The Environmental Protection Agency is moving to eliminate a foundational scientific finding that supports climate regulations across the nation. However, many business leaders are deeply concerned that this action could plunge them into a complex and expensive legal mess. At the heart of the issue is the “endangerment finding,” a critical EPA determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and thus require federal oversight. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has declared intentions to revoke this finding, arguing that the economic strain on industries from emission cuts outweighs the dangers of a warming world.
Despite the administration’s stance, major sectors like car manufacturing, electric utilities, and even oil and gas companies are urging the EPA to proceed with caution. They fear that ending federal regulation of greenhouse gases could pave the way for numerous lawsuits from states and cities seeking climate-related damages. This could also lead to a confusing and inefficient array of differing state-level environmental rules. Adding to the uncertainty, environmental organizations have vowed to challenge the EPA’s repeal in court. Zach Friedman, a senior director at the nonprofit Ceres, highlighted that this proposed repeal is largely unwelcome by the business community, noting that 59 companies and investors formally opposed the EPA’s plan.
Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson, countered that revoking the endangerment finding would “unlock regulatory clarity,” asserting that the current rule has imposed significant costs, especially on the auto industry. She emphasized that in a democracy, private companies are free to make their own operational decisions. For over fifty years, human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas for energy, have been the leading cause of climate change. The resultant buildup of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat, leading to a warming planet. This phenomenon is directly linked to an increase in severe wildfires, intense heat waves, rising sea levels, and unpredictable extreme weather events.
The EPA’s proposal to abolish the endangerment finding is based on a recent Energy Department report that minimizes the seriousness of climate change. This report was authored by five outspoken climate skeptics specifically selected by the administration. This Energy Department report has faced severe criticism from esteemed scientific bodies, including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the American Meteorological Society. Over 85 U.S. climate scientists have also pointed out that the administration’s climate report contains numerous inaccuracies and misrepresents established climate science.
Professor Scott Saleska, an ecology and evolutionary biology expert at the University of Arizona, emphasized that the scientific evidence supporting the endangerment finding has become even more robust over the past sixteen years. The planet is experiencing higher air temperatures, rising sea levels, and worsening ocean acidification. Furthermore, there’s a troubling rise in heat-related fatalities, more intense wildfire smoke, and an increase in climate-sensitive diseases. According to Dr. Saleska, the EPA’s apparent readiness to disregard this overwhelming evidence essentially declares that science, humanity’s most effective tool for understanding objective reality, is deemed irrelevant by the current government.
Interestingly, few business leaders cited the dangers of climate change as their primary reason for opposing the EPA’s plan. Instead, many advocated for less stringent emission standards. The administration has explicitly connected the repeal of the endangerment finding with rolling back strict tailpipe pollution limits, a move largely welcomed by automakers and oil companies. Many companies affirmed their alignment with the administration’s energy strategy, which prioritizes fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, while simultaneously scaling back support for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Nevertheless, even these companies largely agree that the federal government should maintain its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Jim Kliesch, Director of Regulatory Affairs at American Honda Motor Company Inc., warned that revoking the endangerment finding would not lead to regulatory stability but instead foster “prolonged legal battles, possible market fragmentation, and technological stagnation.” The American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group for oil and gas companies, stated that federal action is “a necessary part of the solution” to climate change and affirmed their belief in the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Edison Electric Institute, representing the electric power industry, expressed concern that a federal retreat from greenhouse gas regulation could prompt states and cities to enact a confusing array of disparate local rules, creating a regulatory void. Conversely, some business organizations, such as the National Mining Association and the Steel Manufacturers Association, along with energy groups from states like Wyoming, supported the EPA’s decision to remove the endangerment finding.
Amending federal regulations is usually a drawn-out process, necessitating public comment periods and thorough reviews by the EPA. However, EPA officials indicate that the administration is pushing to finalize this repeal before the year’s end. By the close of the public comment period on September 22nd, the agency had amassed over 500,000 submissions. An analysis by InfluenceMap, a London-based sustainability think tank, revealed that a significant portion of the comments, including those from various companies and trade associations, voiced doubts about the legal soundness of the EPA’s proposal. Many suggested merely relaxing existing greenhouse gas standards rather than completely abandoning the framework.
Leo Menninger, a senior analyst at InfluenceMap, expressed surprise at the high level of apprehension from companies and industry associations, particularly those typically seeking weaker emissions standards. Their primary concern, he noted, is the complete dismantlement of the existing regulatory framework. The repeal is almost guaranteed to trigger extensive litigation, potentially escalating all the way to the Supreme Court. The endangerment finding itself originated from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gases are pollutants and mandated the agency to assess their threat to public health.
Furthermore, eliminating this finding could inadvertently undermine a key defense strategy for fossil fuel companies facing lawsuits in state courts. Historically, the industry has argued in court that the EPA holds exclusive jurisdiction over interstate emissions, thus preempting other state and federal environmental laws. However, if the EPA voluntarily relinquishes its authority to regulate emissions, it could inadvertently simplify the path for certain lawsuits against these industries to move forward. Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland’s law school, suggested that the administration avoided this action during its previous term due to warnings about the risks of “opening up this Pandora’s box.”