Trott, Adam2019-09-252019-09-252010-10-30200900461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175796"Prior to 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency had a long-standing policy that the statutory exemption from regulation of oil and gas facilities did not include the emission of sediment from related construction activities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed the definition of “oil and gas facilities” to include these related activities. Essentially reasoning that such expansion of the Clean Water Act would be meaningless unless it applied to the most common emission from construction activities—sediment—EPA changed its policy to exempt some types of sediment from regulation. The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged this new policy, arguing that this change was arbitrary and capricious due to the long-standing nature of the previous policy, such that the new policy was an “impermissible interpretation.” In NRDC v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit agreed in a split decision. This Note suggests that the Ninth Circuit did not properly apply Chevron deference and overstepped its bounds by becoming a policy-making body. While EPA’s rule may not be environmentally optimal, EPA is a political branch. Where, as here, the mandate from Congress is ambiguous, EPA should be held accountable by the voters, not by the courts. Since the interpretation was reasonable on its face, it should have been upheld.Prior to 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency had a long-standing policy that the statutory exemption from regulation of oil and gas facilities did not include the emission of sediment from related construction activities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed the definition of “oil and gas facilities” to include these related activities. Essentially reasoning that such expansion of the Clean Water Act would be meaningless unless it applied to the most common emission from construction activities—sediment—EPA changed its policy to exempt some types of sediment from regulation. The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged this new policy, arguing that this change was arbitrary and capricious due to the long-standing nature of the previous policy, such that the new policy was an “impermissible interpretation.” In NRDC v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit agreed in a split decision. This Note suggests that the Ninth Circuit did not properly apply Chevron deference and overstepped its bounds by becoming a policy-making body. While EPA’s rule may not be environmentally optimal, EPA is a political branch. Where, as here, the mandate from Congress is ambiguous, EPA should be held accountable by the voters, not by the courts. Since the interpretation was reasonable on its face, it should have been upheld." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderclimate ethicsenergyenvironmental protectionlawPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle