- with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management industries
- within Antitrust/Competition Law and Immigration topic(s)
Yesterday, the EPA published a final rule repealing the agency's 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal foundation for federal greenhouse gas regulation. In finalizing this rule, the EPA claims that “Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does not provide the 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.” This action, celebrated by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as “the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” attempts to upend the basis for the agency's climate action under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA's Core Mission and Statutory Mandate
In 1977, Congress tasked the EPA with regulating “air pollutants which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” For over half a century, the EPA has exercised this authority to protect Americans from harmful air pollution.
The statutory language is capacious by design. As the Supreme Court recognized in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), Congress understood that “without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete.” The Court interpreted Section 202(a) as “reflect[ing] an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence.”
The Court's findings in Massachusetts v. EPA confirmed that the EPA's mandate extended to regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Court stated that the Act's “sweeping definition of ‘air pollutant' . . . embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.” The statute is “unambiguous”-greenhouse gases are air pollutants. The Court further noted that Congress specifically defined “welfare” in the Clean Air Act to include “effects on . . . weather . . . and climate.”The Endangerment Finding
The 2009 Endangerment Finding followed naturally from this ruling. After reviewing extensive scientific evidence—including assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Research Council—Administrator Lisa Jackson found that six greenhouse gases “in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” The Finding was thus an instance of the EPA fulfilling its statutory obligation to exercise scientific judgment when the evidence warranted action.
The Finding rested on voluminous peer-reviewed science documenting rising global temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and cascading impacts on human health and ecosystems. This research has only grown more robust in the intervening years. Ultimately, the final rule did not discuss the scientific consensus regarding climate change as the draft rule had. Instead, the final rule relied on legal arguments for the repeal.
The EPA now asserts that “even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.” This argument—that because the United States cannot solve climate change alone, it should do nothing—was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, which recognized that “agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop” but “whittle away over time.”
Upcoming Litigation in the Context of Loper Bright
Environmental organizations and some states are likely to challenge the final rule immediately. The challenge will be brought in the D.C. Circuit, the designated venue for Clean Air Act cases of nationwide applicability. The case will likely require a year for briefing and arguments, resulting in an initial decision in 2027. With another year for the Supreme Court to accept a petition for certiorari and consider arguments, courts may not have the final word until 2028.
The EPA cites the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, stating that it engaged in “substantial public input and robust analysis of the law” to account for the case. However, Loper Bright is not necessarily favorable to the EPA.
Loper Bright holds that “courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” As such, in upcoming litigation challenging this final rule, we should expect courts not to defer to the EPA's recent interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Instead, judges must independently decide whether Section 202(a) supports the EPA's position.
Additionally, the EPA will likely have to demonstrate how this action reflects “reasoned decisionmaking” and meets the “arbitrary and capricious standard”—even though the EPA has disregarded the overwhelming evidence that favors greenhouse gas regulation.
What Happens Next
This action is the latest—and likely most consequential—of the Trump Administration's hostile moves against climate change regulation. While the agency will likely face a significant battle in the courts, this action all but guarantees that the federal government is out of the business of advancing clean energy and reducing emissions over the next three years. The United States will watch from the sidelines as other nations pioneer advancements in the booming green economy. As in 2017, when Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Accords, expect states and regions to once again attempt to fill the void of federal climate leadership.
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog please click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
