Arizona will be fighting the Trump administration over its deregulation of motor vehicle and engine emissions.
Attorney General Kris Mayes announced her decision to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alongside a coalition of states, counties, and cities over the agency’s decision last month to rescind the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding.
The 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding followed the Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 granting the EPA authorization to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding resulted in emissions regulations for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
Mayes and the EPA disagree as to whether the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling and the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding were connected. Mayes maintains the decision directly gave the EPA regulatory authority, but the EPA maintains the decision merely recognized greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants.
The EPA justified its decision based on its reading of the Clean Air Act (CAA), first established in 1965, and Supreme Court decisions overruling EPA regulations following the 2007 decision.
The EPA determined it lacked statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles, specifically citing Section 202(a) of the CAA. Additionally, the EPA determined that its regulations “have not and cannot have any material impact on global climate change concerns, rendering them futile.”
According to the EPA, the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding served as the legal prerequisite for the Biden administration’s push toward an electric vehicle mandate and the vehicle manufacturer industry shift toward start-stop features in cars.
As a result of the EPA’s new rule, engine and vehicle manufactures won’t be obligated to measure, control, or report greenhouse gas emissions for any highway engine and vehicle. Their action grandfathered in model years manufactured prior to the rule.
The EPA estimated the rescission amounted to “the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” and would save Americans over $1.3 trillion in vehicle costs. That amounts to an estimated $2,400 in savings for new cars and trucks.
The EPA issued a notice clarifying which regulations will be impacted by their new final rule. (A full regulatory impact analysis was made available here).
Mayes accused the Trump administration of rushing the rulemaking process and “blatantly disregarding the law and science.” Mayes blamed emissions for climate change, citing Arizona’s recent years of record summer heat and wildfires.
“On the day we file this lawsuit, much of Arizona is under an extreme heat warning due to an unprecedented early heatwave that has spiked temperatures over twenty degrees above normal,” said Mayes. “It is abundantly clear that greenhouse gas pollution has fueled climate change in our state and across the entire planet. The decision by the Trump administration to rescind the Endangerment Finding will only accelerate climate change. Putting the profits of the fossil fuel industry over the future of our planet is a failure of historic proportions and we will fight it with every tool we have.”
Mayes joined the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general for 22 states and D.C.: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Their lawsuit was also joined by the governor of Pennsylvania, eight cities across seven states, and four counties across three states.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Environmental Protection Agency officially proposed to terminate what President Trump has long called the “climate hoax.” If successful, the federal government will be out of the climate regulation business with no hope of returning to it without congressional authorization.
The Trump EPA proposed to rescind a 2009 Obama EPA rule called the “endangerment finding.” In that rulemaking, the Obama EPA determined that emissions of greenhouse gases threatened human health and welfare by causing global warming. Simultaneously with the EPA proposal, the Trump Department of Energy issued a scientific report summarizing why emissions are actually a good thing and threaten nothing.
The scientific findings, however, are superfluous since EPA never had express authority from Congress to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the first place. Controversy and litigation about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases resulted in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the Court determined in a 5-4 holding that EPA could, but did not have to, regulate emissions.
But the decision was controversial. Clean Air Act co-author and famed Democrat Congressman, the late John Dingell, afterwards stated: “I think the Supreme Court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. I was present when we wrote that legislation and we thought it was clear enough that it did not, and we didn’t clarify it thinking that even the Supreme Court was not stupid enough to make that finding.”
Following the decision, the Bush EPA decided that it would not regulate emissions. When the Obama administration came into power in 2009, it reversed the Bush EPA’s decision and began using the endangerment finding as the basis for regulation of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.
Although many questioned the scientific basis of the Obama EPA’s decision, it was impossible to get a judicial hearing on the science. Federal judges informally decided decades ago that they would defer to regulatory agency decisions on questions of science.
With the endangerment finding apparently firmly in place, the Obama administration, and later the Biden administration, proceeded to regulate tailpipe and power plant emissions of greenhouse gases.
Cracks in the ability of EPA to use the endangerment finding soon began to appear. In 2014, the Supreme Court determined that the Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to use the endangerment finding to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial smokestacks. In 2022, the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA nullified an effort to regulate emission from power plants, holding that EPA could not launch major regulatory programs without express congressional authorization.
