Dive Brief:
- Public health and environmental groups on Wednesday sued the Environmental Protection Agency for rescinding the Obama-era endangerment finding and “illegally” determining that the agency is not responsible for regulating climate pollution.
- The 2009 endangerment finding concluded that six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — pose a threat to public health and welfare and thus had to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
- The EPA’s rollback last week also effectively repealed federal greenhouse gas emissions standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012-2027 and beyond.
Dive Insight:
In their lawsuit filed against the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin, the plaintiffs alleged that rescinding the endangerment finding was both illegal and dangerous.
“People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, distinguished counsel and associate vice president of clean air strategies at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “The Trump EPA’s action tramples mountains of scientific evidence, ignores the law, and is fundamentally at odds with EPA’s core responsibility to protect us from dangerous pollution.”
Georges Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association, said the administration’s action “puts everyone in the country at risk of experiencing serious and preventable harm,” especially from vehicle pollution. “It also weakens our nation’s ability to address the severe health impacts caused by climate change.”
In addition to EDF and APHA, the list of plaintiffs included the Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Air Council, American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and others.
The 2009 endangerment finding followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and provided legal justification for EPA’s climate rules that limited power plant emissions and tightened vehicle fuel-economy standards.
The final rule rescinds the endangerment finding and removes the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify and comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles, as well as coal-fired and natural gas power plants. It also repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions and reporting obligations.
The EPA will still regulate pollutants such as nitrous oxides and ozone, according to a report by the banking and capital markets firm Jefferies. In addition, the changes will not affect fuel efficiency standards under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the Energy Policy Conservation Act, the report said.
According to the EPA, the Obama administration used the endangerment finding to justify trillions of dollars in regulations and an “illegal” push towards electric vehicle mandates and compliance requirements, which in turn drove up vehicle costs.
The agency said rescinding the endangerment finding will save taxpayers more than $1.3 trillion, including more than $2,400 for new cars and trucks, as well as promote consumer choice when it comes to buying a vehicle.
The EPA said it “carefully considered and reevaluated” the finding’s legality and the text of the Clean Air Act, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA.
“The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the [Clean Air Act] does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the endangerment finding and resulting regulations,” the EPA said.
Joe Murphy, communications director for the National Association of Manufacturers, declined to comment on the rescission. However, NAM supported EPA’s proposed rule to rescind the endangerment finding for several reasons, including that the move was in line with court precedent.
By contrast, the American Chemistry Council opposed the proposed rule in its comments.
“Reversing findings that are based on multiple decades of peer reviewed research without sound scientific rationale is counterproductive and removes scientific input from the policy making process,” the trade association said. “The ACS respectfully urges EPA to retain the 2009 Endangerment Finding and continue regulating [greenhouse gas] emissions under the Clean Air Act. Doing so is essential to protect public health, uphold scientific integrity, and support the development of sustainable technologies that address global climate change.”
In addition, the Electric Vehicle Association said in a press release that EPA’s decision will “force higher costs on drivers, cause and exacerbate chronic diseases, and lead to lost jobs in the automotive industry.”
Some U.S. senators also panned the endangerment finding rescission and have launched an investigation into the matter, arguing that the rescission process was not a transparent notice-and-comment rulemaking as required by law.
“Not only do the Trump Administration’s public comments make clear that it regarded repeal of the endangerment finding as a predetermined objective, but internal documents also reveal that EPA was moving to finalize the rescission before completing its required regulatory review,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
For its part, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy disputed the EPA’s claim that the rescission will ultimately save money for consumers.
“Strong vehicle standards save drivers money every time they fill up. Canceling the standards means higher costs at the pump, increased costs to own a car, and more pollution,” said Peter Huether, senior transportation research associate at the ACEEE. “In addition, today’s decision undermines a key U.S. industry that supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs.”
According to the ACEEE, under the rules eliminated by the EPA, the average new vehicle in 2032 was projected to save drivers more than $10,000 over the car’s lifetime compared to a 2022 vehicle due to savings on fuel and maintenance.
