The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule to overturn the 2009 endangerment finding, which has served as the basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the United States for over a decade. The proposal was announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and marks a significant shift in how the agency approaches regulation of emissions from new motor vehicles.
A central claim of the proposed rule is that the EPA does not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks. This position would affect regulations put in place under previous administrations, including rules that promoted electric vehicle adoption.
Daren Bakst, Director for the Center of Energy & Environment and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), commented on the announcement:
“Today is the first step in protecting Americans from bureaucrats who think they should decide what kind of cars we can drive. To those bureaucrats and their allies, it doesn’t matter if their central planning increases car prices, undermines individual freedom, limits our ability to get around, or disproportionately hurts the poor.
“The effect of EPA’s proposed rule is a rejection of the far-left mindset that believes addressing climate change requires sacrificing human flourishing and blocking economic development. By embracing policies that empower human flourishing and innovation, we will both improve our lives today and ensure an even brighter future. We need to place faith in humanity, not see it as the enemy. After all, humans are the ultimate resource.
“The proposed rule is an action being made to ensure that the EPA acts consistently with the rule of law. For example, the agency is recognizing critical legal developments that demonstrate it doesn’t have authority to regulate these emissions. One such major legal development is a case called West Virginia v. EPA in 2022 that fleshed out what is known as the major questions doctrine. The Supreme Court said that when an agency seeks to answer questions of vast economic and political significance, the agency must point to clear Congressional authorization. There is no such authorization. In fact, Congress has regularly rejected regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
“I commend EPA Administrator Zeldin for revisiting the endangerment finding and reviewing whether the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. This is a much-needed action that will help get the EPA back to being the Environmental Protection Agency and not the ‘Economic Planning Agency.’”
Marlo Lewis Jr., Senior Fellow at CEI, also responded:
“Under Presidents Obama and Biden, the EPA’s 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors, and for multi-agency (“whole-of-government”) regulatory assaults on domestic energy resources with which America is abundantly endowed. That agenda makes cars and electricity more costly for consumers, restricts consumer choices, and makes America more reliant on China for critical minerals and supply chains.
“When enacting the Clean Air Act, Congress intended for the EPA to ‘protect and enhance’ air quality ‘so as to promote public health…’ CEI congratulates Administrator Zeldin for taking a bold step today to return agency focus toward its core mission rather than broader economic regulation.
“People who worry that repealing EPA’s ban on sales of gas- and diesel-powered cars will lead to a climate meltdown should relax. The so-called climate crisis is a political narrative, not a scientific finding. The average person’s risk of dying today from extreme weather is more than 99 percent lower than it was a hundred years ago. That great news…has nothing to do with emissions or changes in weather but rather with wealth creation supported by abundant energy resources…By removing regulatory risks…repeal of this finding should help foster a more climate-resilient economy.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA clarified limits on federal agencies’ regulatory powers unless there is explicit Congressional approval—a key argument referenced by CEI experts regarding why current regulations may exceed statutory authority.
