Climate 411

Danger ahead: the Trump administration’s attack on EPA’s finding that climate pollution harms public health

On his first day in office, President Trump issued dozens of executive orders attacking the nation’s climate and clean air protections.

Buried in one of these orders is direction to the Environmental Protection Agency to make recommendations by February 19th on the “legality and continued applicability” of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding is EPA’s science-based determination that greenhouse gases – the pollution that causes climate change – harm public health and welfare.

The directive to reconsider the Endangerment Finding comes straight from Project 2025 and is both cynical and deeply concerning given the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the Finding, the devastating climate harms Americans are experiencing right now, and EPA’s clear obligation to protect Americans’ health and welfare.

Shortly after receiving President Trump’s directive, EPA’s acting Administrator summarily fired the agency’s independent Science Advisory Board – the very scientists who can speak to the extensive scientific basis supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The real-world consequences of any effort by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the Trump administration to destabilize the Endangerment Finding would be severe and unlawful and would hurt Americans across the country.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

In 2007, the Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the unambiguous meaning of the Clean Air Act and that EPA must make a science-based determination as to whether greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, in 2009, EPA issued the Endangerment Finding, which determines that climate pollution threatens the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Here are a few things you should know about EPA’s finding:

It’s supported by extensive science

The Endangerment Finding is based on a vast amount of scientific evidence that climate pollution harms human health. It was adopted after extensive public process, including multiple opportunities for public input and evaluation of more than 380,000 public comments.

The final Endangerment Finding includes detailed information confirming that greenhouse gas pollution is driving destructive changes in our climate that pose a grave and growing threat to Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being, both now and in the future. These include health harms from increased smog, rising temperatures and extreme weather events, among other things.

Over time, the scientific evidence has only become stronger. The intergovernmental expert body charged by Congress with assessing the impacts of climate change on the United States has issued a series of National Climate Assessments, most recently by the Trump Administration in 2018 and the Biden Administration in 2023. The National Climate Assessments confirm that climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is causing extensive, and increasingly severe harms throughout the country.

EPA has also continued to document the science behind greenhouse gases’ contributions to climate change, including in earlier responses to requests that it reevaluate the Endangerment Finding (here and here) and in multiple actions establishing pollution standards for power plants, cars and freight trucks, and oil and gas facilities – some of which include scientific assessments that were completed within the last year.  And in legal filings supporting these actions, climate scientists have pointed to very recent scientific evidence that even more strongly confirms these climate pollution harms.

In short, the science unequivocally supports what so many Americans are already experiencing – climate pollution is causing harm in communities across the country. There is no question about the Endangerment Finding’s “continued applicability.”

Courts have repeatedly affirmed its Legality

Unsurprisingly, given the extensive evidence supporting it, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the Endangerment Finding.

For instance, the finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. Industry groups had challenged EPA’s use of scientific assessments, but the court held that EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence before it in “a rational manner.”

Then the Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari (review) that raised challenges to the Endangerment Finding in October 2013.

More recently, the D.C. Circuit again rejected challenges to the finding and the Supreme Court again denied review.

The findings have been the basis of agency decisions across administrations of both parties and have been the basis of numerous judicial decisions. As to the Endangerment Finding’s “legality,” the answer is also a clear and unequivocal “yes.”

Commonsense steps to cut pollution, protect communities

Beyond being grounded in the science, law, and the everyday experience of many Americans, the Endangerment Finding is important because it empowers EPA to do its job – protecting Americans from harmful climate pollution.

EPA has done just that since adopting the Endangerment Finding by taking commonsense steps to reduce climate pollution from large sources like power plants, cars and trucks, and oil and gas operations. These actions have been enormously successful in reducing pollution and delivering immediate benefits to Americans across the country.

It is vital that these commonsense measures remain in place. Recent EDF analysis looks at 11 key actions (including the foundational EPA climate protections mentioned above) that together will reduce more than 28 billion metric tons of climate pollution by 2055. That’s almost five times the total amount of annual emissions from the United States today.

New threats to the Endangerment Finding

President Trump’s efforts to reverse the Endangerment Finding come straight from Project 2025 – the infamous policy playbook crafted in part by Russell Vought, the new head of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Targeting the Endangerment Finding is extreme, dangerous, and puts the important benefits mentioned above at risk. It also goes well beyond anything the first Trump administration undertook.

Undermining the Endangerment Finding would be inconsistent with the commitments EPA Administrator Zeldin made during his confirmation hearing. Despite EPA’s recent dismissal of its independent Scientific Advisory Board, Administrator Zeldin affirmed that “I am someone who believes strongly that we should work with the scientists, leaving the science to the scientists … Fortunately, at EPA, we do have many talented scientists who provide that research.” (Senate EPW Committee transcript page 34) He repeatedly committed to “honoring our obligations under the law,” and said that “we will have never done enough to ensure that our water and our air is clean, safe, and healthy. Whatever we do every day to achieve this objective, we need to wake up the next day looking for ways to do more.” (Transcript page 37)

It is simply not possible to square these statements with any effort to destroy a science-based finding, affirmed by the courts, that provides the foundation for EPA’s efforts to protect Americans’ health and well-being from harmful climate pollution today and going forward.

For more information, please see the letter and appendix of relevant documents EDF recently sent to EPA on the Endangerment Finding.

