Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in the latest installment of his “A Better Way” plan has called for the elimination of the Chevron deference, a judiciary practice by which courts defer to the interpretation of a government agency in cases of ambiguous statutory meaning. “It is the judiciary’s deference to agencies that emboldens bureaucrats to read new meanings into old statutes. And it is the knowledge that agencies can get Chevron and Auer deference that encourages agency enablers in Congress to duck hard choices and write sweeping statutes that must be interpreted by agencies,” the plan says.
The Chevron deference has become a cornerstone of the Environmental Protection Agency’s defense in an ongoing lawsuit against its Clean Power Plan, carbon pollution standards for existing coal-fired power plants. Opponents of the rule argue the agency does not have the authority to regulate carbon from such facilities under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because existing coal-fired power plants have already been regulated for different pollutants under Section 112. The Clean Air Act says a source cannot be regulated under both sections.
EPA has interpreted the Clean Air Act as meaning a source cannot be regulated for the same pollutant under both sections, not that the source itself cannot be regulated under both sections, and argues that because of the Chevron deference the court should accept its argument.