Today, all that remains of EPA’s endangerment finding-based rules are tailpipe regulations in the form of the Biden EPA’s de facto EV mandate, a rule that the Trump administration is in the process of reversing.
Since the Obama EPA made the endangerment finding, electricity prices have soared. Gas prices and inflation soared during the Biden administration. Tens of thousands of high-paying coal miner jobs have been destroyed and their communities devastated.
Our electricity grid has been made less reliable by the advent of existentially subsidized wind and solar power. Periods of peak electricity demand like summer heat waves and winter cold spells now routinely result in blackout/brownout warnings. This problem will get worse before it gets better with the ongoing electricity demand from AI data centers and the re-industrialization of America.
Blue states and their climate activist allies will no doubt sue the Trump EPA to stop the rescission of the endangerment finding. But all this will accomplish is the Supreme Court almost certainly reversing its original sin committed in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some of us can’t wait.
Steve Milloy is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a biostatistician, and lawyer, who publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.
The Trump administration is gearing up to try to revoke one of the most overreaching, unscientific regulatory edifices ever erected: the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” News broke this week that the Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to rescind this cornerstone of federal climate policy, which declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a danger to human health and welfare.
If this move succeeds, it would limit the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, and industries—a prospect that has the climate alarmist crowd clutching their pearls. And frankly, it’s about time someone challenged this rank absurdity.
Let’s take a walk down memory lane to 2009, when the Obama-era EPA, emboldened by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, decided to anoint itself the arbiter of America’s energy future. The endangerment finding was born, asserting that CO2 – literally plant food, and the fundamental building block for all life on planet Earth – is actually a “pollutant” that “endangers public health” as defined under the Clean Air Act.
This vast expansion of the regulatory state wasn’t based on some groundbreaking scientific discovery but rather on a political agenda dressed up in green rhetoric. The finding has since provided the legal foundation for a slew of regulations, from tailpipe emissions standards to power plant rules, all designed to choke the fossil fuel industry and push the U.S. toward a so-called “clean energy” utopia that exists only in the fever dreams of climate activists.
Now, the Trump EPA, led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, appears poised to dismantle this house of cards. Zeldin’s draft proposal argues that the EPA overstepped its authority by issuing such a sweeping determination.
The plan focuses on a legal argument that the EPA’s administrator lacks the power to make broad proclamations about greenhouse gases without specific congressional authorization. This is a direct jab at the 2007 Supreme Court decision, a judicial overreach that gave unelected bureaucrats a blank check to regulate the economy. It is key to also remember that that decision came at a time when the Chevron Deference, which the Court did away with a year ago, was still in effect.
Adopted in 1984, the Chevron Deference held that courts must defer to the judgment of regulators when interpreting the congressional intent of federal statutes. But the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate CO2, a point even the late Rep. John Dingell, a co-author of the law, made clear.
Of course, the climate alarm lobby will drag this fight into the courts, so overturning the finding will not be easy. The EPA must navigate a minefield of procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the alarmists will try to overwhelm the courts with claims that climate change has only grown since 2009, asserting that every extreme weather event somehow proves their case.
But the Trump administration isn’t denying climate change outright; it’s questioning whether the EPA has the legal authority to act as America’s climate czar. This is a fight worth having, because if the agency can regulate CO2 without clear congressional approval, what’s stopping it from declaring water vapor a pollutant next?
The bigger picture here illustrates the absurdity of the energy transition itself. The endangerment finding has been a cudgel to force a shift away from reliable, affordable fossil fuels toward a fantasy of windmills and solar panels that can’t power a modern economy. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, but even if we zeroed out emissions tomorrow, global temperatures would barely budge without similar action from China and India.
Meanwhile, Americans bear the brunt of higher energy costs and a less reliable grid. Rescinding the endangerment finding could free up the economy to innovate without the EPA’s heavy hand, letting market forces—not bureaucrats—drive energy and climate solutions.
This move is a bold step toward dismantling the regulatory state’s stranglehold on American energy. It won’t be quick or easy, and the climate zealots will fight tooth and nail. But if the Trump administration can pull it off, it’ll be a victory for common sense over green dogma, a win for innovation over regulation. A long, hard fight lies ahead, but it is one worth having, and which is long overdue.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
