Journal of Climate & Energy Law Issue Search
|Title||Administrative Absurdity: Why the Judiciary Should Uphold EPA's Use of the Administrative Necessity and Absurd Results Doctrines Within the Tailoring Rule|
|Author(s)||David P. Vincent|
|Abstract||This Comment analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments advanced by EPA as well as its opponents regarding the Agency’s reliance on these administrative law doctrines to “tailor” PSD and Title V applicability criteria. The Comment concludes with an explanation of why the judiciary will likely rule in EPA’s favor in this instance.
Part I of this Comment introduces the Tailoring Rule, including its background and the emissions thresholds it seeks to implement regarding PSD and Title V programs. Part II presents EPA’s legal basis for the creation and subsequent implementation of the Tailoring Rule, including the concept of Chevron deference, the absurd results doctrine, as well as the administrative necessity doctrine and the doctrines’ applications to and within the Tailoring Rule. Part III addresses some of the legal challenges of the Tailoring Rule, with a focus on the state of Texas’s arguments and the strength and weaknesses of these challenges. Part III also argues that the judiciary should endorse EPA’s use of the absurd results and administrative necessity doctrines and sanction the Tailoring Rule based on the legal argument that the decision to issue and implement the rule was subject to Chevron deference. Part IV concludes with a summary of the legal arguments proposed throughout the Comment.