On his first day in office, President Trump promised to sharply reverse course from the Obama and Biden administrations on energy policy. Over a year and 300 actions later, the Trump administration’s commitment to unleashing American energy abundance has been proven time and time again.
The rescission of the Endangerment Finding is perhaps one of the most important energy wins of President Trump’s term so far. Enacted by the Obama administration in 2009, this finding that greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) endanger “public health and welfare” has been utilized by regulators to punish auto manufacturers, power plants, refineries, and scores of other industries.
With the finding rescinded, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that Americans will gain more than $1 trillion in regulation cuts and an average per-vehicle cost savings of more than $2,400.
Although the rescission of the finding will almost certainly face pushback from Blue states and environmental groups seeking to force the EPA to take a heavy-handed approach to GHG emissions, the Trump administration’s argument should withstand legal scrutiny. As I’ve stated previously, the basis of the Endangerment Finding results from an “overly broad reading of the Clean Air Act and a rather narrow interpretation of the climate impacts of GHGs,” ignoring some of the positive effects of carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, as we wrote in comments submitted to the EPA, “Assertions of regulatory power over greenhouse gases are enormous claims of regulatory power.”
Clearly, the EPA’s claim of authority over greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act represents regulatory overreach. Even the former dean of the House and author of the Clean Air Act, the late Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), observed that it was not being used as intended. By treating GHGs as pollutants subject to regulation, the agency effectively asserted control over nearly all human activity — including respiration.
Even though the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to encompass GHGs, this sweeping assertion of power violates the major questions doctrine, established by the 2022 case West Virginia v. EPA, which demands clear and explicit congressional authorization for actions of such vast economic and political significance. No such authorization exists in the Clean Air Act.
The term “pollutant” in the statute is best understood to apply to substances that cause direct toxic harm, rather than to indirect climate effects from GHGs. Otherwise, the Act could absurdly extend to regulating natural byproducts such as water vapor. Additionally, GHGs do not directly harm human health. The alleged harms are indirect, projected far into the future, and depend on climate model scenarios that are often implausible, rather than clear, observed evidence of imminent danger beyond general temperature increases. Regulating based on such potential future risks does not align with the Clean Air Act’s framework for addressing immediate pollutants.
Moreover, the legislative history repeatedly demonstrates an intent to exclude broad GHG regulation: multiple failed cap-and-trade proposals, narrowly tailored and later-weakened methane provisions, and entirely separate statutes targeting specific GHGs, such as hydrofluorocarbons, all confirm that Congress deliberately chose not to grant the EPA general authority over greenhouse gases.
Regulating GHG emissions from vehicle tailpipes under the Clean Air Act also directly conflicts with Congress’s separate Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which was established to improve fuel efficiency. The Clean Air Act was intended to target toxic emissions that can be mitigated by add-on technologies such as catalytic converters, not to regulate basic combustion byproducts like carbon dioxide.
As the EPA’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding is already the subject of lawsuits, any judge taking up the case must pay close attention to the precedents and statutes it violates. Not only does it give the EPA broad authority across multiple sectors of the economy, but it also contradicts Congressional action and intent.
The regulation of greenhouse gases is something that Congress needs to decide – not unelected regulators. Supporters of such a policy have chosen to shield themselves from voters by hiding behind this questionable finding rather than putting forth a legislative proposal that clearly defines the authority, purpose, and objectives of regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant. President Trump has achieved a great victory in rescinding this finding; now it’s up to the courts to defend his decision.
