The Chevron Deference originates from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine established a two-step process for judicial review of federal agencies' interpretations of statutes they administer:
-
Step One: Determine whether Congress’s intent on the specific issue is clear. If the statute is clear, both the court and the agency must follow that clear intent.
-
Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, the court defers to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is reasonable.
This doctrine allowed federal agencies significant leeway to interpret and implement laws, based on their expertise, as long as their interpretations were reasonable.
The overruling of the Chevron Deference has specific implications for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) regulations:
-
Stifling Innovation in ESG Practices:
Regulatory uncertainty and inconsistent judicial interpretations may stifle innovation in ESG practices. Businesses may become hesitant to invest in new, sustainable technologies and practices if they fear that regulatory frameworks will be unstable or subject to frequent changes due to judicial challenges.
-
Increased Judicial Involvement in Technical ESG Matters:
ESG issues often involve complex, technical, and specialised knowledge. Without Chevron deference, courts may need to interpret ambiguous statutes related to ESG without the benefit of agencies' expertise, potentially leading to less informed and more inconsistent decisions.
-
Regulatory Uncertainty and Instability:
Agencies may struggle to implement and enforce ESG regulations if their interpretations are subject to more frequent judicial challenges. This could result in regulatory instability, making it difficult for businesses to plan long-term ESG strategies.
-
Reduction in Agency Effectiveness:
Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) possess specialised knowledge crucial for regulating ESG issues. Overruling Chevron could limit their ability to effectively manage and respond to ESG-related challenges, reducing their effectiveness in addressing environmental and social concerns.
-
Political and Special Interest Influence:
Increased judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations could open the door to greater influence from political and special interest groups. These groups might seek to sway judicial interpretations to favour their interests, potentially undermining robust ESG regulations aimed at protecting public welfare and the environment.
-
Impacts on Consistency and Uniformity:
Chevron promoted uniformity in the application of federal laws by allowing a central agency to interpret ambiguous statutes. Its removal could lead to varying interpretations of ESG regulations across different jurisdictions, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape that complicates compliance for businesses operating in multiple states or sectors.
Conclusion
The Chevron Deference has played a crucial role in allowing agencies to use their expertise to interpret and implement complex regulations, including those related to ESG. Overruling this doctrine introduces significant risks, including increased judicial involvement in technical matters, regulatory uncertainty, reduced agency effectiveness, heightened influence from political and special interest groups, inconsistent application of laws, and potential stifling of innovation in ESG practices. These dangers highlight the importance of finding new ways to ensure effective and coherent regulatory frameworks for ESG issues in a post-Chevron landscape.
What this means longer term for the energy sector in the US, and the impact on global competition, and the broader climate risks are all up for debate. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.