Environmental Advocates Rally Against Trump’s Plans to Undermine EPA’s Ability to Fight Climate Chan
Environmental Advocates Rally Against Trump’s Plans to Undermine EPA’s Ability to Fight Climate Change

Environmental Advocates Rally Against Trump’s Plans to Undermine EPA’s Ability to Fight Climate Change

How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.

Diverging Reports Breakdown

Trump’s EPA now says greenhouse gases don’t endanger people

The EPA has crafted a proposal that would undo the government’s “endangerment finding” The finding has long served as the foundation for a host of policies and rules to address climate change. The move could still be overturned by courts. But if the decision is upheld, it would speed President Trump’s efforts to end former President Biden’s ambitious climate agenda and make it more difficult for future administrations to limit greenhouse gas pollution that’s heating the planet.”Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” he said in a speech in April. “This is simply a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry and an attempt to undo pollution standards,” says Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Read full article ▼
Trump’s EPA now says greenhouse gases don’t endanger people

toggle caption Jose Luis Magana/AP

The Trump administration wants to overturn a key 2009 Environmental Protection Agency finding that underpins much of the federal government’s actions to rein in climate change.

The EPA has crafted a proposal that would undo the government’s “endangerment finding,” a determination that pollutants from burning fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide and methane, can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The finding has long served as the foundation for a host of policies and rules to address climate change. The EPA’s proposal to revoke the finding is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Sponsor Message

Already, environmentalists, climate advocates and others are bracing for what could be a fundamental shift away from trying to address the problem of a hotter climate. And the Trump administration is celebrating the proposal as a potential economic win.

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in announcing the proposal in March. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”

The administration’s effort comes in the wake of the hottest year humans have ever recorded on Earth, climate-fueled wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes in Los Angeles and hotter ocean temperatures that made Hurricane Helene stronger and more likely to cause damage inland.

The move could still be overturned by courts. But if the decision is upheld, it would speed President Trump’s efforts to end former President Biden’s ambitious climate agenda and make it more difficult for future administrations to limit the human-caused greenhouse gas pollution that’s heating the planet.

Repealing a cornerstone of U.S. climate action

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order asking the EPA administrator to submit recommendations “on the legality and continuing applicability” of the EPA’s endangerment finding.

Sponsor Message

In 2007, the Supreme Court found in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Then, in 2009 during the Obama administration, the EPA declared greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were a hazard to people.

“This long-overdue finding cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the decision.

The endangerment finding is the basis for rules regulating climate pollution from coal and gas-fired power plants, car and truck exhaust and methane from the oil and gas industry.

“The Trump administration’s intent is clear: They want to undermine or overturn the endangerment finding so as to evade EPA’s legal responsibility to address the harms caused by climate change,” says Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This is simply a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry and an attempt to undo pollution standards to limit heat-trapping emissions from motor vehicles, from power plants, [and] from oil and gas operations.”

The EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed the 2009 endangerment finding. In 2022, Congress included language in the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. That makes abandoning the finding more difficult.

But if the administration succeeds, that would make it easier to accomplish President Trump’s other priorities, such as eliminating greenhouse gas limits on coal and gas power plants.

In June, the Trump administration announced plans to repeal all limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. In proposing the change, the EPA argues that pollution from U.S. power plants is a small part of global emissions and is declining. The agency claims eliminating climate pollution from these facilities would have little effect on people’s health.

Sponsor Message

What the Trump administration is arguing now

On Jan. 20, Trump declared a “national energy emergency” and signed his Unleashing American Energy executive order. These contribute to the president’s broader push to redirect the federal government away from former President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and toward an even deeper embrace of fossil fuels.

Trump wrote in his order that the goal is to “restore American prosperity” and, as he said in his inauguration speech, “We will drill, baby, drill.”

The Trump administration argues that the EPA, under then-President Barack Obama, established the endangerment finding in “a flawed and unorthodox way” and “did not stick to the letter of the Clean Air Act.”

In seeking to reverse the endangerment finding, the Trump EPA is making a legal argument that previous administrators overstepped their legal authority and “imposed trillions of dollars of costs on Americans.” The agency repeats past Republican arguments that the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision “explicitly did not hold that EPA was required to regulate these emissions from these sources.” And the EPA argues that more recent Supreme Court decisions raise further questions about the legality of the 2009 endangerment finding.

