On Tuesday, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding on the grounds that it promoted over $1 trillion in needless regulations while also crippling vehicle development.
The EPA is claiming that aggressive regulations penned by the Obama and Biden administrations effectively resulted in less innovation within the automotive sector, more expensive vehicles, forced electrification, and billions in hidden taxes for American citizens. Leadership is suggesting that stringent restrictions on emissions have likely done more harm to the country than the very emissions they were trying to prohibit.
Boiled down, the EPA’s proposal stipulates that carbon dioxide and other gases identified as hazardous under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act weren’t properly quantified under Obama. The current EPA believes that the government failed to identify exactly how dangerous these gasses were and how to properly measure them while also totally ignoring the potential economic risks associated with implementing aggressive emissions protocols.
This is hardly the first time the Trump administration has attempted to tamp down automotive emission regulations. It was a major fixture of the president’s first time. Your author covered that saga as part of the Gas War series and it ended with a salvo of lawsuits from California, stalling progress until the Biden administration came in.
With Trump back in office, the White House has resumed efforts to try and scale back subsidies for all-electric vehicles and create less aggressive emission standards. The claim is this would allow for less-complicated vehicles boasting lower price tags, potentially spurring innovation due to the fact that automakers wouldn’t need to remain so fixated on emissions compliance.
The counter argument, which has become the mantra of most mainstream media outlets, is that this would increase pollution. NPR recently made this claim, noting that the EPA has spent a majority of its years trying to reduce emissions under the Clean Air Act.
From NPR:
In 2009, the agency determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that the agency can regulate under the Clean Air Act. That’s because those gases contribute to climate change, which harms human health.
That determination, called the “endangerment finding,” underpins major regulations — including strict tailpipe standards for carmakers that envisioned at least half the new cars sold in the U.S. being electric or plug-in hybrids by 2030. The transportation sector is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
President Trump campaigned against “electric vehicle mandates,” and once in office, pledged to roll back such rules. Three sets of regulations that push companies to build cars that burn less gasoline — or no gas at all — were in his sights. His administration and Congress have already eliminated or weakened two of them.
While the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” was focused upon government spending and tax reforms, it was still omnibus legislation encompassing all sorts of issues. Its passing technically eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards. So what is arguably the biggest hurdle for emissions compliance has technically already been dealt with.
The Environmental Protection Agency likewise tends to change based upon whatever government is in power. As an agency of the United States government, its employees are appointed by politicians and they may want someone who has certain beliefs about what protecting the environment actually means. This seems to have been the case with current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
Meanwhile, there has been an increasing amount of pushback from the public surrounding environmentalism. Despite most people still believing that a cleaner environment is also a healthier one, many have grown critical about how the concept is being implemented. Companies and governments alike have used the premise of environmentalism or fears about climate change as a way to rationalize actions that seemingly have little to do with actually mitigating pollution. Claims have been made that the concept of environmentalism and safety has been stretched so thin that they are routinely being abused.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin didn’t quite come out and say that directly when making his announcement on Tuesday. But he did suggest the metrics being used to assess the dangers of greenhouse gasses during the Obama administration were politically motivated.
“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” Zeldin said. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year. We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA’s GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide which the Finding never assessed independently, was the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.”
Indiana Governor Mike Braun agreed with Zeldin’s assertion, as did American Trucking Association President and CEO Chris Spear.
“The Obama-Biden EPA used regulations as a political tool and hurt American competitiveness without results to show for it,” Gov. Braun said at the Indiana-based event. “Today’s announcement is a win for consumer choice, common sense, and American energy independence. President Trump, Secretary Wright, and Administrator Zeldin are returning the EPA to its proper role, and I’m proud they chose Indiana as the place to make this announcement because our state is proof we can protect our environment and support American jobs,”
“We commend President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin for taking decisive action to rescind the disastrous GHG Phase 3 rule,” added Mr. Spear. “This electric-truck mandate put the trucking industry on a path to economic ruin and would have crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses. Moreover, it kicked innovation to the curb by discarding available technologies that can further drive down emissions at a fraction of the cost.”
From the EPA:
Congress tasked EPA under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act with prescribing emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines when the Administrator determines that emissions of an air pollutant from any class of vehicles causes or contributes to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. But the Obama Administration ignored Congress’ clear intent, slicing and dicing the language of the statute to make an “endangerment finding” totally separate from any actual rule setting standards for emissions from cars.
In an unprecedented move, the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles – in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t even emit – contributes some unspecified amount to climate change, which in turn creates some unspecified amount of endangerment to human health and welfare. These mental leaps were admittedly novel, but they were the only way the Obama-Biden Administration could access EPA’s authority to regulate under Section 202(a).
Likewise, the Obama EPA did not consider any aspect of the regulations that would flow from the Endangerment Finding. EPA subsequently relied on the Endangerment Finding to underpin seven vehicle regulations with an aggregate cost of more than $1 trillion. The Endangerment Finding has also played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks, resulting in additional costly burdens on American families and businesses.
Much has changed since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, including new scientific and technological developments that warrant review. Additionally, major Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have significantly clarified the scope of EPA’s authority under the CAA. The decisions emphasized that major policy determinations must be made by Congress, not by administrative agencies.
Critics have called the move a major victory for oil companies. The Environmental Defense Fund and Moms Clean Air Force both bemoaned the EPA’s actions, with the latter environmental advocacy group calling it “shameful, reckless, and immoral.”
But one could have just as easily made claims that environmentalism promoted electrification that primarily benefited Chinese battery manufacturers and environmentally damaging mining operations. Regardless, the biggest oil companies have enjoyed staggering profits in recent years and were already pivoting to become “energy companies” anyway. They certainly haven’t been suffering from a profitability standpoint.
This would be a good time to remind everyone that, no matter how you obtain your energy, there is always an environmental cost. Conservation is the only proven way to consistently reduce emissions and pollution — meaning that you’re typically better off running whatever you have now as efficiently as possible if you care about pollution. Don’t buy something new if you don’t need to.
Before the EPA’s latest proposal comes into play, it will need to undergo a period of public comment. Based upon previous efforts to rollback emissions, lawsuits will be inevitable (assuming it’s finalized) and that may grind progress to a halt. Unless automakers quickly retool assembly lines to build older models, which is highly unlikely, they’ll also need time to adapt to subsequent changes.
But the bigger question is whether anything will change at all. While the industry will undoubtedly appreciate less stringent regulations, leadership remains convinced that a lot of the changes they’ve made over the last 10 years will ultimately be profitable. All of the new tech and complicated designs that are helping vehicle prices high may still be there regardless of what the EPA does.
[Images: Marian Weyo/Shutterstock; Sheila Fitzgerald/Shutterstock; Virrage Images/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
