Experts slam EPA targeting of landmark environmental protection
Ryan Knappenberger
WASHINGTON (CN) — Environmental experts warned Thursday that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement that he would try to overturn the long-standing conclusion that carbon dioxide pollution endangers human health would have immediate and devastating impacts.
The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has been the foundation of the nation’s efforts to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act and has repeatedly been upheld by federal courts and the last three presidents, including President Donald Trump during his first term.
Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, said during a press conference on Thursday that Trump and Zeldin have a legal responsibility under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 finding to ensure Americans benefit from a clean environment.
“Those are responsibilities that are anchored in law,” Patton said. “Those benefits include ensuring that our children can play outside free from the scourge of air pollution, that our children are not poisoned by toxic mercury and ensures that every child has every right to thrive free from the harms of pollution.”
Patton noted that the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 explicitly targeted the Endangerment Finding. Several of the blueprint's authors — like Russell Vought, Peter Navarro, Brendan Carr, and others — now have key roles in the new administration.
She described Zeldin’s moves as part of the conservative blueprint’s “Polluters First” agenda.
On Wednesday, Zeldin announced the EPA would undertake 31 actions to reconsider numerous climate regulations, including rules for power plants, the oil and gas industry, coal-fired power plants, coal ash programs, and wastewater regulations for coal plants.
The effort would also end the “Good Neighbor" rule meant to reduce cross-state pollution, which the Supreme Court paused in June 2024.
“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen,” Zeldin said in a statement on Wednesday. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”
Patton explained Thursday that since the 2009 finding, mountains of scientific evidence and Americans’ lived experience have only further supported the risks associated with carbon emissions.
She highlighted the wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles and Southern California in January, the wildfires in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, as well as Hurricane Helene, as the most obvious examples of climate change’s impacts.
Peter Zalzal, distinguished counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, said that over the last 14 years, the EPA cut billions of tons of pollution, improved air quality, saved Americans countless dollars, and supported jobs in the energy sector.
“Zeldin’s announcement yesterday would mean the biggest increase in pollution in decades,” Zalzal said. “That would mean more harms and higher costs to communities that are already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change.”
Zalzal noted that Zeldin’s move was unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny, even at the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.
He highlighted the high court’s decision last summer in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, a legal practice that instructed federal judges to defer to agencies’ interpretations of the law when a governing statute was ambiguous.
Under Loper Bright, Zalzal explained that courts now have the power to determine the best reading of a statute, and the Supreme Court has already determined the best reading of the Clean Air Act.
It is unclear what authority Zeldin has to roll back these environmental protections, but he cited several Supreme Court cases, including Loper Bright, that he argued supported his position, such as West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Group v. EPA.
Utility Air Group was one of the first cases to begin establishing the Supreme Court’s so-called “major questions doctrine,” which effectively limits agencies’ authority to regulate issues of major economic consequence without explicit instructions from Congress.
Zalzal doubted Zeldin would find much success with those cases, noting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected similar arguments challenging the Endangerment Finding.
Phil Duffy, chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, said Thursday that Zeldin’s announcement made clear that local governments and private organizations would have to increase their efforts to combat climate change.
“Regardless of what happens to the Endangerment Finding, it’s clear that this administration is set on reversing progress on climate change, reversing progress on decarbonization and expanding fossil fuels,” Duffy said. “What that means is if we want to maintain progress, then it’s going to be up to other entities to drive that.”