EPA Deregulation Move

The EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, characterized the recent action as “the largest act of deregulation in U.S. history,” reversing previous findings that led to billions in hidden taxes for Americans each year.

Zeldin formally rescinded the so-called “crisis finding,” which previously provided a legal framework for the government to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

He indicated during a roundtable discussion last July that this retraction was necessary, claiming the previous finding had over a trillion-dollar regulatory impact.

Zeldin expressed skepticism over the Extinction Endangerment Study, stating it did not simply conclude that emissions from vehicles caused extinction risks. He criticized the endangerment research, referring to it as “the holy grail of climate change religion.” This earlier research allowed the EPA to label greenhouse gases as threats to public health and safety.

In a written statement from last July, he noted:

“With this proposal, the Trump EPA aims to end 16 years of confusion for both automakers and American consumers. Stakeholders have reported that the Obama-Biden EPA manipulated the law, disregarded precedents, and distorted scientific findings to achieve their goals, imposing hidden costs on American families. Many voiced concerns that the EPA’s standards, not just carbon dioxide itself—which hasn’t been independently evaluated—pose the real danger to American lives. By finalizing this, we could remove more than $1 trillion in hidden costs affecting businesses and families.”

Revisiting Regulations: A Focus on Affordability

Darren Bakst from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) praised the announcement, stating:

“Today marks a significant step for the EPA in its mission to protect the environment without becoming an overreaching economic planner. Regulations on greenhouse gases have led to notable government overreach. Although some criticize this action, many Americans see how such policies elevate prices and limit personal freedoms, ultimately harming our country.”

Sterling Barnett from the Heartland Institute remarked:

“This move is long overdue and beneficial for Americans, lifting unnecessary emissions regulations and allowing the auto industry to produce desired vehicles. It’s a victory for car buyers. Trump deserves recognition for this decision, as the findings lacked scientific and legal justification. This is an opportunity to enhance affordability and address the power plant crisis. We hope the government protects this decision in court and takes it to the Supreme Court to return CO2 regulation authority to Congress, reversing the problematic Massachusetts v. EPA decision that started this situation.”

Steve Milloy, a former Trump EPA advisor, commented:

“Revoking the endangered status is beneficial, but it’s not just a straightforward process. It likely requires legal review which would need to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling that allowed such regulation without explicit Congressional approval. In light of the 2022 West Virginia v. EPA ruling, it seems legislative consent is required for significant regulations. If the Trump EPA succeeds in court without overturning Massachusetts v. EPA, a future Democratic administration could easily reinstate the hazard finding, negating the Trump EPA’s achievements.”