EPA moves to end climate regulation under Clean Air Act
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
EPA moves to end climate regulation under Clean Air Act
The Obama administration is set to roll back regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The move would be a blow to the Obama administration’s plan to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. It would also be a boon to the economy, which has been hit hard by climate change. The decision will be made by the end of the year, when the next round of regulations are expected to be issued. The next step is for Congress to vote on whether or not to change the regulations. The Obama administration has said it will not change the rules until after the 2016 presidential election, which is scheduled for November 8. The White House says it will make a decision on the issue in the coming months, and that it will be open to the public for comment on whether the new rules are fair or not. It is the first time in the history of the U.S. that such a decision has been made on a matter of this kind, and it would be the first of its kind in the world of climate change policy.
“If finalized, today’s announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States, ” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said Tuesday at a truck dealership in Indianapolis.
“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.”
The 2009 “endangerment finding” concluded that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, establishing a legal basis to regulate them as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA’s new proposal strikes at this foundation and argues the Clean Air Act does not give the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions.
Advertisement
“This is not just an attack on science but on common sense,” said Zealan Hoover, a former senior adviser to the EPA administrator under President Joe Biden. “The National Climate Assessment provides over 2,000 pages of detailed evidence that climate change harms our health and welfare, but you can also ask the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and livelihoods to extreme fires, floods, and storms that are only getting worse.”
Zeldin said that he aims to balance economic growth with environmental protection and that the EPA remains committed to preserving clean air and water.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group which represents almost all U.S. domestic and foreign automakers, is studying the proposal but broadly supports changing the policy, President John Bozzella said in a statement.
Advertisement
“There’s no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren’t achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions, to keep the auto industry in America competitive, and to keep the industry on a path of vehicle choice and lower emissions,” Bozzella said.
The endangerment finding has long been a target of libertarians and many conservatives seeking to cut back regulations they see as burdensome.
“This is a very expensive regulation,” said Diana Furchtgott‑Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and the Environment at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“The endangerment finding should be rolled back, because right now it is responsible for regulations that raise the cost of energy and raise the cost of transportation, and disproportionately burden the poor, burden farmers, and burden small businesses,” she added.
Advertisement
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, a conservative advocacy group, said that the repeal is key to cementing Trump’s energy legacy.
“Trump undid the Obama regs, and then Biden undid the Trump regs and redid the Obama regs, and now Trump is undoing the Biden regs and redoing them,” said Ebell, who led the transition team for the EPA during Trump’s first administration. “If the endangerment finding is withdrawn, then this ping-pong match will be much harder for a future Democratic administration, or a green Republican president, to undo.”
While the EPA under Zeldin has argued that vehicle regulations rules stemming from the endangerment finding have cost more than $1 trillion, critics say that estimate fails to account for the benefits of avoiding emissions. Under Biden, the agency said that benefits of such regulations would outweigh the costs by $1 trillion through 2055, when including effects like avoided premature deaths and hospital visits from respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
Advertisement
The endangerment finding has been at the center of the political fight over climate change for more than 15 years. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA issued the endangerment finding two years later, and then established carbon limits for vehicles and power plants.
Experts say that going after the endangerment finding is a risky legal move. But if the administration is successful, it would eliminate the key hurdle to implementing Trump’s energy agenda.
“They think this is a holy grail to get rid of the whole thing in one fell swoop as opposed to having to weaken regulations one by one,” said Richard Revesz, law professor at New York University and former administrator of the White House Office of Information Regulatory Affairs. “It’s like betting on this big thing, but if you lose, you end up empty-handed.”
Advertisement
Kenny Stein, vice president for policy at the conservative Institute for Energy Research, said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA made a shaky legal argument and has been undermined by more recent rulings.
A 2022 Supreme Court ruling struck down Obama-era power plant rules, saying that in order for an agency to exercise a broad new authority — such as regulating greenhouse gases — Congress needs to explicitly give it that authority.
“With the massive change in the complexion of the Supreme Court, I think that if the case got to the Supreme Court on this topic, Massachusetts v. EPA would be overruled pretty comprehensively,” Stein said.
The EPA’s proposal now enters a 45-day period for public comments, after which the agency must respond before submitting the final version.
Advertisement
“We want to hear from the American public to finalize a regulation that not only proposes to rescind the endangerment finding, but all greenhouse gas emissions that followed on light, medium and heavy duty vehicles,” Zeldin said.
Revesz said that manufacturers are not likely to stop investing in electric vehicle technology overnight, but he anticipates a marked slowdown after the proposal’s final version is released.
Speakers alongside Zeldin at the announcement in Indiana highlighted the automotive industry as a driver of the state’s economy.
“It’s important to understand that what today truly represents, not just a course correction, but a reaffirmation of common sense government and moving away from regulatory overreach,” Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources Suzanne Jaworowski said.
Advertisement
Environmental groups have vowed to challenge the repeal. David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said his group plans to submit comments and take the EPA to court if they are not addressed.
“The law unambiguously includes greenhouse gases as air pollutants, and the law unambiguously makes it clear that the endangerment and contribution findings limit that to public health and science issues, not to broad economic and policy issues,” Doniger said. “When they assert the opposite, they will lose.”
Doniger said that EPA’s rule could have long-term impacts, even if it does not hold up in court. At a minimum there will be “another generation of dirty cars put on the road” as companies offer more high-polluting cars while the issue is being litigated.
Advertisement
If the repeal does survive court challenges, it would leave future administrations unable to address climate change using the Clean Air Act.