An EPA plan to kill a major climate rule worries business leaders

A quality check area at the Honda plant in Marysville, Ohio, March 28, 2023. The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is promising to erase a scientific finding, a rule known as the endangerment finding, that underpins climate regulations nationwide — but some business leaders are wary, concerned that the move could lead to a costly legal quagmire. (Maddie McGarvey/The New York Times)

By KAREN ZRAICK and LISA FRIEDMAN

The Environmental Protection Agency is promising to erase a scientific finding that underpins climate regulations nationwide. But some business leaders said they are wary that the move could lead to a costly legal quagmire.

The rule, known as the “endangerment finding,” is the conclusion by the EPA that greenhouse gases endanger public health and therefore must be regulated by the federal government. Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, has said the agency would repeal the 2009 finding, contending that the burden to industries of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is more harmful than a warming planet.

And yet carmakers, electric utilities, and even the oil and gas industry have asked the EPA to tread carefully. If the federal government were to stop regulating greenhouse gases, it could clear the way for states and municipalities to sue companies for damages from climate change. And it could spur individual states to come up with their own pollution limits, creating a patchwork of regulations. Environmental groups have also promised to sue the EPA if it repeals the finding, leading to more uncertainty for businesses.

“This is something that the vast majority of industry didn’t ask for and doesn’t want,” said Zach Friedman, senior director of federal policy at Ceres, a nonprofit group that submitted a letter from 59 companies and investors opposing the EPA plan.

Brigit Hirsch, a spokesperson for the EPA, said in a statement that rescinding the endangerment finding would “unlock regulatory clarity like never before” and said the finding had led to heavy costs, particularly for the auto industry.

“We live in a democracy, and as such, private companies are welcome to make decisions as they see fit,” she said.

Human activities, mainly the burning of coal, oil and gas for energy, have produced the greenhouse gases that have been the primary driver of climate change for more than half a century. Carbon dioxide, methane and other gases have accumulated in the atmosphere and are warming the planet by trapping the sun’s heat. That has contributed to more intense wildfires and heat waves, rising seas and extreme weather events.

In its proposal to repeal the endangerment finding, the EPA cited a recent Energy Department report that downplayed the severity of climate change. That report was written by five prominent climate contrarians chosen by the Trump administration.

Their work has been sharply criticized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the American Meteorological Society and more than 85 climate scientists in the United States, who found that the Trump administration’s climate report has numerous inaccuracies and misrepresents climate science.

Scott Saleska, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, said the evidence that supported the endangerment finding 16 years ago has only grown stronger since then. Air temperatures have increased, sea levels have risen and ocean acidification has worsened. Heat-related deaths are rising, smoke from wildfires is increasingly severe and the spread of climate-enabled diseases is on the uptick.

Ignoring that evidence, as the EPA appears poised to do, Saleska said, “puts an exclamation point on the idea that science, as the best method the human species has ever come up with for discerning objective reality, has no role in this government.”

Few business leaders raised the threat of climate change in their opposition to the EPA plan, and many in fact argued for loosened emissions standards.

But they still said the federal government should retain the ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Rescinding the endangerment finding “will serve not as a path to regulatory stability, but rather a route to prolonged legal battles, possible market fragmentation and technological stagnation,” Jim Kliesch, director of regulatory affairs at American Honda Motor Company Inc., wrote.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, wrote that “federal government action is a necessary part of the solution” to climate change and said it believes that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing the electric power industry, said that without a federal role in regulating greenhouse gases, states and cities could “attempt to fill that perceived void through increased regulatory requirements that could vary significantly from one jurisdiction to the next.”

But other business groups supported removing the endangerment finding. The National Mining Association, which represents mining companies, and the Steel Manufacturers Association backed the agency, as did energy associations from several states, including coal- and gas-rich Wyoming.

Changing federal regulations is typically a lengthy process, and the EPA was required to solicit and review public comments about potential changes. The Trump administration is aiming to finalize the repeal before the end of the year, according to several EPA officials.

The EPA has said the Clean Air Act and the structure of the federal system would block lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, even without the endangerment finding in place. But that reading of the law would most likely be challenged in court.

“I think that’s one reason why Trump didn’t try to do this in his first term,” said Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland’s law school. “They were warned that it was too dangerous to open up this Pandora’s box.”