EPA is proposing to rescind its 2009 endangerment finding, which qualifies greenhouse gases as pollutants and has been used by Democratic presidential administrations to regulate emissions from power plants and other sources.
The rescission, if finalized, would repeal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from all motor vehicles and engines, the agency said. “However, EPA intends to retain, without modification, regulations necessary for criteria pollutant and air toxic measurement and standards, Corporate Average Fuel Economy testing and associated fuel economy labeling requirements,” it said.
“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.”
The endangerment finding came from the Supreme Court’s decision in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court sided with the state when it sued the agency to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. Prior to the ruling, carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant under the law.
EPA’s latest proposal calls the endangerment finding “unprecedented,” saying it interpreted the CAA as authorizing the regulation of domestic emissions from new motor vehicles and engines based on global climate change concerns “rather than air pollution that endangers public health or welfare through local or regional exposure.” The agency has already proposed repealing the Biden administration’s attempt to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions. (See EPA Proposes Repealing Limits on Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)
The proposal also says the Supreme Court “did not require the agency to find that GHGs are subject to regulation under CAA Section 202(a) and does not support our implementation of the statute since 2009.”
The agency says the proposal would save $54 billion annually by repealing all of the GHG standards.
Recent Supreme Court decisions like West Virginia v. EPA — which found the agency could not regulate power plant emissions through generation-shifting mechanisms, as was proposed by the Obama administration in its Clean Power Plan — and Loper Bright v. Raimondo — which ended the doctrine of deference to agencies in statute interpretations, known as Chevron deference — provided the basis for EPA’s proposal.
But the courts have upheld Massachusetts in the 18 years since it was issued, National Wildlife Federation Director for Legal Advocacy Jim Murphy said on a call with reporters.
“I think that EPA is on very shaky ground here, on both the science and the law,” Murphy said. “It would remove the obligation for EPA to take action to curb greenhouse gasses, and that’s just not efforts like the Clean Power Plan or other attempts to regulate emissions from power plants, but it could affect things like methane emissions from oil and gas production and a whole host of other efforts that EPA has taken.”
The move is certainly going to be challenged in court, assuming EPA concludes its rulemaking and finalizes its proposal, and Murphy said he hoped it would be overturned.
The Department of Energy was involved in the EPA action, producing a report called “A Critical Review of Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” that reviewed literature and government data on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.
“The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told — relentlessly — that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a statement. “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy.”
The House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition, a group of Democratic representatives who support climate policies, criticized EPA in a statement, saying the scientific consensus is overwhelming.
“Climate change is already wreaking havoc across America,” the SEEC said. “By ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus, contradicting the clear statutory language in the Clean Air Act and overriding repeated Supreme Court rulings, EPA has revealed today just how far it will go to be every polluter’s ally.”
Posting on X, LS Power CEO Paul Segal argued that EPA’s effort to withdraw the endangerment finding should not matter to his sector.
“I don’t think this matters for the power generation industry,” Segal said. “Investors need to expect political volatility (We’re living it!) and plan for the worst case — whatever that might be for the investment you are making.”
Union of Concerned Scientists President Gretchen Goldman said the administration is using the “kitchen sink approach” to avoid complying with the law.
“But getting around the Clean Air Act won’t be easy,” she said. “The science establishing climate harms to human health was unequivocally clear back in 2009, and more than 15 years later, the evidence has only accumulated. Communities across the nation are having to cope with deadly heat waves, accelerating sea level rise, worsening wildfires and floods, increased heavy rainfall, and more intense and damaging storms. Burning fossil fuels has made the climate increasingly unstable and dangerous for people.”
