On February 19, President Trump issued an Executive Order that helped shape the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) responsibilities. Imbedded within the Order, the president orders agency heads to identify “regulations that are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power.” Hopefully, this will lead to the unraveling of the judicial deference that agencies relied upon for decades.
President Trump also issued a separate Executive Order that seeks to unleash American energy. There, he notes that “ideologically motivated regulations” have impeded development of energy.
For decades, the Chevron Doctrine, aptly named after the Supreme Court decision named Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, shaped how federal agencies exercised their regulatory power. It has also served as a vehicle for agencies to stand in the way of energy development.
The Chevron doctrine allowed agencies to interpret “ambiguous” statutes to shape them in a manner that the agency desired. This was done with little judicial oversight: by design. As a result, citizens and businesses have been subjected to ambiguous laws but have had little-to-no say in the interpretive process, even if the regulator significantly impacts the citizen’s rights.
Edwards Dam: A Flashpoint for Federal Overreach Hurting Energy
One of the more egregious examples of this overreach was the Edwards Dam case decided in 1997 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The dispute involved a private dam that generated electricity for the Central Maine Power Company. The Kennebec coalition, an environmental group, argued the dam blocked unique water flow and was a threat to native fish.
Congress had passed a law in 1986 that required FERC to balance power and environment considerations when handling licensing. In other examples of the application of the law, FERC had created conditions upon the license, such as fish passthrough systems. But in the case of Edwards Dam, the FERC denied the license renewal entirely, which triggered the costly decommissioning of the dam.
At the heart of FERC’s decision was the question: Did FERC have the power to unilaterally order the removal of a privately owned dam, and make the owner pay for it, without explicit Congressional approval? FERC decided that it did.
FERC Commissioner Curt Hébert dissented, warning that FERC was setting a dangerous precedent by assuming authority Congress had not explicitly granted. He specifically stated that the energy sector would have to weigh the risk of losing significant investment before it commencing any project.
Commissioner Hébert pointed at the statutory text itself, saying that the process would be to either accept a voluntary surrender of a license or recommend a federal takeover. It did not permit FERC to unilaterally revoke a license while also forcing the owner to pay for the removal, pointing to Congressional history proving that was not Congress’ intent.
How Edwards Dam Shaped Future Policy
Hébert’s warnings were prophetic. The Edwards Dam decision had far-reaching consequences, setting a precedent for prioritizing environmental considerations over hydroelectric production, even in cases where compromise was viable. This shift influenced future dam removal decisions, including the Klamath River Dams as recently as 2024. State and federal agencies also became more willing to pursue dam decommissioning over relicensing, which emboldened environmental groups to push for more dam removals.
Twenty-four years later, in 2024, the Supreme Court thankfully overturned Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The facts were eerily similar. There, the National Marine Fisheries Service, exercising the authority to oversee fishery management, insisted that vessels host and pay for government officials to oversee their fishing practices. Again, an agency took regulatory authority to mean that it could force citizens to pay for their arbitrarily created regulatory enforcement.
The End of Chevron: Administrative Agencies Reined In
With Chevron overturned, the Edwards Dam case would likely have a different result. Courts will no longer automatically defer to agencies like FERC but will instead apply independent judicial review to determine whether regulatory actions align with Congressional intent.
The Supreme Court’s decision to rein in administrative agencies reflects many of the concerns Commissioner Hébert he voiced over twenty-seven years ago. His dissent should serve as a framework for future determinations on agency authority.
What Comes Next?
With Chevron overturned, FERC and other federal agencies may face legal challenges to past regulatory actions and agency growth based on overly broad interpretations of their authority. This is the very risk that President Trump and DOGE are seeking to curtail. As a result, Congress may also need to pass new legislation to provide more precise guidance on administrative decision-making— something it should have been doing all along.
Curtis Schube is the Executive Director for Council to Modernize Governance, a think tank committed to making the administration of government more efficient, representative, and restrained. He is formerly a constitutional and administrative law attorney.
