US 'needs a strong EPA,' Regan tells House Oversight Committee

US House lawmakers of both parties traded barbs in an oversight hearing of the US Environmental Protection Agency, pressing EPA Administrator Michael Regan to define the agency's new role after the repeal of the Chevron doctrine and laying out the regulatory stakes of the 2024 US election.

"America needs a strong EPA," Regan told Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee during the June 10 hearing.

It was the EPA chief's first appearance before the committee and his first major public appearance since the Supreme Court's June 28 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. That decision, in which the Court's conservative majority ruled 6-3 that courts should exercise their independent judgement in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, was considered by legal experts(opens in a new tab) a watershed change to federal agencies' ability to interpret laws and enforce rules.

"As you can imagine, we are deeply disappointed," Regan said. "This hits EPA extremely hard. We have world class experts who for decades have been honing their skills to work on behalf of the American people and render judgment on policies and regulations that would be most protective of everyone in this country."

Under the Chevron doctrine, first established by the Supreme Court in 1984, courts were required to defer to agencies' readings of ambiguous statutes so long as the interpretation was reasonable. The court's decision in Loper Bright said courts may not defer to the agency simply due to ambiguity.

In an often contentious hearing, Democrats decried the decision while Republicans on the committee praised it. Congressman Gary Palmer, Republican-Alabama, said he was "encouraged" by the ruling "because it restores the responsibility for lawmaking and accountability for lawmaking to Congress where it belongs." Ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland argued that Loper Bright will "invite the justices to impose their policy preferences over the agencies that are working to implement congressional will."

Representative Andy Biggs, Republican-Arizona, asked Regan how the EPA would abide by the new ruling.

"Listen, when I signed up for this job, I pledged to follow the law and follow the science," Regan said. "The Supreme Court has spoken, and so we have to figure out how to get our work done under this new ruling."

2024 and beyond

Whether Regan will have the opportunity to implement new EPA regulations in the new post-Chevron era -- or try to ensure the agency can follow through on expansive new Biden-era rules, such as the new tailpipe emissions rule for model years 2027-32 designed to encourage adoption of electric vehicles -- will be determined by which candidate wins the presidency in November's election.

Democrats on the committee issued dire warnings about the consequences of a Donald Trump win. They recalled Trump's reported promise to oil and gas industry executives of regulatory rollbacks in exchange for $1 billion in campaign contributions. They also focused heavily on Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, the policy proposal that calls on the next Republican president to dramatically reduce the EPA's funding, significantly change its approach to staffing and eliminate the agency's enforcement arm, among widespread changes to other government agencies.

"When Donald Trump's Project 2025 destroys the EPA he'll let corporations dump more toxins into our air and water like he did the last time he was president," Representative Robert Garcia, Democrat-California, said. "We know he will empower corporate polluters and fill the EPA with hand picked extremists, rather than actual climate experts, who will destroy the progress that President Biden has fought for."

"When you look at the massive cuts that have been suggested, we will significantly hurt our agriculture industry, reducing the herbicides that we can get on the market," Regan said. "We won't clear all of the litigation that's tied our hands to get chemicals on the market that we rely on every day. We would have significant impacts to our water quality. Emerging contaminants like PFAS would run amok. We would continue to have lead poisoned water all across the country. ... The list goes on and on."

Committee Chair James Comer, Republican-Kentucky, outlined a philosophical definition of some Republican and industry views on EPA's role. "I agree people want clean air and clean water, and that that's the role of the EPA," Comer said. "The problem we have on our side of the aisle is that we believe EPA has overstepped its bounds. We fear that -- and your heart may be in the right place -- you don't take into consideration the costs." Other Republicans cited estimates of regulations' alleged economic costs as high as $1.3 trillion as proof that EPA's rules made business in the US more difficult to conduct.