how they respond.
Tags: Green House Gases, Chevron
Air | Climate Change | Environmental Protection Agency | Litigation | Regulation