Environmental groups instead see a proposal designed to benefit fossil fuel companies, who Trump courted during the campaign.

“By revoking this key scientific finding our government is putting fealty to Big Oil over sound science and people’s health,” Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign wrote in a statement. “These proposals are a giant gift to oil companies that will do real damage to people, wildlife and future generations.”

In 2024, Trump suggested oil executives should raise $1 billion for his presidential bid because he would roll back environmental rules.

A long legal battle is ahead

Critics who cast doubt on the scientific consensus behind climate change see an opportunity to eliminate a decision they have long opposed.

Sponsor Message

“Since the 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA has been trying to regulate greenhouse gases and as a result trying to control large portions of the economy,” Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which advocates for regulatory reform on various policy issues, wrote in an email to NPR. He specifically points to rules limiting climate pollution from power plants and from cars and trucks.

Bakst calls the potential harms in the 2009 endangerment finding “speculative at best” and echoes an argument many conservatives make, saying, “Even if the United States eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, it would have little to no measurable effect on global temperatures.”

The U.S. is the largest historical emitter of man-made climate pollution and, under the Paris climate agreement, has agreed to contribute to the global effort to reduce emissions and limit warming. Trump has signed a directive to have the U.S. withdraw from that agreement.

If the EPA finds the 2009 endangerment finding is no longer applicable, Bakst says that “would preclude future greenhouse gas regulations.” And he says “it should be easy to repeal existing rules that are predicated on the 2009 finding.”

But that could still be years from now. There will be a public comment period, rulemaking processes and legal challenges the Trump administration would have to overcome first.

Source: Npr.org | View original article

EPA’s Zeldin emerges as Project 2025 frontman

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a deregulatory blitz last week, targeting over a dozen rules. The policies are in lockstep with President Donald Trump’s plan to “power the great American comeback,” lower the cost of cars and slash federal spending. The actions also closely mirror Project 2025, the conservative blueprint from the Heritage Foundation that Trump once claimed to know nothing about.Environmental advocates said they aren’t surprised to see the blueprint taking shape at the agency. Trump claimed in September 2024 that he had not read Project 2025 and did not know who was behind it. Over 150 people who contributed to the project worked in Trump’s first administration, on his 2016 campaign or on his transition team, according to a tally from The New York Times last year. The EPA chapter was written by Mandy Gunasekara, who did not respond to a request for an interview and is not currently at EPA. Other EPA chapter contributors have taken on key posts with the new administration, including the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Read full article ▼
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has launched a brazen assault on regulations, canceled environmental grants and eliminated the agency’s environmental justice wing — all in less than two months.

The policies are in lockstep with President Donald Trump’s plan to “power the great American comeback,” lower the cost of cars and slash federal spending, Zeldin has said.

The actions also closely mirror Project 2025, the conservative blueprint from the Heritage Foundation that Trump once claimed to know nothing about.

Advertisement

Zeldin announced a deregulatory blitz last week, targeting over a dozen rules on water pollution, air quality and planet-warming emissions. He also said EPA would reconsider a 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment, one of many recommendations in Project 2025.

But while an EPA spokesperson said Zeldin has not read Project 2025, environmental advocates said they aren’t surprised to see the blueprint taking shape at the agency.

“During the election, Trump tried to distance himself from Project 2025, which was very unpopular among voters for being so extreme and so focused on polluter interests,” said Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters. “We’re now seeing the Trump administration and some of the very authors of Project 2025 implementing those changes.”

Project 2025 is a 900-plus-page guide for overhauling U.S. policy, promoting conservative ideas, gutting the federal workforce and expanding presidential powers.

Over 150 people who contributed to the project worked in Trump’s first administration, on his 2016 campaign or on his transition team, according to a tally from The New York Times last year.

The blueprint’s EPA chapter was written by Mandy Gunasekara, who was chief of staff at the agency during Trump’s first term. She did not respond to a request for an interview and is not currently at EPA.

Other EPA chapter contributors have taken on key posts with the new administration.

Aaron Szabo is Trump’s nominee for assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation and has been working as a senior adviser to Zeldin since January; Scott Mason IV is regional administrator for the South Central U.S.; and Justin Schwab is general counsel for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Project 2025 contributor Russell Vought is now leading the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The appointments are notable given Trump’s attempt to distance himself from Project 2025 when it seemed like a political liability last year. Two polls from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and NBC News released in October and September, respectively, found that most people surveyed had a negative view of the blueprint.

Trump claimed in September 2024 that he had not read Project 2025 and did not know who was behind it.

Now, EPA policies mirroring Project 2025 ideas have come in response to Trump’s executive orders on fossil fuels, regulations and diversity. Other changes — such as a hiring freeze and the dismissal of probationary employees — are happening at the direction of Vought, said Barry Rabe, a professor of environmental policy at the University of Michigan.

“The EPA role is significant here, but so is that of OMB and its leader,” Rabe said. “For all the focus on Elon Musk and DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency] and individual agency actions, it also strikes me that OMB — created in the Nixon administration — is kind of reaching an unprecedented level of authority over other agencies and is in a central position.”

Within weeks of landing at EPA, Zeldin placed 171 staff working on “diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility and environmental justice” on administrative leave.

Last week, EPA went a step further, eliminating the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Project 2025 explicitly called for getting rid of that office, which was set up to help reduce environmental hazards in low-income communities and enforce civil rights laws.

Zeldin has said the office was contrary to EPA’s “core mission” of protecting human health and the environment.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers dismissed the similarities between EPA’s actions and Project 2025.

“No one cared about Project 2025 when they elected President Trump in November 2024, and they don’t care now,” Rogers said in an email. “President Trump is implementing the America First agenda he campaigned on to free up wasteful DEI spending for cutting-edge scientific research, roll back radical climate regulations, and restore America’s energy dominance.”

Regulatory rollbacks and grant holds

Kristen Eichamer holds a Project 2025 fan at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 14, 2023, in Des Moines, Iowa. | Charlie Neibergall/AP

EPA’s plans to weaken greenhouse gas reporting requirements, roll back California’s car emissions standards and change the chemical review process all echo Project 2025 ideas.

On Feb. 14, Zeldin announced that EPA would allow Congress to review and potentially end a group of California’s regulations, including one that would phase out the sale of most new internal-combustion cars by 2035. Project 2025 suggests revoking California’s ability to write its own car-pollution rules, even though that authority is in the text of the Clean Air Act.

A separate proposal announced by Zeldin to roll back federal regulations on car and truck emissions also tracks with Project 2025 goals.

“The American auto industry has been hamstrung by the crushing regulatory regime of the last administration,” Zeldin said in announcing that change.

Overhauling how EPA reviews new chemicals is also on the Project 2025 wish list. The blueprint called for redoing the Biden administration’s landmark ban on asbestos and other widespread carcinogens.

Zeldin said last week that the agency would reconsider the chemical risk framework, signaling a shift back toward the first Trump term’s strategy to assess chemicals based on uses instead of determining when a chemical poses unreasonable risks.

In an extraordinary action that could open the door for EPA to take down other regulations, Zeldin also announced that the agency would revisit the endangerment finding.

The announcement was an about-face for EPA. During the first Trump administration, the agency rejected a petition to overturn the finding, which was based on decades of scientific research on climate change.

The shift under Zeldin’s watch earned a statement of praise from the Heritage Foundation.

“In 2025, more is known about the science behind climate change, and it’s high time to take another look at the data,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the think tank, said in a news release.

An EPA spokesperson said the agency’s deregulatory efforts would protect human health and the environment and strengthen the nation’s economy.

“Every action this agency took on the most consequential day of deregulation in American history were geared toward making it more affordable for Americans to heat their homes, put gas in their cars, and lower cost of living,” the spokesperson said.

Aside from regulatory changes, Zeldin has also tried to cancel federally contracted grants to environmental nonprofits that were awarded by the Biden administration.

He has claimed that the money — tied to the Inflation Reduction Act — was given out without guardrails to protect taxpayers and accused grant recipients of having ties to Democrats. A judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked EPA from terminating the grants.

“It’s a green slush fund,” Zeldin said on Fox News this month, referring to the climate-focused Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. “It’s going to people that were in the Obama and Biden administration, it’s going to donors, and it’s not going directly to remediate that environmental issue to deliver clean air, land and water.”

The focus on grants is another idea discussed in Project 2025. The guidebook suggests that EPA stop distributing grants to nonprofits, pause grants “over a certain threshold” and ensure money goes to organizations “focused on tangible environmental improvements free from political affiliation.”

“This is probably an example of the spirit of Project 2025,” said James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, a left-leaning think tank. “It’s like every few days, we get this new [EPA] press release, ‘We’ve canceled 400 grants.’”

The parallels between EPA actions and Project 2025 have caught the attention of some House Democrats. Last month, two Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee accused EPA of carrying out the “radical agenda laid out in Project 2025” and demanded answers on the agency’s firing of career staff and enforcement of environmental laws.

Workforce cuts

A person walks past EPA’s headquarters on March 12 in Washington. | Mark Schiefelbein/AP

At the direction of Vought and the Office of Management and Budget, agencies have been instructed to submit plans to cut back on staffing levels.

EPA’s plan, according to a copy leaked by House Democrats this week, proposed eliminating the Office of Research and Development and firing up to 1,155 scientists and researchers who work there.

Agency research and science was heavily discussed in Project 2025. The plan described the research office as “precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.”

It also proposed cutting programs within the office and giving political appointees more oversight of EPA science and research.

Eliminating ORD would be “probably beyond what Project 2025 hoped for or called for,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the former acting assistant administrator of the office who retired in 2021.

“If they move forward, and it’s not coordinated or given approval by Congress, it’s violating a lot of our regular norms about how government operates,” Orme-Zavaleta said.

EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told POLITICO’s E&E News that no final decisions had been made about the office and that the agency was “actively listening to employees at all levels” about potential staff cuts.

Gutting the office would undermine EPA’s mission of protecting health and the environment, Orme-Zavaleta said. ORD conducts research on climate change, chemical hazards, toxic algal blooms and many other topics of importance to both states and federal agencies.

Myron Ebell, chair of the American Lands Council and a member of Trump’s transition team in 2016, said EPA will need to quickly get its political nominees confirmed in order to carry out its agenda.

The agency will face resistance on its agenda from career staffers, who are “not happy with these efforts,” he said.

“I really liked how Zeldin rolled out and made a big splash with these regulatory efforts, but the problem is they don’t have the manpower at EPA to figure out how to do these things,” Ebell said.

Project 2025 discussed federal workforce issues at length, calling on the next president to take steps to fire career civil servants across government. That process is already underway, with Trump having signed an executive order in January that gives agencies 90 days to submit recommendations on career positions that could potentially be reassigned or removed.

“You can draw a straight line from Project 2025 to a lot of things,” said Ryan Hathaway, director of the environment and climate justice program at Lawyers for Good Government. “They want to hamstring the federal government’s ability to provide civil servants a chance to do their job.”

Ebell said EPA’s actions so far are more about undoing Biden administration policies than following Project 2025. Much of what’s in the blueprint has been supported by Republican lawmakers and industry groups for years, he noted.

“There’s just an awful lot of overlap between what’s in Project 2025’s recommendations and what are generally the recommendations in the larger conservative world,” Ebell said.

A notable exception, he added, is the endangerment finding, which Project 2025 explicitly proposed updating.

“That’s big, and it was not on the table in Trump 1,” Ebell said.

Contact the reporter at mirandawillson.99.

Reporters Mike Lee and Ellie Borst contributed.

Source: Eenews.net | View original article

EPA says it will roll back climate rules. That could prove complicated

EPA says it will roll back climate rules. That could prove complicated. NPR takes readers behind the news and explains how we do our journalism. Neela Banerjee is NPR’s chief climate editor. The impact of EPA’s vision will play out in Washington, the courts and ultimately, in communities. NPR will continue to report on what all that means for human health, the climate and the broader environment. The EPA has to publish what its new rule will look like–a “proposed rule” EPA then seeks public comment on the rule and responds to that feedback.

Read full article ▼
EPA says it will roll back climate rules. That could prove complicated

toggle caption Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images

In this series, NPR takes readers behind the news and explains how we do our journalism. Neela Banerjee is NPR’s chief climate editor.

The Environmental Protection Agency just announced plans to reconsider 31 rules and policies that largely address climate change or aim to reduce pollution from burning fossil fuels. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it as “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.”

But announcing big changes to environmental rules doesn’t undo facts on the ground overnight. EPA provided no details about whether it plans to weaken rules or get rid of them , as NPR reported. Instead, EPA’s announcement is the first step in what is likely to be a lengthy process to remake the rules and policies it targeted.

Sponsor Message

President Trump has called climate change a hoax and railed against wind turbines, energy efficiency standards and electric vehicles. He signed an executive order that halted billions of dollars to a vast range of climate and environmental projects under the previous administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The impact of that move was felt immediately: community groups and corporations alike found their grant money frozen, leading to stalled projects and layoffs.

Amending federal rules and regulations is different — changes are likely to be felt over a much longer time horizon.. That’s because the foundational environmental laws of the country prescribe a process for making and unmaking rules. The EPA has to publish what its new rule will look like–a “proposed rule. EPA then seeks public comment on the rule and responds to that feedback. It also must get input from other federal agencies that might be affected by the changes EPA proposes. Industry and advocates have an opportunity to weigh in. The process takes months, if not longer, before a final rule is issued.

If the Trump administration tries to short-circuit these processes, its critics will likely sue and the courts could rule against EPA on process grounds. In any event, environmental advocates are likely to sue the regulator on most, if not all, the announced changes. That could further slow things down.

Sponsor Message

Another variable is the administration’s plan to slash EPA’s staff and spending. Changing rules in a way that survives court challenges takes specialized staff. But cuts loom for EPA at a time when it has pledged to move simultaneously to redo 31 rules and policies, a huge lift regardless of staffing.

The impact of EPA’s vision will play out in Washington, the courts and ultimately, in communities. NPR will continue to report on what all that means for human health, the climate and the broader environment.

Source: Npr.org | View original article

EPA announces dozens of environmental regulations it plans to target

EPA announces plans to target more than two dozen rules and policies. Agency calls it the “most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history” EPA didn’t provide details about what it wants to do with the regulations. Any effort by the EPA to rollback environmental rules will almost certainly face legal challenges.”This EPA is planning to take a wrecking ball to environmental law as we know it,” says legal director of Center for Biological Diversity. the EPA says it’s reconsidering rules that apply to things like climate pollution from vehicles, power plants, wastewater from coal plants and air pollution from the energy and manufacturing sectors. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion,” says EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a news release. “The result will be more toxic chemicals, more cancers, more asthma attacks, and more dangers for pregnant women and their children,” says Environmental Defense Fund executive director Amanda Leland. “This EPA wants to move with a speed that we have not often seen,” Rylander says.

Read full article ▼
EPA announces dozens of environmental regulations it plans to target

toggle caption Ting Shen/AFP/Getty Images

The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to target more than two dozen rules and policies in what the agency called the “most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.”

The EPA didn’t provide details about what it wants to do with the regulations — whether it will try to weaken them or eliminate them entirely. In most cases, the agency said it is reconsidering rules that apply to things like climate pollution from vehicles and power plants, wastewater from coal plants and air pollution from the energy and manufacturing sectors.

Sponsor Message

The list the agency put out is a “roadmap” of the regulations it will try to roll back in the coming year, says Jason Rylander, legal director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

“This EPA is planning to take a wrecking ball to environmental law as we know it,” he says. “The intent appears to be to neuter EPA’s ability to address climate change and to limit air pollution that affects public health.”

The EPA said in an email to NPR that it doesn’t have additional information to share about its plans for changing or repealing environmental regulations.

“We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news release.

Rylander says the agency didn’t have to release a list of rules it plans to challenge. “But they’ve made clear that they intend to start that process,” he says.

Overhauling federal environmental regulations requires a so-called rulemaking process that usually takes a couple of years, Rylander says.

“But we’ve seen that this administration wants to move with a speed that we have not often seen,” he adds. “I suspect that you’ll start seeing proposed rules coming out on each of these in the coming weeks.”

Sponsor Message

Any effort by the EPA to rollback environmental rules will almost certainly face legal challenges.

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin today announced plans for the greatest increase in pollution in decades,” Amanda Leland, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “The result will be more toxic chemicals, more cancers, more asthma attacks, and more dangers for pregnant women and their children. Rather than helping our economy, it will create chaos.”

Leland said her group “will vigorously oppose Administrator Zeldin’s unlawful attack on the public health of the American people that seeks to tear down life-saving clean air standards – putting millions of people in harm’s way.”

EPA says it’s reconsidering rules for power plant emissions

The EPA says it will reconsider rules finalized under the Biden administration that limit climate pollution from power plants.

Power plants are the second biggest source of planet-heating greenhouse gasses behind transportation, according to the EPA. Under the regulations, existing coal and new natural gas-fired power plants that run more than 40% of the time would have to eliminate 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions, the main driver of global warming.

The rules followed a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that limited the EPA’s options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources. So, instead, the EPA under the Biden administration created regulations governing individual power plants.

When the new rules were finalized last year, Manish Bapna, chief executive of the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicted they would “drive up investment, innovation, and good jobs in the clean energy economy of the future” and give industry the certainty it “needs to meet growing demand in the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable way possible.”

However, some in the utility industry warned the restrictions would threaten electric reliability.

Sponsor Message

“The path outlined by the EPA today is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable,” Jim Matheson, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in a statement at the time.

Zeldin said in a news release on Wednesday that the EPA is “seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.”

Pollution from cars and trucks is also on EPA’s list

President Trump has made it a priority to roll back the Biden administration’s multi-pronged push supporting the transition to electric vehicles. Changing EPA standards limiting air pollution from vehicle tailpipes is a crucial part of that agenda.

Former president Barack Obama toughened fuel economy and EPA vehicle emission standards. During Trump’s first term, automakers had lobbied for looser rules, but were caught off guard by how dramatically Trump rolled them back. The next few years were chaotic; some automakers struck a voluntary deal with California to keep meeting their stricter rules, even if it wasn’t legally necessary.

Under the Biden administration, the standards grew stricter over time with rules designed to accelerate a transition to EVs. The current EPA standards do not mandate a certain number of EVs, but they set emissions rules so strict that automakers would essentially have to manufacture a large portion of vehicles without emissions — as much as two thirds of the vehicles sold by 2032 — in order to meet the rules.

With EV sales growth slowing, some automakers have wondered if that is still feasible and called for the rules to be adjusted. But the industry is also frustrated with the whipsawing of regulations back and forth, which makes it difficult to plan future products. In a statement Wednesday, the trade group representing automakers called for a “balanced approach.”

Environmental and public health groups support the more aggressive standards, which reduce pollution that causes asthma and heart disease as well as fighting climate change. So do consumer advocacy groups: the EPA had also estimated the new rules could save drivers up to a trillion dollars in gasoline over the life of the rules. But many critics, including the oil industry, have said the rules undermine consumer choice by favoring EVs.

Sponsor Message

EPA says it’s rethinking whether climate pollution endangers public health

Underlying a lot of the EPA’s actions on climate change is a 2009 determination that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane threaten public health. The EPA now says it will reconsider that so-called endangerment finding, as well as actions the agency took that were based on the determination.

Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in an email to NPR that the EPA has used the endangerment finding to try to “control large portions of the economy.”

If the EPA determines that the endangerment finding is no longer applicable, Bakst says it “would preclude future greenhouse gas regulations.” It could also pave the way to repeal some existing rules, he says.

However, environmental groups say it won’t be easy for the EPA to scrap its determination that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. The science showing the warming impact of those emissions has only gotten stronger since the Supreme Court authorized the agency in 2007 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it finds that they contribute to climate change.

“The state of climate science has evolved significantly since the endangerment finding first came out,” says Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I can’t imagine anyone being able to conclude, on the basis of current science, that greenhouse gas pollution does not affect climate and public health. So I’m somewhat baffled that they think they’re going to be able to eliminate it and have that stand up in court.”

Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agrees.

“We’re seeing climate related disasters mount catastrophically,” Cleetus says. “We’ve seen loss of life from wildfires and extremely intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts. We’re seeing so much economic damage from these kinds of extreme climate related disasters.”

Sponsor Message

The utility industry has also raised concerns about getting rid of the endangerment finding. In a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a group that represents electric utilities, said allowing the EPA to regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency’s authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said. “This would be chaos.”

The EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed the endangerment finding, and in 2022, Congress included language in the Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Conrad Schneider, senior director for the U.S. at the Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement: “This signal to deregulate air pollution is diametrically opposed to the obligation the EPA has to protect public health.”

Source: Npr.org | View original article

Trump’s EPA deepens environmental rollback with delays, deregulation, and industry favoritism

Environmental advocates warn the consequences will be severe, particularly for low-income and majority-Black communities already bearing the brunt of pollution from the coal industry. The rollback of coal ash cleanup regulations is just one facet of the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory agenda. In recent weeks, the EPA has taken steps to undermine or reverse foundational environmental safeguards, including a proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases. In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described his intent to dismantle the finding as “the most consequential day of deregulation in American history,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The White House is trying to turn back the clock and re-litigate both the science and the law, a New York Times professor told The New Yorktimes. The EPA is planning to revoke or rewrite the Endangersment Finding, a foundational 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This scientific and legal determination underpins the EPA”s authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act.

Read full article ▼
On July 19, the Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump announced a significant delay in enforcing Biden-era rules designed to monitor and clean up toxic coal ash pollution. The decision, which pushes compliance deadlines for utility companies by at least one year, marks another in a series of sweeping rollbacks by Trump’s second-term EPA—this time affecting regulations tied to public health, climate, and pesticide oversight. Environmental advocates warn the consequences will be severe, particularly for low-income and majority-Black communities already bearing the brunt of pollution from the coal industry.

The rollback of coal ash cleanup regulations is just one facet of the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory agenda. In recent weeks, the EPA has taken steps to undermine or reverse foundational environmental safeguards, including a proposal to repeal the agency’s landmark 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases, and a move to re-approve dicamba, a controversial herbicide twice banned by federal courts due to its extensive crop and ecosystem damage.

Coal ash crisis: Delayed action with lasting harm

Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion at power plants, contains at least 17 toxic substances—including arsenic, mercury, lead, and selenium—that can contaminate groundwater and surface water. Despite these dangers, coal ash is not regulated as hazardous waste in the United States.

In February 2014, one of the worst coal ash disasters in U.S. history occurred when a leak at a retired Duke Energy power plant in Eden, North Carolina, released nearly 40,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of toxic wastewater into the Dan River. The spill coated riverbanks with gray sludge and contaminated the water supply for thousands of residents in North Carolina and Virginia.

The Obama administration responded by finalizing the first federal coal ash disposal rules in 2015. These guidelines aimed to prevent contamination by requiring utilities to line coal ash ponds and monitor groundwater. However, the rule failed to cover inactive facilities, and enforcement under Trump’s first term was lax. The Biden administration expanded the rule in 2023 to apply to all coal ash landfills and required utilities to report contamination by February 2026, install groundwater monitoring systems by May 2028, and begin drafting remediation plans where necessary.

Those requirements are now on hold. With the new extension, utilities have another year before needing to comply with even the most basic reporting and monitoring measures. “One more year of hazardous contaminants getting into the groundwater, and the more chemicals that get into the groundwater, the more difficult and expensive it is to remediate,” said Lisa Evans, senior counsel at Earthjustice.

The burden of this contamination falls disproportionately on communities of color and low-income residents. According to a 2019 NAACP report, while Black people make up only 15 percent of the national population, 78 percent live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. In Kentucky—one of the top coal ash-producing states—86 percent of coal ash sites are located in low-income communities, communities of color, or both. During Trump’s first term, the state’s utility companies failed to comply with EPA rules, and state authorities did not enforce them.

On March 12, Trump’s EPA announced plans to “work with state partners to place implementation of the coal ash regulations more fully into state hands,” a move critics say will further weaken oversight and allow states with poor enforcement records to sidestep federal cleanup obligations.

Undermining climate law: The endangerment finding under threat

Just three days after the coal ash delay was announced, news emerged that the EPA is planning to revoke or rewrite the Endangerment Finding—a foundational 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This scientific and legal determination underpins the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act.

