Dissecting EPA’s Endangerment Repeal: Series Wrap-Up:

Here’s what you need to know to understand the upcoming legal battles.

Yesterday was the last of five Legal Planet posts on EPA’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding, which EPA based on legal arguments claiming that it has no power to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases.  The series began with a quick overview of the issues. The remaining posts focus on three topics: (1) the reasons that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding in the first place in 2009; (2) the legal precedents supporting the Endangerment Finding; and (3) the potential impact of the repeal on future climate actions. The bottom line is that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding and wrong to repeal it.

There’s one other important point I want to make at the beginning.  Nothing in EPA’s action contests the causes and dangers of climate change.  EPA just claims to be helpless to address the issue.

Why EPA was Right to issue the 2009 Finding. This post argues that EPA’s action faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s directive in Massachusetts v. EPA, making use of the overwhelming scientific evidence about the causes and dangers of climate change.

The Weight of Precedent. EPA now argues for a very narrow reading of the Massachusetts case.  This claim is disingenuous. Anyone who actually reads the Court’s opinion, however, will immediately see through those arguments, as discussed in this post.  EPA is probably hoping that the Supreme Court will overrule the case.  As I explain in another post, this may be more difficult given a later Supreme Court opinion expressly endorsing Massachusetts – an opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.

The Implications of Repealing Endangerment.  EPA Administrator Zeldin claims that the repeal is a dagger blow to the heart of what he calls the “climate religion.”  This is a considerable overstatement.  As my last post points out, the impact of a judicial ruling in favor of the repeal on federal climate policy would depend on what specific argument the Court adopts. In terms of state climate policy, another post argued that repeal might actually give states more leeway.

I should also mention one additional post, although it’s not on Legal Planet.  In an essay in the Regulatory Review, I dissected EPA’s current statutory claims and point out ways in which they are problematic.

This may seem like a lot of writing about a single EPA action, but I think it’s justified given the significance of the Endangerment Finding repeal. Before the litigation is over, we will all be hearing far more about these legal issues.

Clean Air Act, endangerment finding, Endangerment Finding repeal, Federal Climate Policy, Massachusetts v. EPA, state climate policy, states, Trump Administration, vehicle emissions, vehicle greenhouse gas emissions