NYTimes: Big Business fears states' response to EPD plan to destroy climate regulations
neillh...@earthlink.net
An E.P.A. Plan to Kill a Major Climate Rule Is Worrying Business Leaders
Some carmakers and energy executives say the plan would trigger costly litigation and spur individual states to create a patchwork of tighter rules.
Listen to this article · 8:10 min Learn more
- Share full article
A Honda plant in Ohio. The Trump administration has said its plan will benefit the auto industry in particular.Credit...Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
By Karen Zraick and Lisa Friedman
Oct. 25, 2025, 5:01 a.m. ET
The Environmental Protection Agency is promising to erase a scientific finding that underpins climate regulations nationwide. But some business leaders said they are wary that the move could lead to a costly legal quagmire.
The rule, known as the “endangerment finding,” is the conclusion by the E.P.A. that greenhouse gases endanger public health and therefore must be regulated by the federal government. Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, has said the agency would repeal the finding, claiming that the burden to industries of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is more harmful than a warming planet.
And yet carmakers, electric utilities and even the oil and gas industry have asked the E.P.A. to tread carefully. If the federal government were to stop regulating greenhouse gases, it could clear the way for states and municipalities to sue companies for damages from climate change. And it could spur individual states to come up with their own pollution limits, creating a patchwork of regulations. Environmental groups have also promised to sue the E.P.A. if it repeals the finding, leading to more uncertainty for businesses.
“This is something that the vast majority of industry didn’t ask for and doesn’t want,” said Zach Friedman, the senior director of federal policy at Ceres, a nonprofit group that submitted a letter from 59 companies and investors opposing the E.P.A. plan.
Brigit Hirsch, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that rescinding the endangerment finding would “unlock regulatory clarity like never before” and said the finding had led to heavy costs, particularly for the auto industry. “We live in a democracy, and as such private companies are welcome to make decisions as they see fit,” she said.
In Game-Changing Climate Rollback, E.P.A. Aims to Kill a Bedrock Scientific Finding
Inside the ‘Radical Transformation’ of America’s Environmental Role
Human activities, mainly the burning of coal, oil and gas for energy, have produced the greenhouse gases that have been the primary driver of climate change for more than half a century. Carbon dioxide, methane and other gases have accumulated in the atmosphere and are warming the planet by trapping the sun’s heat. That has contributed to more intense wildfires and heat waves, rising seas and extreme weather events.
In its proposal to repeal the endangerment finding, the E.P.A. cited a recent Energy Department report that downplayed the severity of climate change. That report was written by five prominent climate contrarians chosen by the Trump administration.
Their work has been sharply criticized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the American Meteorological Society and more than 85 climate scientists in the United States, who found that the Trump administration’s climate report has numerous inaccuracies and misrepresents climate science.
Scott Saleska, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, said the evidence that supported the endangerment finding 16 years ago has only grown stronger since then. Air temperatures have increased, sea levels have risen, ocean acidification has worsened. Heat-related deaths are rising, smoke from wildfires is increasingly severe and the spread of climate-enabled diseases is on the uptick.
Ignoring that evidence, as the E.P.A. appears poised to do, Dr. Saleska said, “puts an exclamation point on the idea that science, as the best method the human species has ever come up with for discerning objective reality, has no role in this government.”
Image
Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator.Credit...Raquel Cunha/Reuters
Few business leaders raised the threat of climate change in their opposition to the E.P.A. plan, and many in fact argued for loosened emissions standards. The administration has linked the repeal of the endangerment finding to the rollback of strict limits on tailpipe pollution imposed under the Biden administration, something most automakers and oil companies are eager to see.
Indeed, many companies stressed that they are on board with the Trump administration’s energy agenda, which involves promoting oil, gas and coal, and pulling back from clean energy like solar and wind.
But they still said the federal government should retain the ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Trump Administration: Live Updates
Updated
Oct. 24, 2025, 9:46 p.m. ETOct. 24, 2025
- Trump administration plans a shake-up at ICE to speed deportations.
- The Justice Department will monitor elections in California and New Jersey.
- Bannon claims ‘there is a plan’ for Trump to run for a third term.
Rescinding the endangerment finding “will serve not as a path to regulatory stability, but rather a route to prolonged legal battles, possible market fragmentation and technological stagnation,” wrote Jim Kliesch, the director of regulatory affairs at American Honda Motor Company Inc.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, wrote that “federal government action is a necessary part of the solution” to climate change and said it believed the E.P.A. had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing the electric power industry, said that if without a federal role in regulating greenhouse gases, states and cities could “attempt to fill that perceived void through increased regulatory requirements that could vary significantly from one jurisdiction to the next.”
But other business groups supported removing the endangerment finding. The National Mining Association, which represents mining companies, and the Steel Manufacturers Association backed the agency, as did energy associations from several states, including coal and gas-rich Wyoming.
Advertisement
Changing federal regulations is typically a lengthy process, and the E.P.A. was required to solicit and review public comments about potential changes. The Trump administration is aiming to finalize the repeal before the end of the year, according to several E.P.A. officials.
Image
A fossil-fuel-burning power plant in Wyoming. The administration is promoting the use of oil, gas and coal, and discouraging cleaner energy such as wind and solar.Credit...Will Warasila for The New York Times
When the public comment period closed on Sept. 22, the agency had received more than 500,000 comments, about 2 percent of which have so far been posted on the E.P.A.’s website, according to an analysis Wednesday by InfluenceMap, a London-based sustainability think tank. In its report on the comments released so far, the group said that companies and trade groups across many sectors of the economy were concerned about the legal viability of the agency’s proposal, and some proposed weakening greenhouse gas standards instead of jettisoning them.
“I was definitely surprised to see the level of concern that some of these companies and industry associations are voicing about the proposal, especially the companies that have traditionally tried to weaken emissions standards,” said Leo Menninger, a senior analyst for the group. “They’re generally concerned about the entire framework being removed.”
Repealing the finding would almost certainly lead to litigation that could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The endangerment finding, which dates from 2009, came out of a Supreme Court decision two years earlier, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., in which the justices concluded that greenhouse gases were pollutants, and that the agency was obligated to determine whether they were a danger to public health.
Nixing the finding could also have another unintended consequence for fossil fuel producers: It would potentially weaken a primary argument that they have used to fight some of the lawsuits filed against them in state courts.
The industry has said in court that the E.P.A. has exclusive authority to oversee emissions that cross state lines, overriding other state and federal laws. (Plaintiffs in many of the suits have countered that their lawsuits are based on corporate misbehavior, not actual emissions.) But if the E.P.A. removes its own authority to regulate emissions, that could open up the potential for some lawsuits against the industry to proceed more easily.
In its proposed rule, the E.P.A. said the Clean Air Act and the structure of the federal system would still block such lawsuits, even without the endangerment finding in place. But that reading of the law would most likely be challenged in court.
“I think that’s one reason why Trump didn’t try to do this in his first term,” said Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland’s law school. “They were warned that it was too dangerous to open up this Pandora’s box.”
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
Lisa Friedman is a Times reporter who writes about how governments are addressing climate change and the effects of those policies on communities.
See more on: U.S. Politics, Environmental Protection Agency
- Share full article