EPA chief Lee Zeldin recently announced 31 initiatives aimed at reversing several key environmental regulations. These include re-evaluating limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, relaxing vehicle emission standards designed to promote EV adoption, and challenging the 2009 “endangerment finding” that identified greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane as public health threats.
The EPA has hailed this as “the most significant deregulation in U.S. history.”
However, legal experts view this as a stark departure from the EPA’s original mission to protect human health and the environment. Michael Burger of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law describes it as “an all-out assault on climate regulation and environmental and public health protections.”
Experts caution that the announcement doesn’t automatically grant the EPA the authority to implement these proposed rollbacks. Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law emphasizes that agencies cannot take actions that directly contradict their core mandate and purpose.
While administrations have some leeway in enforcing regulations, Reisch points out that completely repealing them is a more complex process. “Simply announcing these changes doesn’t alter existing laws protecting clean air and water, and public health,” she states.
To repeal a statute, the EPA must follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires publishing notices of proposed and final rules and providing ample opportunity for public comment. Reisch highlights that the agency must clearly explain its intentions and reasoning. It can’t simply ignore public feedback and proceed without addressing concerns. This public input is a crucial avenue for signaling the importance of certain issues to the agency.
The agency must also support its proposals with scientific evidence. One major proposed change is reconsidering the 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health—a finding that has underpinned much of the EPA’s work over the past 15 years.
To overturn this finding, the EPA would need to demonstrate that the scientific evidence is incorrect, effectively disproving a globally accepted fact. Greenhouse gas pollutants degrade air quality, contributing to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Burger asserts that the EPA would need to prove the original determination about greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change and endangering public health was flawed or lacked sufficient scientific basis. He argues that there is no basis for this, given the clear science and global consensus.
Experts predict that any attempts to roll back regulations will face legal challenges and are unlikely to succeed in court, given the scientific evidence against the agency’s proposals.
However, this process could take time, potentially allowing the administration or its corporate allies to pursue their own interests in the interim.
Yale University environmental law professor Daniel Esty suggests that the administration may be counting on the lengthy litigation process. By disregarding prior regulations while a challenge is underway, they may be able to achieve most of their objectives.