The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its intention to reverse 31 environmental regulations, including a pivotal 2009 ruling that serves as a cornerstone of U.S. climate policy. This decision, however, is fraught with legal and procedural complexity.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding

At the heart of the rollback is the endangerment finding established in 2009, where the EPA determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has underpinned a series of regulations that require power plants and vehicles to reduce their emissions of these harmful gases. Should the EPA successfully dismantle this finding, it could potentially overturn these emissions reduction mandates.

Political Context

The decision to roll back environmental regulations reflects a broader trend during the Trump administration, marked by a skepticism towards climate change initiatives. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated, “By overhauling massive rules on the endangerment finding, the social cost of carbon and similar issues, we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,” in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Legal Obstacles

Elimination of the endangerment finding is not straightforward. The EPA is mandated by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA to assess whether greenhouse gases could endanger public health or welfare under the Clean Air Act. Thus, to repeal the finding, substantial evidence must be presented to argue that climate change is not occurring due to fossil fuel combustion, or that its effects are negligible.

David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, expressed skepticism, noting, “I could go into the DC Circuit and argue against this in pig latin and win it.”

Implications of Legal Framework Changes

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has complicated matters for the Trump administration by overturning “Chevron deference.” This doctrine previously allowed federal agencies the latitude to interpret the details of implementing ambiguous laws. With its repeal, courts have greater power to scrutinize agency decisions, potentially hindering the EPA’s ability to unilaterally redefine its mandate regarding climate change.

Bookbinder argues that this shift actually strengthens the position of those advocating for the endangerment finding, given that the Clean Air Act explicitly includes “climate” in its definition of welfare protection.

Next Steps and Potential Legal Challenges

In the upcoming months, the EPA will face significant challenges in attempting to repeal the endangerment finding. This process requires a factual determination, issuance of a proposed rule, a thorough justification, and an invitation for public comment before a final rule can be established. As Shaun Goho from the Clean Air Task Force points out, “Nothing they’ve done so far on the endangerment finding counts as a final agency action that can be challenged in court, so there’s really nothing to sue on yet.”

Environmental groups and states governed by Democratic leaders, particularly California, are likely to initiate legal action against any reversal of the endangerment finding. However, the agency must first navigate the procedural labyrinth before reaching that stage.

The Future of Climate Policy

While litigation surrounding the endangerment finding may progress to the Supreme Court, historical precedent shows that the courts have consistently supported its validity. Goho emphasized the importance of the finding, stating, “The endangerment finding has been implemented by multiple administrations and both parties. It’s been upheld in the courts repeatedly. The science and then the law are really clear.”

As the EPA presses on with its efforts to roll back these regulations, it faces not only legal battles but also staffing challenges due to recent budget cuts, which may further complicate the agency’s ability to mount a strong legal case.