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Clean Air Act, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy, Science / Authors: / Leave a comment

Power companies, businesses, and experts support EPA authority to address climate pollution at Supreme Court

More than a dozen amicus curiae – or “friend of the court” – briefs were filed in support of EPA in West Virginia et al. v. EPA, a Supreme Court legal challenge brought by coal companies and their allies in an effort to undermine EPA’s authority to safeguard human health and the environment from the climate pollution emitted by power plants.

Amicus briefs are common in Supreme Court cases and can provide the Justices with important information or arguments from entities that are not themselves party to the legal challenge. But the amici supporting EPA here are especially notable for their breadth and expertise. They represent a far-reaching set of interests and entities, including a large coalition of the nation’s power companies, former power company leaders, major American businesses and manufacturers, power sector experts, climate scientists, legal scholars, medical and public health experts, almost 200 members of Congress, and the Edison Electric Institute – which represents numerous companies that would themselves be regulated under any hypothetical EPA rule filed in support of EPA’s authority here.

Such a substantial showing of amici underscores the significance of maintaining EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution and protect human health and the environment in the face of aggressive attacks from the coal petitioners and their allies.

Here’s more about the amicus briefs:

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

An attack on hypothetical climate pollution safeguards lands at the Supreme Court. EDF will fight to protect climate action.

EPA’s authority to safeguard human health and the environment is longstanding and well-established. But now there’s a new case before the Supreme Court that threatens it.

The case was brought by coal companies and their allies, whose efforts to tightly constrict EPA’s ability are not only alarming but also should not even be before the Supreme Court. That’s why EDF is participating in the case (West Virginia et al. v. EPA) in support of the agency’s clear authority and obligation to reduce climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. We joined other leading environmental groups and trade associations to file our merits brief in the case. Almost two dozen states and several cities, the federal government, and power companies that provide power to 40 million people in 49 states also filed in support of EPA.

The arguments made by the petitioners in this case do not articulate an actual, redressable injury. The case before the Supreme Court necessarily lacks this essential ingredient necessary for court review because the rule petitioners take issue with is not currently in effect. In fact, the rule has never been in effect.

Put simply, no actual dispute exists.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Safeguarding EPA’s authority at the Supreme Court is a climate imperative

Coal companies and supporting states recently filed opening briefs in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case involving the Trump Administration’s repeal of, and weak replacement for, the 2015 Clean Power Plan regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Although neither regulation is in effect – indeed, EPA has indicated that it plans to adopt a new rule working from a clean slate — Petitioners seek to use this case to effect sweeping changes in longstanding legal doctrine and well-established norms. Petitioners are not only asking the Court to do extraordinary damage to EPA authority, but also set forth their arguments expansively so as to apply to a wide range of vital services and laws – turning this case into one broadly relevant to the ability for expert agencies to protect human health, the environment, and other public values.

These concerns are not theoretical. Petitioners have filed papers with the Supreme Court that argue that tight constrictions should be put around EPA’s efforts to address climate change. What Petitioners seek stands in stark contrast to what this moment demands and ignores the fact that Congress intended EPA, through the Clean Air Act, to address big problems like nationwide air pollution coming from the country’s largest industries.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Power Plan, News, Policy / Comments are closed

The Supreme Court will review a crucial case about climate pollution from power plants. Now what?

(This post was co-authored by EDF legal fellow Jesse Hevia)

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a D.C. Circuit decision that struck down the Trump administration’s rule weakening regulations of carbon pollution from power plants.

Here’s a look at what happened – and what might happen next.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Four Reasons Petitions for Supreme Court Review of Climate Pollution Standards for Power Plants Should Fail

This coming Monday, the Supreme Court will consider hundreds of petitions for review, which ask the Court to take up cases for full consideration during its new term. Among the petitions for review are four from coal companies and states asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit decision overturning the Trump administration’s rule weakening regulations of carbon pollution from power plants. For multiple reasons the four petitions lack merit.

The Clean Power Plan, adopted in 2015, established the first-ever national limits on climate pollution from existing power plants. In 2019, the Trump administration adopted regulations to repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with the “ACE” rule – which did virtually nothing to limit pollution.

This January the D.C. Circuit struck down this attempt, issuing a narrow opinion that explained how ACE misinterpreted specific language in section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

In the months since the D.C. Circuit’s decision, neither the Clean Power Plan nor the Trump administration’s weak replacement rule has been in effect, meaning that no power plants or operators have experienced harm under either rule. Additionally, EPA has been working from a clean slate on new safeguards that will reflect current information about our rapidly changing power sector. Despite this, and the fact that no one is subject to any compliance obligations under the Clean Power Plan or ACE, coal companies and 21 states are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit opinion and issue a statutory interpretation that limits EPA’s ability under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from climate pollution.

Effectively, they are asking the Court for an “advisory” opinion — a free-floating legal opinion untethered to any current dispute but intended to constrain future behavior. EDF is part of a coalition of environmental organizations that – along with almost two dozen states and cities, power companies and business associations – opposes this challenge.

Rather than take up this case in order to consider legal theories in the abstract, the appropriate course would be for the Court to allow EPA to complete its new rulemaking, which will be subject to judicial review once finalized. At that time, reviewing courts will be able to assess EPA’s actual application of its Clean Air Act authority in the context of real compliance obligations and a factual record that reflects current realities.

Here are four key reasons that the petitioners’ pleas for Supreme Court review should fail:

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed