|
Before 2009, the USEPA regulated six pollutants it considers “criteria air pollutants” that are harmful to public health and the environment. Those pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Additionally, it regulates the emissions of 188 “hazardous air pollutants.” The repeal of the Endangerment Finding has no impact on the USEPA’s regulation of any of those pollutants.
In 2009, under the Obama Administration, the EPA expanded the list of harmful pollutants. It determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions also contribute to the endangerment of public health and welfare. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. All of which are suspected to trap heat in the Earth’s environment.
Recognizing this new expansive determination and using it as the foundation for new vehicle emission policies, the federal government passed a host of rules to curb GHG emissions. Some of the federal rules included the light-duty vehicle GHG emission standard, fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and the multi-pollutant emissions standards for model years 2027 and later light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. These requirements were assessed on vehicle and engine manufacturers which, in turn, increased the purchase price for vehicle owners.
California passed a variety of rules similar yet more stringent than the USEPA. It did this because the CAA authorizes states to apply for a waiver to its requirements. California has historically argued the waiver to the CAA is necessary due to the state’s unique geography and history of smog. As a result, Clifornia has passed the following vehicle emission programs:
All of these programs were implemented directly because of the Endangerment Finding and California’s waiver to the CAA, authorizing the state to exceed federal emission requirements. Each of them depend on GHG reductions through electrification and other zero-emission vehicle strategies.
The federal and California-specific rules are now under threat through the repeal of the Endangerment finding. It’s highly likely that the courts will dictate next steps as plaintiffs will allege the regulations lack any statutory authority to regulate GHGs from vehicles.
It must be noted here that California has also tied vehicle miles travelled requirements to certain development and highway expansion projects. The prevailing thought behind this is that planners should find ways to mitigate the total number of new VMTs created due to the new development or highway expansion as a way to reduce GHG emissions. If the assumption that GHGs are no longer considered a pollutant, the VMT mitigation efforts might also be in jeopardy due specifically to the repeal of the Endangerment Finding.
It’s also likely that California, as it is known to do, will go its own way and establish its own California Endangerment Finding. This could lead to a patchwork of state regulations on GHGs which could trigger claims of Interstate Commerce violations contained in the US Constitution since, theoretically, two states could have significantly different emission regulations undermining federal authority and establishing state-created obstructions.
As you can imagine, environmental organizations perceive the Endangerment Finding’s repeal as a terrible decision for the planet. The Sierra Club said it is “a reckless assault on our health and planet.” Other major environmental organizations shared the Sierra Club’s sentiment. Many of them also said the repeal is unlawful and have vowed to challenge it in court.
The Trump Administration, specifically USEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, announced it is the biggest de-regulation action in U.S. history and would save the American taxpayer over $1.3 trillion. Administrator Zeldin referred to those that support the Endangerment Finding as “climate change zealots.”
Of particular note in the USEPA’s final rule document was the assertion that the rule would do little if anything to reduce GHG emissions. Specifically, the Final Rule claims:
| 
