Trump Administration’s Plan to Roll Back Climate Pollution Regulations Sparks Concern Among Businesses and Environmental Advocates

The Trump Administration’s proposal to rescind a seminal determination linking climate pollution to public health and welfare risks poses potential challenges for corporate America.

Since 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has relied on this endangerment finding as the legal backbone for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. This finding establishes that the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a threat to human health and the well-being of communities. The elimination of this authority would lead to the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards at the federal level, according to the EPA, representing one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history.

Corporations have long contended that government efforts to curb heat-trapping pollution are impractical. However, several businesses prefer the EPA to establish national standards, assert advocates and legal experts, as it offers a protective shield from lawsuits and creates a stable environment for large-scale, long-term investments.

Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, whose membership includes major electricity producers and a natural gas industry trade group, emphasizes: “I prefer to focus on expanding our national security and winning the AI race – we can achieve affordable energy production while managing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Jeff Holmstead, an environmental lawyer at Bracewell LLP, expresses uncertainty about significant industry groups pushing the EPA to reverse its stance on climate pollution risks. “Several have opposed it,” says Holmstead, who served as an EPA official under former President George W. Bush, “and I know that numerous companies were urging the administration not to take such action.”

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for oil and gas companies, confirmed to NPR its ongoing support for a federal role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

In response to questions from NPR, the EPA stated that Congress did not authorize the agency to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin “has long acknowledged that the climate is changing,” the agency said. “EPA’s proposal is primarily a legal one.”

In spring 2023, the Trump Administration announced plans to reconsider the endangerment finding as part of an extensive initiative to roll back environmental rules. At the time, Zeldin stated that the goal was “dealing a fatal blow to the climate change crusade.”

Public hearings on the EPA’s plan are scheduled for this week.

Environmentalists, public health experts, and former EPA employees argue that the Trump Administration’s proposal contradicts a long-standing scientific consensus linking climate pollution, primarily from burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, to rising global temperatures and intensifying storms, floods, and wildfires that endanger communities.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist whose work is cited in the EPA proposal and an Energy Department report on greenhouse gas emissions’ impact, stated that the Trump Administration “cherry-picks data and parts of studies to support a predetermined narrative that downplays the risks of climate change.”

In response to NPR’s queries, the EPA clarified that it “carefully reviewed a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions made, and assumptions used, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding align with the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.” The Energy Department stated that its climate change report “thoroughly examines numerous areas of ongoing scientific research, which are often assigned high levels of confidence not by the scientists themselves but by political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations.”

The consequences of escalating temperatures are being felt in communities across the U.S. In recent years, states and localities have filed numerous lawsuits against fossil fuel companies alleging decades-long deception regarding the dangers of burning fossil fuels. These lawsuits aim to provide funding for communities to address risks and damages from global warming.

These cases have been heard in state courts. In certain instances, the EPA’s current regulation of climate pollution has protected oil and gas companies from litigation.

A South Carolina state judge recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by the city of Charleston against oil and gas industry companies, partly because, the judge ruled, greenhouse gas emissions are an issue for federal authorities to address.

“One of the primary defenses that the oil companies are raising in these lawsuits pending in state courts is preemption by the federal Clean Air Act,” says Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School. “If the federal Clean Air Act no longer governs greenhouse gas emissions through the EPA, then this defense could vanish.”

Weakening a defense employed by the fossil fuel industry could expose companies to increased legal risk, Holmstead asserts. “There are numerous individuals ready to bring lawsuits,” he says, “and it seems that this would simply invite more litigation.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, contends that the EPA’s proposal to stop regulating climate pollution does not affect Chevron’s defense. Regardless of the Trump Administration’s actions, the Supreme Court has already ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are covered by the federal Clean Air Act, Boutrous stated in an email to NPR.

However, Trump Administration supporters believe the Supreme Court is poised to overturn this ruling.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, submitted comments to the EPA stating that the Supreme Court “erroneously decided” the 2007 case in which it classified carbon dioxide as air pollution under the Clean Air Act. The group notes that the five justices who made up the majority on that case have since retired from the court. The comments were submitted on behalf of four California businesses and trade groups, including a company using natural gas boilers to manufacture tomato products and a trucking association subject to EPA climate regulations.

Holmstead acknowledges uncertainty regarding what the Supreme Court might do now. “Historically, the court has been hesitant to overturn previous rulings,” Holmstead says. “However, given the court’s conservative majority, they probably would agree that Congress did not clearly intend for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”

Such a ruling could cause disarray for businesses, according to an electric utilities trade group. In a 2022 Supreme Court brief, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated that having the EPA regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for reducing emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency’s authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group asserted, adding: “This would be chaos.”

“Industry has generally accepted the endangerment finding,” says Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group. “However, there is an element in the conservative movement that wishes to disregard [climate change] as a problem.”

EEI stated in a statement to NPR that it supports the EPA “establishing clear, consistent regulatory policies that drive energy infrastructure investment and strengthen America’s economic and energy security.”

The fact that the EPA is proceeding with its plan to stop regulating climate pollution despite concerns from corporations underscores a growing divide between the business and ideological wings of the Republican Party, Holmstead remarks. “Traditionally, Republican administrations have sought to reduce regulatory burdens,” Holmstead says. “But I think they’ve paid more attention to the concerns of the business community. I don’t want to suggest that the Trump Administration is immune to these concerns. However, for ideological reasons, they are taking actions that U.S. businesses are not supportive of.”