What Happens If EPA Revokes the Endangerment Finding?<\/h3>\nThe action would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.<\/h2>\n
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of \u00a0the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator\u2019s findings, \u201cEndangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is obvious, of course, that greenhouse gases emitted from sources regulated by the Clean Air Act endanger public health and welfare. \u00a0The science could not be clearer that greenhouse gas emissions have already led the earth to warm \u2014 so much so that it now appears we have breached the 1.5 C limit the global community committed to in the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. We are seeing the effects of climate change on the ground and across the globe in the form of hotter temperatures, \u00a0more frequent drought, more intense flooding, fiercer hurricanes, and \u00a0more intense wildfires,<\/p>\n The science is so strong about the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change that \u00a0the Environmental Protection Agency found \u00a0way back in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em>But as we know, a commitment to science is not a hallmark of the Trump Administration. \u00a0A commitment to the fossil fuel industry is. \u00a0And the consequences of reversing the endangerment finding will decimate EPA\u2019s regulations.<\/p>\n First, some background. \u00a0The Clean Air Act tasks EPA with regulating \u201cpollutants\u201d from numerous sources. \u00a0In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v EPA<\/a> <\/em>that the term pollutant includes the greenhouse gases that are warming the globe. \u00a0It also held that EPA had to make a determination about whether pollutants emitted from cars and trucks endanger public health and welfare. \u00a0In 2009, EPA issued its endangerment finding.<\/p>\n The endangerment finding didn\u2019t just lead to greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. \u00a0 The word \u201cendangerment\u201d is used in other sections of the Clean Air Act too, and, of course, greenhouse gases are \u00a0pollutants under the Act. \u00a0That means that almost all of EPA\u2019s major regulations to cut greenhouse gases are issued under the CAA, including regulations to \u00a0cut emissions from power plants<\/a> and to regulate methane from oil and gas operations<\/a> in addition to rules regulating emissions from light duty vehicles<\/a> (cars and SUVs) and medium and heavy duty trucks<\/a>.<\/p>\n What would lead the Administration to overturn the endangerment finding? \u00a0One obvious reason may be \u00a0simply to raise more havoc \u2014 part of the Administration\u2019s overall strategy to flood the zone \u2014 \u00a0and to \u201cown\u201d the libs. \u00a0And Project 2025 has the endangerment finding in its sights. It calls on the Administrator to \u201cestablish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding.\u201d Updating can really only mean one thing: to overturn it. The head of Trump\u2019s first term EPA transition team \u2014 longtime climate denier Myron Ebell<\/a> \u2014 is also a champion<\/a> of undoing the finding.<\/p>\n If the Administration were to reverse the endangerment finding, greenhouse gases would no longer need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. \u00a0Presumably, EPA would then simply \u00a0move to revoke all of Biden\u2019s major climate rules regulating cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas operations. \u00a0 As Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under President Biden, told Politico<\/a>, recently, \u201ctaking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,\u201d<\/p>\n Whether EPA would follow the same process \u00a0to overturn the endangerment finding that it did when the agency made the the finding \u2014 issuing a proposed finding first, holding public hearings and taking public comment \u2014 is unclear. Process has not been a hallmark of Trump\u2019s first term or this one. \u00a0But if EPA failed to do so it would clearly be sued for failing to follow proper procedure.<\/p>\n Even if the agency followed proper procedure, EPA will be sued on the substance if it overturns the endangerment finding. \u00a0And it should lose in court. The science linking greenhouse gases emitted from all of the sources EPA is currently regulating is overwhelming. \u00a0The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld<\/a> the endangerment finding. But science and law notwithstanding, the Supreme Court is the most anti-environmental court in the modern era. \u00a0Moreover, the majority that decided Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> is long gone. \u00a0John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas all dissented in the case, including on the grounds that greenhouse gases aren\u2019t pollutants under the Clean Air Act. \u00a0As a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, Brett Kavanaugh made his disagreement<\/a> with\u00a0Mass v. EPA\u00a0<\/em> well known. \u00a0It\u2019s hard to imagine Neil Gorsuch disagreeing with his conservative brethren. \u00a0One can imagine a majority of the Court using a case involving the endangerment finding to revisit and overrule\u00a0Mass v EPA.<\/em><\/p>\n But the Project 2025 architects, Myron Ebell, and other climate deniers should perhaps be careful what they wish for. \u00a0 Under current Supreme Court doctrine, \u00a0industry \u00a0is protected from federal common law \u00a0nuisance lawsuits for climate change harms. \u00a0In,AEP v. Connecticut<\/a>, the Court held that states and other plaintiffs couldn\u2019t bring climate nuisance cases against polluters under federal doctrine because the polluters were already subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. \u00a0If the Act no longer covers greenhouse gas emissions, that protection from nuisance cases disappears.<\/p>\n Upending the endangerment finding might also allow states to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. \u00a0The Clean Air Act prohibits<\/a> states from issuing vehicle standards for emissions that are subject to the Act. \u00a0California, of course, \u00a0can regulate \u00a0emissions but it needs EPA permission to do so. \u00a0If greenhouse gases aren\u2019t subject to the Clean Air Act, could states regulate them independently?<\/p>\n If the Administration decides not to overturn the endangerment finding, climate regulations will hardly be safe from attack. \u00a0EPA will still withdraw and replace the Biden regulations with much weaker versions. \u00a0But federal power to regulate will remain in tact and the Administration will be forced to issue regulations that at least plausibly comply with the law. \u00a0If the endangerment finding is upended, the havoc will happen sooner and more sweepingly. \u00a0Either way, though, it\u2019s going to be a long four years.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/legal-planet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/DOJ-2-388x300.png\")
We are likely to \u00a0learn next week if \u00a0the Trump Adminstration will \u00a0eviscerate the most important climate regulations the Biden Administration issued over the last four years. Under Trump\u2019s \u201cUnleashing American Energy<\/a>\u201d Executive Order, \u00a0EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is supposed to recommend by February 19 whether to reverse the central basis for much of the U.S.\u2019s climate policy: \u00a0 a finding<\/a> under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The EO states that:<\/p>\n\n