Analysis-Trump EPA ends emissions limits for US automakers; state rules, lawsuits could follow
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s repeal of the bedrock federal climate regulation would immediately relieve automakers of costly tailpipe emissions standards, but the move could spark lawsuits and force businesses to navigate an uncertain future of a multitude of state and regional rules.
Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized the repeal of its “endangerment finding” for vehicles, a 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health. This finding gave the agency authority to regulate emissions from vehicles as well as other sectors that burn or produce fossil fuels.
Trump said the nation’s “largest deregulation action” in history would save companies over $1 trillion in compliance costs. Environmental groups condemned the move, which was welcomed by some industry groups but viewed with caution by others.
Companies face a bumpy ride, ten lawyers and analysts interviewed by Reuters said, citing looming court challenges and the possibility of state and regional emissions rules replacing a federal rule.
“This federal withdrawal will cause an unprecedented disruption in 15 years of regulatory progress, threatening public health, local communities, industries, natural resources and public investments,” said Rob Bonta, the attorney general for the state of California, who is considering a lawsuit.
Matthew Leopold, an environmental lawyer at Holland & Knight who served as EPA general counsel during Trump’s first administration, said the company’s strategies for complying with the repeal will depend on how quickly the legal challenges arrive and are resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He said utilities and other large emitters would want a clearer understanding of the consequences.
“Although this initial rulemaking is focused on motor vehicle regulation, it will also have ripple effects on other EPA programs. It is the foundation of all EPA greenhouse gas regulations across all sectors,” Leopold said.
EPA relied on the finding of danger to regulate power plants, vehicle manufacturers, and oil and gas operations. Transportation and energy account for nearly half of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump called climate change a “hoax” and withdrew the United States, the world’s largest emitter, from international efforts to combat climate change.
CAREFUL REACTION
Trump’s first administration did not seek to reconsider the hazard finding because industry groups opposed the move and then-EPA Acting General Counsel David Fotouhi said the outage was too risky.
The EPA is acting bolder this time after Supreme Court cases such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruled that Congress, not administrative agencies, should make that decision, a press release said Thursday.
The EPA’s decision drew praise from some industry groups representing smaller oil and gas operators (the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Marcellus Shale Association). The trade group for companies that supply equipment for internal combustion engine vehicles, called the Specialty Equipment Market Association, or SEMA, said this “will directly impact the new vehicle options available in the coming years.”
Environmental groups condemned the move and some major industry groups also disagreed with the decision.
Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney David Doniger noted Ford and Honda’s public comments last fall. Both automakers supported keeping the finding in place to ensure a stable regulatory environment.
“They worry that the political pendulum will swing back in a few years,” Doniger said.
Honda did not respond to a request for comment on the EPA’s decision. Ford praised the administration for addressing the “imbalance between current emissions standards and customer choice” but said it advocated for a single national emissions standard rather than separate state standards.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation did not endorse a repeal of Trump’s jeopardy order on Thursday but said “automotive emissions regulations completed under the previous administration are extremely difficult for automakers to achieve given the current market demand for electric vehicles.”
The American Petroleum Institute said it was not advocating repealing the hazard finding but supported the administration’s action to end electric vehicle mandates for automobiles.
Dustin Meyer, API Senior Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, said in a statement that the trade group supports federal regulation of emissions, including methane, from oil and gas operations.
“Our focus now is on working on resilient policies that reduce emissions while meeting growing energy demand,” he said.
“It will take several days to analyze the rule and its impact,” the Chamber of Commerce said in a statement Thursday.
“While we are not calling on EPA to reconsider and rescind the agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, we are carefully reviewing the details of this final rule and will work with our members to evaluate its long-term implications and impacts,” said Marty Durbin, president of the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute.
“We are reviewing this new action and will continue to work with the Administration to strengthen grid reliability and lower energy costs for all customers,” said the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major U.S. investor-owned utilities.
In public statements last year, EEI said repealing the endangerment finding could open the door to regional regulation and legal action.
Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California law school, agreed with that assessment, saying the federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases would no longer block state action.
“There is an argument that if greenhouse gases are not subject to the Clean Air Act, states could regulate them independently,” he said.
(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; additional reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by David Gregorio)
