The current administration has initiated a significant procedural action aimed at fundamentally altering the federal government’s approach to environmental policy, particularly concerning climate change.

At the core of this monumental shift is the Environmental Protection Agency’s official proposal to terminate a foundational 2009 rule, famously known as the “endangerment finding.” This Obama-era regulation asserted that greenhouse gas emissions posed a threat to public health and welfare, thereby providing the legal basis for extensive climate regulation.

Should this termination succeed, it would effectively remove the federal government from the business of climate regulation without explicit congressional authorization. This move signifies a deliberate effort to redefine the scope and limitations of executive power in environmental governance.

Parallel to the EPA’s action, the Department of Energy has also released a comprehensive summary presenting an alternative perspective, arguing that certain emissions are not only benign but potentially beneficial, thus challenging the established narrative on environmental threats. This coordinated effort underscores a unified administrative stance.

The implications of rescinding the endangerment finding are vast, potentially unwinding years of regulatory frameworks built upon its premise. Currently, the most prominent remaining regulation tied to this finding is the de facto electric vehicle mandate championed by the current EPA, which the administration is actively seeking to reverse.

This audacious administrative maneuver is expected to face immediate and rigorous legal challenges. Numerous “blue states” and various environmental activist organizations are poised to file lawsuits, aiming to block the rescission of the endangerment finding through judicial intervention.

However, proponents of the rescission anticipate that such legal battles could ultimately lead to a pivotal review by the Supreme Court. There is a strong expectation among supporters that the Court might use this opportunity to revisit and potentially overturn its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which originally affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The outcome of these legal and policy struggles will undoubtedly reshape the landscape of federal environmental policy for decades to come, marking a significant departure from previous administrations’ approaches and setting a new precedent for the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary on matters of environmental stewardship.