EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who served under the Trump administration, told the Wall Street Journal that the agency will formally revoke the endangerment finding first issued by the Obama administration in 2009. He described the revocation as the biggest deregulation effort in U.S. history.
The 2009 finding concluded that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That determination gave the EPA authority to adopt a suite of climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan, stringent fuel‑economy standards for new cars, rules limiting emissions from coal‑fired power stations and methane from oil‑and‑gas operations, and a Biden proposal to increase electric‑vehicle purchases.
EPA estimates that vehicle regulations derived from the finding have cost U.S. households more than $1 trillion. The Trump administration began the process of overturning the finding in July, arguing that its removal will boost energy production, lower energy prices and create jobs in the energy sector.
Opposition is swift and broad. Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defence Fund, warned that the agency will be sued because the decision ignores strong evidence that climate pollution endangers health and safety. All Democratic senators signed a September letter to Zeldin urging him to retain the finding, calling its removal a dereliction of duty and hubris.
Myron Ebell, former head of the Trump EPA transition team, praised the revocation, saying it would eliminate rules he described as raising electricity rates, making the grid unreliable, restricting vehicle choices, harming jobs and shifting manufacturing to China.
The legal backdrop stretches back to the 1970s Clean Air Act, which obliges the EPA to regulate any air pollutant that endangers health or welfare. For many years the agency did not treat greenhouse gases as pollutants. A group of states led by Massachusetts sued after the EPA in 2003 said the Act did not allow regulation of greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling forced the EPA to consider whether such gases endanger health, prompting the 2009 finding.
If the finding is revoked, greenhouse‑gas emissions could rise, potentially worsening climate‑related events such as heatwaves, droughts and storms, and could increase ambient air‑pollution levels, aggravating respiratory illnesses.
The move also risks straining relations with Canada, which is pursuing its own climate programmes, including carbon pricing and industrial emission reductions.
Legal challenges are expected from Democratic states, climate advocacy groups and other stakeholders who view the finding as essential for climate action. The outcome will shape the United States’ ability to meet its own emissions targets and to cooperate with international climate efforts.