President Trump announced Thurday that his administration would rescind the legal underpinning of the nation’s climate rules. From the White House, the President called it the largest deregulatory move in American history. The so-called “endangerment finding” is the rationale the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate greenhouse gases.
The Allegheny Front’s Kara Holsopple spoke with reporter Susan Phillips of WHYY’s Climate Desk to learn more.
LISTEN to the conversation
Kara Holsopple: What is the endangerment finding, and which industries does it impact?
Susan Phillips: Back in 2009, during the Obama administration, the EPA determined that climate change impacts public health. That was a legal determination, but it was based on strong scientific evidence and it allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane.
This was done through the Clean Air Act. This was done because Congress was not acting to regulate greenhouse gases. It was the basis for Biden’s very ambitious climate agenda.
What you need to know about EPA’s effort to dump legal underpinning of climate rules
The largest impact has been on cars and trucks. Creating rules that make them more fuel efficient, i.e., burn less fossil fuels, make them cleaner. This would have had the impact of reducing greenhouse gases because vehicles are the largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S.
But at the same time, it would have the effect of cleaning up the air we breathe. Looking at all this snow turning from white to black over the past several weeks really shows us how much carbon pollution from cars and trucks we all breathe each day.
This endangerment finding was also the basis for the attempts to cut emissions from power plants, although that didn’t happen. The first Trump administration overturned Obama’s plan, and then the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the EPA didn’t have the authority to regulate power plant [carbon] emissions.
The other thing was methane from the oil and gas industry. The EPA under Biden implemented rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure. But that’s also on the chopping block or could be.
Kara Holsopple: What is the EPA’s reasoning behind this move?
Susan Phillips: They don’t really have a strong scientific explanation for getting rid of it. It’s primarily legal and ideological. Trump has been a vocal climate denier, as we all know.
Essentially, those conservatives who have been pushing to get rid of the endangerment finding say that it was a way for Democrats and progressives to shoehorn their way into regulating carbon emissions and that the rationale was flawed. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin talked about this last March when he said that they are going to drive a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.
Zeldin’s EPA also says that this move will save consumers and businesses trillions of dollars because they say now it will be cheaper to buy cars and trucks. But environmentalists push back on that and basically say the opposite – that it’s going to cost consumers more money in the form of using more gasoline, so it’s more money at the pump, and it will impact health, and so that always drives costs up.
They’re saying Pennsylvanians will now be required to pay up to $57 billion more for fuel over the next 30 years. When it comes to health…they say that will amount to $12 billion.
The Environmental Defense Fund did an analysis specifically for Pennsylvania, for example. They’re saying that Pennsylvanians will now be required to pay up to $57 billion more for fuel over the next 30 years. When it comes to health impacts in Pennsylvania, they say that will amount to $12 billion.
Kara Holsopple: How could this impact climate regulations in states like Pennsylvania?
Susan Phillips: Pennsylvania, like other states, is not allowed to implement their own fuel efficiency standards. Only the federal government can do that with the exception of California. States had been allowed to follow California’s lead to enact those stricter standards, but the Trump administration is working to eliminate that exception.
EPA’s methane rules, which would force oil and gas producers to plug leaks, could also be on the chopping block. Interestingly, though, Big Oil apparently wants the federal government to regulate methane. I think one of the reasons why they want that overall is less methane emissions is good for their brand, but also they can continue to push natural gas as much cleaner than coal, for example.
Even though Pennsylvania can’t enact its own clean car standards, it does have the authority to implement requirements for how much clean energy is produced by power plants. So that’s one way that a lot of states could go to try to tackle climate emissions.
It’s interesting because the state doesn’t really have as ambitious goals as, say, Delaware or New Jersey, but Governor Shapiro has proposed to increase the current requirement to 35% clean energy by 2035. He’s also proposed a cap and invest plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Kara Holsopple: How are environmental groups responding to this development?
Susan Phillips: Like you would expect. My email box is full of reactions from every environmental group you’ve ever heard of and those you haven’t heard of. They don’t like it. They point to climate disasters like the California wildfires, for example, and increasingly destructive storms, deadly heat waves, and the fact that the U.S. is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.
At the end of the day, it’s Congress that needs to act in order to avoid this seesaw that we’ve been seeing between different federal administrations.
Also, the added benefit of cleaning up the air we breathe would end and so they say this will lead to more deaths from heart attacks and of course more breathing issues generally, like people with asthma would have a harder time because the plans to clean up the air are now eliminated.
Kara Holsopple: EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases stems from a 2007 Supreme Court case. What could the legal fight against the EPA’s move to repeal the endangerment finding look like?
Susan Phillips: There will likely be years of litigation that will eventually lead to the Supreme Court. But, again, it puts the states in the driver’s seat in some ways. They can determine the percentage of clean energy produced by power plants. But that will be a patchwork across the country and not necessarily make up for broad-based federal policy on climate. At the end of the day, it’s Congress that needs to act in order to avoid this seesaw that we’ve been seeing between different federal administrations as Republicans come in or Democrats come in. It’s been going back and forth for years.
