An energy policy expert recently mentioned that the Trump administration is on the verge of re-evaluating the “endangerment finding” which has been a tool for Democrats to impose stringent climate regulations over the years.
This rule, established in 2009 during the Obama administration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allows for the regulation of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide on the grounds of human health and environmental safety. However, experts argue that the scientific basis for this regulation was initially disputed. The endangerment finding has facilitated tough restrictions on power plants, thereby advancing Democratic policies that incentivize the use of electric vehicles and appliances. This has, according to experts, led to notable consequences for consumers and the energy sector.
Mandy Gunasekara, a former senior EPA official, criticized the endangerment finding as a product of a politicized process that cherry-picked data to cater to climate advocates. She stated that the resulting regulations have had extensive, and often detrimental, ramifications like increasing energy costs, reducing grid reliability, and shifting investments to countries with looser environmental standards, such as China and India.
The EPA has officially begun reconsidering this finding, collaborating with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and reviewing associated risks. A spokesperson mentioned that more information will be shared after the review process is completed.
Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that greenhouse gases could be classified as pollutants, setting the stage for the discovery of endangerment. However, the resulting regulations have led to numerous coal plant closures across the country, which, experts argue, has weakened the electrical grid and increased the likelihood of power shortages.
Myron Ebel, a former director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that current energy policies relying heavily on intermittent sources like wind and solar have contributed to frequent blackouts. He argued that traditional energy sources like coal provide a reliable base load power crucial for stability and hinted at a possible correlation between rising electricity costs and dependence on renewables.
The focus on the endangerment finding not only hindered grid reliability but also forced consumers into purchasing vehicles they may not have wanted. Ebel pointed out that recent legislation reduced penalties for non-compliance with fuel economy standards, allowing automakers to produce vehicles that appeal more to consumer preferences.
Gunasekara emphasized that the scientific evidence used to justify the endangerment finding may not be as robust as portrayed, suggesting that the current administration should base decisions on updated scientific information. Other critics in the energy sector share concerns that past decisions were not sufficiently grounded in the best scientific data available.
According to Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation, despite the intentions of the scientists who supported the endangerment finding, their data is now outdated. She expressed that a rollback of this finding could be on the horizon, along with proposed reforms echoing the Obama and Biden administrations’ plans for emissions reductions.
If the EPA goes ahead with proposals to rescind the endangerment finding, it will need to undergo a standard rule-making process that allows for public comment and a potential implementation delay. As of now, the OMB has not commented on the situation.
