English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court’s decision prompted the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA' or 'Agency') to determine whether greenhouse gases ('GHG') endanger human health and welfare, and consequently whether the Clean Air Act ('CAA' or 'Act') should have the power to regulate GHG. Since that time, and in the absence of substantive climate legislation from the legislative branch, EPA issued a series of regulations culminating in the creation of a 'tailoring rule.' This rule outlines EPA’s authority to regulate only the largest GHG sources and exempt sources that emit less than the tailored applicability criteria. To achieve this goal, EPA relied on the administrative law principles of Chevron deference, 'absurd results,' and 'administrative necessity.' Since its issuance, a number of sources have challenged the validity of EPA’s actions.This Comment examines the efforts to curtail EPA’s regulation of GHG under the CAA and highlights some of the weaknesses in the approach currently taken by its challengers, notably a group of states and industry. This Comment begins by introducing the tailoring rule then proceeds by providing background on the legal doctrines that EPA has employed to justify the tailoring rule, specifically the doctrines of Chevron deference, 'absurd results,' and 'administrative necessity.' The Comment continues by addressing some of the legal challenges of the tailoring rule, with a focus on the arguments advanced by the state of Texas, and the strength and weaknesses of these challenges. This Comment concludes by arguing that under a permissibly broad reading of the Act, the Act permits EPA to modify the applicability criteria that determine which stationary sources and modification projects are subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under the CAA.

ssrn electronic journal

Administrative Absurdity: Why the Judiciary Should Uphold EPA's Use of the Administrative Necessity and Absurd Results Doctrines within the Tailoring Rule