“They’re trying to completely defang the Clean Air Act by saying, ‘Well, this stuff’s just not dangerous.’ That claim is just mind-bogglingly contrary to the evidence,” said David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, appointed by Trump in January, has signaled his intent to dismantle the finding. In March, he described the move as “the most consequential day of deregulation in American history.”

Environmental law professor Vicki Arroyo told The New York Times, “The White House is trying to turn back the clock and re-litigate both the science and the law.”

The attempt to reverse the Endangerment Finding comes amid worsening climate indicators. A report from the Copernicus Climate Change Service and the World Meteorological Organization confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record since measurements began in 1850. Each of the past ten years ranks among the ten warmest years observed. The connection between greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather—floods, wildfires, heatwaves—is well-established.

Moreover, the health risks are not limited to climate. A 2021 study estimated that fossil fuel pollution was responsible for nearly one in five deaths worldwide, highlighting the urgency of emissions regulation from both an environmental and public health perspective.

Dicamba re-approval: Courts defied, lobbyists empowered

In another controversial decision, the Trump EPA announced its intention to re-approve dicamba for use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans, despite two prior federal court rulings against its registration due to widespread crop damage from drift.

Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, stated, “EPA has had seven long years of massive drift damage to learn that dicamba cannot be used safely with GE dicamba-resistant crops. If we allow these proposed decisions to go through, farmers and residents throughout rural America will again see their crops, trees, and home gardens decimated by dicamba drift, and natural areas like wildlife refuges will also suffer.”

The EPA claims proposed mitigation steps—including temperature restrictions and drift reduction agents—will minimize environmental harm. But critics say the agency is ignoring clear legal and scientific precedent in favor of industry interests.

“Trump’s EPA is hitting new heights of absurdity by planning to greenlight a pesticide that’s caused the most extensive drift damage in U.S. agricultural history and twice been thrown out by federal courts,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This is what happens when pesticide oversight is controlled by industry lobbyists. Corporate fat cats get their payday and everyone else suffers the consequences.”

The timing of the re-approval also raises questions. Less than a month before the decision, Kyle Kunkler—a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association (ASA), a vocal dicamba supporter—was appointed Deputy Assistant Administrator for pesticides in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Kunkler previously lobbied against restrictions on farm chemicals like glyphosate and atrazine.

“The appointment of Kyle Kunkler sends a loud, clear message: Industry influence is back in charge at the EPA,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. “It’s a stunning reversal of the campaign promises Trump and RFK Jr. made to their MAHA followers—that they’d stand up to chemical giants and protect children from dangerous pesticides.”

A coordinated rollback with deep industry ties

Evidence suggests that the Trump administration’s recent actions are part of a coordinated response to utility and energy company lobbying. In January 2025, just before Trump’s inauguration, a coalition of power companies sent a letter to incoming EPA Administrator Zeldin calling for the reversal of coal ash and greenhouse gas emissions rules.

“The new Administration should decline to defend these unlawful rules and should seek their immediate rescission,” the letter read. “Swift action by the incoming Trump Administration is needed to reverse EPA’s regulatory overreach and to support critical energy production and development at U.S. power plants.” A senior vice president at Duke Energy—linked to the Dan River disaster—was among the signatories.

Since taking office, the administration has delivered on those requests. In addition to delaying coal ash cleanup, the EPA extended deadlines for reducing toxic emissions from nearly 70 coal-fired power plants and fast-tracked the development of new coal mines, including mining on federal lands, under the justification of an “energy emergency.”

Despite the aggressive rollback, environmental advocates believe that Trump’s efforts to revive the coal industry are unlikely to succeed long-term. “Trump tried and failed to bail out the coal industry during his first term in office,” wrote Christy Walsh, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Given the realities of the market, whatever he tries to do this time should fail as well.… Instead of trying to prop up the fuels of the last century, this administration should be working to build the grid needed for the 21st century.”

Source: Nationofchange.org | View original article

Source: https://news.wttw.com/2025/07/28/environmental-advocates-rally-against-trump-s-plans-undermine-epa-s-ability-fight

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *