Agency Regulation After West Virginia v. EPA: Climate Change, Major Questions Doctrine, Future of Chevron
Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
- work Practice Area
Environmental
- event Date
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
- schedule Time
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
This CLE webinar will address the recent SCOTUS decision in West Virginia v. EPA which held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had exceeded the authority granted by Congress under the Clean Air Act in issuing limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The panel will also discuss the recently applied "major questions doctrine" that the Court has established for interpreting the limits of administrative power and how this case may affect the Chevron doctrine, as well as the future of climate change regulations.
Mr. Christensen is one of the Pacific Northwest’s leading energy and natural resources attorneys. His practice focuses on assisting both emerging energy and clean tech companies and traditional energy companies navigate the complex legal and regulatory systems governing the nation’s energy industry. With more than 27 years of experience, Mr. Christensen has successfully represented clients in complex litigation and regulatory matters, ranging from the U.S. Supreme Court to major proceedings before federal and state agencies. In addition, he has successfully guided clients through major transactions involving, for example, renewable and traditional energy facilities, complex energy and derivatives trades, brownfields redevelopment, engineering and construction services, early-stage and traditional financing, risk management, and government grants and tax incentives.
Mr. Macfarlan advises the firm’s energy, industrial, utility and commercial sector clients on compliance with federal, state and local environmental and land use laws. He has extensive experience working with the regulatory regimes governing wastewater and stormwater discharges, wetland and stream protection, air emissions, solid and hazardous waste management, water withdrawals, chemical and toxic substance controls, release reporting and response, and preservation of endangered species, cultural resources and historic properties. Mr. Macfarlan's practice includes project development, transactional, litigation, enforcement defense and regulatory compliance matters.
Ms. Austin, a nationally recognized environmental lawyer who has held several high-profile federal and state regulatory roles, is an Environmental & Natural Resources partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. and Austin, Tex., offices. Focused on strategic counseling and policy from the Sunbelt to the Beltway, she helps clients navigate the dynamic regulatory and legal waters in an era of energy transition, decarbonization, carbon capture and sequestration and carbon capture, utilization and storage with an emphasis on ESG principles. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Austin was the principal deputy assistant administrator for the U.S. EPA’s Office of Air & Radiation (OAR), where she had primary oversight over U.S. clean air policy and regulation. Before taking the helm at OAR, she served as the EPA regional administrator for Region 6, overseeing all federal environmental programs in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court struck down the never-executed centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate policy: the Clean Power Plan, a set of rules governing fossil-fuel-fired electric generators. Just as importantly, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, announced in no uncertain terms that the basis for the Court's decision was the "major questions doctrine," a phrase no Supreme Court majority had previously invoked explicitly.
The major questions doctrine comes from a number of decisions from the Roberts Court that all address executive agencies asserting highly consequential power "beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted." Rather than treating such assertions of power as normal statutory interpretations, in which judges are highly deferential to agency choices, courts are to approach extraordinary, novel actions with far-reaching consequences with a greater degree of skepticism. If Congress wishes to effect a sweeping overhaul of the nation's economic activity, it must do so quite explicitly--with a "clear congressional authorization."
This new doctrine may be on the verge of overturning the long-standing Chevron doctrine which states when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. This will have a major impact on not only regulations implemented by the EPA, but also on other executive agencies and the future of climate change regulation.
Listen as our authoritative panel discusses the long-term implications of West Virginia v. EPA and how the major questions doctrine may revolutionize the administrative state.
- West Virginia v. EPA
- History of case
- Major questions doctrine
- History of the doctrine
- Chevron
- Climate change
- Future of administrative regulation
The panel will discuss these and other key issues:
- What is the history of the major questions doctrine?
- How does the decision in West Virginia v. EPA affect the future of administrative regulation?
- What is the likely state of the Chevron doctrine?
- How will West Virginia v. EPA affect climate change regulation?
Related Courses
Introduction to Environmental Litigation: Key Litigation Strategies, Regulatory Frameworks, and Common Challenges
Monday, April 28, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
CERCLA Liability and Reopened Superfund Sites: PRP Impact, Settlement Consequences, Insurance Considerations
Thursday, April 10, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT