The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Tuesday a controversial proposal to rescind the landmark legal opinion that forms the basis for nearly all its regulations aimed at combating climate change. This significant move threatens to dismantle existing EPA regulations on greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles, as well as weaken rules that govern power plant emissions and the release of methane from oil and gas companies.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated during a press conference at a truck dealership in Indianapolis that if finalized, this proposal could represent the most extensive deregulatory action in U.S. history. “We do not have that power on our own to decide as an agency that we are going to combat global climate change because we give ourselves that power,” Zeldin explained.
The cornerstone of the EPA's regulatory framework is the 2009 endangerment finding, which concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding provided the legal foundation for regulating these gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The new proposal challenges this foundation, asserting that the Clean Air Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Critics have condemned the proposal as an attack on both scientific consensus and common sense. Zealan Hoover, a former senior adviser to the EPA under President Joe Biden, emphasized the overwhelming evidence presented in the National Climate Assessment, which details how climate change adversely affects public health. “You can ask the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and livelihoods to extreme fires, floods, and storms that are only getting worse,” he added.
Zeldin asserts that the EPA's mission is to balance economic growth with environmental protection, maintaining a commitment to clean air and water. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing almost all U.S. automakers, is currently reviewing the proposal and appears to support a shift in policy. President John Bozzella stated, “There’s no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren’t achievable and should be revised.”
The endangerment finding has long been a target for libertarians and conservatives seeking to roll back regulations perceived as burdensome. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and the Environment at the Heritage Foundation, remarked, “The endangerment finding should be rolled back, because it raises the cost of energy and transportation, disproportionately burdening the poor, farmers, and small businesses.”
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, emphasized the importance of this repeal in solidifying former President Donald Trump’s energy legacy. He pointed out the ongoing cycle of regulatory changes that have occurred with successive administrations. “If the endangerment finding is withdrawn, then undoing it will be much harder for future administrations,” Ebell noted.
Experts have expressed concern that challenging the endangerment finding could lead to legal complications. Richard Revesz, a law professor at New York University, remarked that while the EPA is betting on eliminating a major regulatory hurdle, failure to do so could leave them “empty-handed.”
Kenny Stein, vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, suggested that recent Supreme Court rulings undermine the legal basis of the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which affirmed the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. He speculated that if this matter reached the Supreme Court, the previous ruling could be overruled comprehensively.
The EPA's proposal will enter a 45-day public comment period, after which the agency will review feedback before finalizing the regulation. Zeldin expressed a desire to hear from the public regarding the proposed rescission of the endangerment finding and the regulations surrounding greenhouse gas emissions from light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Environmental advocates are mobilizing to challenge the proposal. David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, indicated the group’s intention to submit comments and potentially litigate if their concerns are not addressed. He argued that the law clearly includes greenhouse gases as air pollutants and that the endangerment finding limits issues to public health rather than broad economic considerations.
If the repeal survives legal challenges, future administrations may find it difficult to address climate change through the Clean Air Act. Doniger warned, “You’re asking the American people who are living through wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and heat domes not to believe their own experiences.” He cautioned that the proposal could lead to a new generation of high-polluting vehicles entering the market, exacerbating existing environmental challenges.
As the debate continues, the implications of the EPA's proposal could shape the future of climate change policy in the United States for years to come.
