Trump’s Administration Boasts Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History
By: Romulus Sklavos
RICHMOND, Va. – The Environmental Protection Agency repealed a key legal basis for greenhouse gas endangerment finding. The decision quickly drew organized opposition and is expected to be challenged in court.
The EPA repealed the Obama-era finding and federal greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles on Feb. 12. In 2009, the EPA determined the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens public health and welfare, allowing the agency to regulate emissions from vehicles and other sources. The agency now says the Clean Air Act does not provide authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
This raises an ongoing legal question about how much authority states have to regulate climate policy on their own, according to both Damian Pitt, professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and expert in climate action policy, and Carroll Courtenay, senior attorney at the Charlottesville-based Southern Environmental Law Center.
Courtenay and Pitt said if courts rule that federal law limits state action, it could affect how states like Virginia pursue their own emissions policies if federal regulations are weakened.
Indeed, implementations can be made at the state level. “Things like funding more transit, promoting smart growth patterns that reduce the need to drive, funding electric vehicle charging infrastructure to make sure we have a more robust network,” Courtenay said.
Groups fighting the repeal include the Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen and Sierra Club.
The Department of Justice has challenged Vermont’s climate law, arguing that the state is attempting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in a way that conflicts with federal authority under the Clean Air Act. Legal analysts say the case centers on whether federal law preempts state efforts to address climate damages through their own regulations.
The administration’s position is contradictory, said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president of law and policy at the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. If the EPA claims it doesn’t have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it would be difficult to justify blocking states from adopting their own standards to address the same issue.
The EPA portrayed the repeal as a major economic benefit. Based on its findings, eliminating greenhouse gas vehicle standards could result in more than $1.3 trillion in savings between 2027 and 2055, including an estimated $2,400 reduction in cost of new vehicles.
Courtenay questioned the EPA’s analysis. “There are some interesting decisions made about what costs and benefits they did and did not model and it’s part of coming up with that figure and what types of an environmental and health costs they did and did not quantify,” Courtenay said.
Courtenay said the Obama-era endangerment findings served as the legal trigger for federal greenhouse gas regulations, allowing the EPA to move forward with emissions standards once it determined those pollutants posed a danger.
Pitt said the repeal is largely about removing the legal framework that supports existing climate regulations. It is likely to open the door to removing additional environmental protections tied to greenhouse gas emissions.
Romulus Sklavos 