EPA Rescinds Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding
The Environmental Protection Agency has formally rescinded the 2009 finding that identified greenhouse gases as a regulatory threat. The White House described the move as the "single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history," claiming it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion. This action removes the EPA's legal mandate to regulate greenhouse gases at the federal level, but manufacturers may face an emerging patchwork of state-level regulations.
- The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the direct result of the 2007 Supreme Court case *Massachusetts v. EPA*, which held that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and compelled the EPA to determine if they endangered public health. - The finding specifically identified six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—as threats, which created a legal obligation for the EPA to regulate their emission sources. - This rescission eliminates the legal underpinning for a host of federal regulations beyond vehicles, including standards for power plants and the oil and gas industry, which were all based on the 2009 finding. - The administration's claimed $1.3 trillion in savings through 2055 is composed of an estimated $1.1 trillion in reduced new vehicle costs and $200 billion in avoided spending on EV charging equipment. - Critics of the rescission project that it will cost Americans up to $1.7 trillion more in fuel costs, arguing the EPA's savings calculation assigns zero value to consumer fuel savings, lives saved, or illnesses avoided from reduced pollution. - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has previously warned that a patchwork of state-level climate regulations, which may now proliferate, could increase compliance costs, decrease investment, and stifle innovation for manufacturers compared to a unified federal standard. - With the removal of a single federal standard, manufacturers now face increased uncertainty and potential legal risks, as the rescission is expected to trigger years of litigation from states and environmental groups. - The EPA's legal justification for the reversal is that the Clean Air Act does not grant it authority to regulate emissions for global climate concerns, but only for pollution that directly harms health through local or regional exposure.
