The potential reversal of the Endangerment Finding by the Trump administration marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy. This rule, enacted in 2009 under the Obama administration’s EPA, asserts that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health and the environment, thus warranting regulation. Critics argue that the Endangerment Finding lacks robust scientific backing and has been exploited to enforce stringent regulations, impacting energy costs and grid reliability. As the Trump administration contemplates its next steps, stakeholders on both sides are closely watching, anticipating significant implications for the energy sector and environmental policy.
Understanding the Endangerment Finding
Established in 2009, the Endangerment Finding allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases for the sake of human health and the environment. This has led to regulations on power plants and vehicles, aiming to reduce carbon emissions. Detractors, like Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA Chief of Staff, claim it was based on “cherry-picked data” to favor politically preferred technologies like wind, solar, and electric vehicles. Gunasekara also suggests that the regulations stemming from the Endangerment Finding have resulted in increased energy expenses, unreliable electricity grids, and job losses, as well as shifting investments to countries with less stringent environmental standards such as China and India.
“The Endangerment Finding was the result of a highly politicized process relying on cherry-picked data meant to appease the wants of climate extremists.” – Mandy Gunasekara, former EPA Chief of Staff
EPA’s Current Actions
The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is reportedly reviewing the Endangerment Finding in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although the specifics of this review remain undisclosed, the OMB recently processed a request from the EPA regarding the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The EPA has stated that any proposal resulting from this review will be released for public discussion and feedback once it has undergone interagency assessment and been approved by the Administrator. This process has sparked debate among energy sector specialists.
The Supreme Court Precedent
In 2007, the Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs. EPA established that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This ruling paved the way for the Endangerment Finding, allowing the EPA to regulate emissions. Critics, like Myron Ebell, argue that the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate carbon dioxide effectively. Ebell describes Massachusetts vs. EPA as “one of the really most incoherent and poorly argued Supreme Court decisions you can find,” suggesting that the justices were influenced by the “global warming bandwagon.”
Impact on Power Plants and Grid Reliability
Regulations derived from the Endangerment Finding have led to the closure of numerous coal facilities, potentially weakening the electrical grid and increasing the risk of blackouts, as noted by energy experts. The closure of power plants, coupled with the rise of new data centers, has prompted warnings that the U.S. may struggle to meet its future power demands. Myron Ebell contends that the over-reliance on intermittent sources like wind and solar diminishes the reliability of the electrical grid. Additionally, he asserts a connection between elevated electricity costs and a strong dependence on resources like wind and solar.
Vehicle Emissions and Consumer Choice
The Endangerment Finding has also facilitated policies that regulate vehicle emissions, impacting consumer choice. Myron Ebell notes that the act known as One Big Beautiful Bill reduced the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard violation penalty to $0, giving automakers more freedom to produce vehicles that Americans prefer. Ebell also reiterates that the Clean Air Act was not originally intended to regulate carbon dioxide, asserting its inefficiency in doing so and questioning the legal foundation of Massachusetts vs. EPA.
Criticism of Scientific Data
Critics like Mandy Gunasekara argue that the scientific data used to support the Endangerment Finding did not fully consider the benefits of carbon dioxide. They also argue that the models predicting worst-case scenarios have been “disproven by what we’ve experienced in real life.” Citing the now almost 20-year-old United Nations Climate Assessment, Gunasekara suggests that decisions should be based on the latest scientific findings, asserting that the Endangerment Finding fails to meet this standard.
“The Trump Administration should make its decisions based on the latest and greatest science. The Endangerment Finding does not meet this standard and should no longer be used as a basis for ineffective, highly politicized regulations.” – Mandy Gunasekara, author and former EPA Chief of Staff
Additional Perspectives on the Endangerment Finding
Other experts in the energy sector concur that the Endangerment Finding was not based on the best scientific evidence. Willie Soon argues that the scientific evidence available in 2007 was “boldly untenable,” accusing the EPA of “deliberate cherry-picking.” Similarly, Diana Furchtgott-Roth suggests that while the data supporting the Endangerment Finding might have come from well-intentioned scientists, it is now outdated. Furchtgott-Roth also points out that the EPA “already rolled back the Endangerment Finding de facto” with recent repeals and reforms of Obama- and Biden-era emissions rules on power plants, while arguing it is time to formally roll back the finding.
Potential Rollback Process
If the EPA proposes a rule to roll back the Endangerment Finding, it would undergo the federal rulemaking process, including a public comment period of at least 30 days before Administrator Zeldin could sign it. Significant or major rules often require a 60-day implementation delay. The OMB’s role and timeline for responding to the DCNF’s request for comment remain uncertain. This rollback would signify a major shift in U.S. climate policy and regulatory approach.
Conclusion: Implications of Reversing the Endangerment Finding
The potential reversal of the Endangerment Finding represents a critical juncture in U.S. climate and energy policy. Critics argue that this Obama-era rule, which allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, was based on flawed science and has led to increased energy costs and grid instability. Experts suggest that rescinding the Endangerment Finding could spur energy independence and improve grid reliability. Ultimately, the Trump administration’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the energy sector, environmental regulations, and the ongoing debate over climate change.
Leave a Reply