A bold move has been made by a coalition of health and environmental advocates, taking on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a legal battle over a critical climate regulation. This coalition, including renowned organizations like the American Public Health Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council, has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the EPA's recent decision to revoke a pivotal scientific finding.
But here's where it gets controversial: Last week, the EPA rescinded a 2009 declaration, known as the 'endangerment finding,' which established that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has been the cornerstone of U.S. climate regulations, particularly those under the Clean Air Act, targeting emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources.
The repeal of this finding has far-reaching implications. Experts warn it could lead to the dismantling of climate regulations across the board, from cars and trucks to power plants and oil and gas facilities. The legal challenge argues that the EPA's decision is unlawful, pointing out that the 2009 finding supported sensible measures to curb climate pollution, especially from vehicles. The Biden administration's clean vehicle standards, which the coalition believes would have delivered the most significant cut to U.S. carbon pollution ever, are now at risk.
Brian Lynk, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, emphasizes that with nearly two decades of scientific evidence supporting the 2009 finding, the EPA's claim that this body of work is now incorrect lacks credibility. Lynk warns that this decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses, prolongs legal battles, and undermines the stability of federal climate regulations.
The Trump administration, however, defended its decision, with President Trump describing it as the 'single largest deregulatory action in American history.' Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, went further, calling the endangerment finding 'the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.' Zeldin argued that the finding 'strangled' entire sectors of the U.S. economy, including the auto industry, and was used by the Obama and Biden administrations to impose costly climate policies and electric vehicle mandates.
Environmental groups paint a different picture, describing the move as the biggest attack on federal authority to address climate change in U.S. history. They argue that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding has only strengthened over the past 17 years.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is legally bound to limit emissions of any air pollutant that poses a threat to public health or welfare. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are 'air pollutants' under the Act, and instructed the EPA to determine if these gases endanger human health and welfare. The EPA's 2009 determination, which found that they do, led to new vehicle standards and formed the basis for other regulations.
Advocates highlight that the EPA's own analysis shows that eliminating vehicle standards will increase gas prices and force Americans to spend more on fuel. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists, part of the lawsuit, condemns the EPA's actions as a 'complete dereliction' of its mission to protect people's health and its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act. She adds that this 'shameful and dangerous' action is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at odds with the public interest and the best available science.
As this legal battle unfolds, the future of U.S. climate regulations hangs in the balance. And this is the part most people miss: The consequences of this decision extend beyond the courtroom, impacting the health and welfare of Americans and the stability of our planet.
