EPA plans to repeal greenhouse gas emissions endangerment finding

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to repeal the endangerment finding, a significant regulation that has allowed the agency to oversee greenhouse gas emissions. This finding arose from the Massachusetts v. EPA case in 2006, when the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate such emissions if they were deemed to endanger public health or welfare. The original ruling placed a relatively low threshold for proving danger, prompting discussions about the effectiveness and necessity of the regulation over the years. Recently, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin indicated a reconsideration of the finding, which was established under the Obama administration in 2009. The current review stems from the Trump administration's assertion that the EPA has overstepped its legal authority regarding the Clean Air Act, claiming that the agency's broad interpretation of its powers regarding greenhouse gases is inappropriate. The move to repeal is viewed by some experts, such as Jonathan H. Adler from The Volokh Conspiracy, as a strategic yet potentially futile exercise that may face strict legal challenges and further complicate regulatory efforts. Beyond the legal arguments, scientific voices have also weighed in on the debate. Climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr. noted that the justifications for the endangerment finding are outdated, suggesting that a scientific update is warranted. However, he, among others, emphasizes that there is no solid scientific or legal basis for completely rescinding it. The Trump administration's broader strategy has focused on reducing regulations deemed harmful to national energy security, even stating that high regulatory costs could outweigh environmental benefits. As the EPA advances these regulatory changes, there is concern about the potential for continued back-and-forth shifts in policy, which has been a hallmark of American environmental law in recent decades. The changes pursued through executive actions face an uncertain future and may be challenged by subsequent administrations, leading to what critics describe as a state of regulatory ping-pong in Washington. To effectively address perceived federal overreach in regulations, some policy advocates propose a more stable resolution through congressional action rather than piecemeal executive maneuvers that may not hold up over time.