Many CCL volunteers have expressed very justified concern about the EPA's new proposal to roll back the endangerment finding. That document forms the basis for all of EPA's regulations of climate pollutants. It came about from a Supreme Court ruling (2007's Mass v. EPA) that said, according to Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as ‘air pollutants’ if EPA determines that they threaten public health or welfare. EPA's 2009 endangerment finding formed that determination.
We thought the endangerment finding was ironclad. Trump's last EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler who was a former coal lobbyist, didn't even try to touch it. But the new Trump administration appears to have been emboldened by some Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years.
Their main justification for throwing out the endangerment finding is a legal one, based on two key arguments:
- Section 202 of the Clean Air Act has only been used to regulate direct health impacts from local and regional pollution, not indirect health impacts from global pollution like greenhouse gases, which are well-mixed in the atmosphere.
- The ‘major questions doctrine' invented in recent years says that Congress must clearly and explicitly delegate to federal agencies the authority to address an issue of major political or economic significance. The Trump EPA is arguing that because Congress did not explicitly delegate to EPA the authority to regulate pollutants based on their indirect global impacts on public health, the agency cannot do so.
In an article for Yale (linked below), I explain why these are bad arguments. There are also some alternative justifications, mainly one that incorporates science denial from a new draft report commissioned by the Department of Energy and written by five fringe scientists, which my article also discusses.
What happens next and what will CCL do?
The EPA’s proposed rollback of the endangerment finding is open to public comments until September 15, and the agency will hold virtual public hearings on August 19 and 20. After responding to the public comments, the EPA will finalize the rule.
CCL National has decided that we will submit a formal comment during this period. It's not the type of action that we normally take because it's outside of our lane (lobbying Congress) and we have limited resources and bandwidth (though I'll just note that donations help expand our resources 😄). But we're making an exception here because this particular issue is so important to US climate pollution levels, and it does also relate to Congress.
Congress has done its job here in passing the Clean Air Act and consistently supporting EPA climate-related regulations over the past three-plus decades, including very recently further codifying EPA's mandate in this arena in the IRA (read my Yale explainer below for more details). The EPA is defying Congressional effort and intent here by reinterpreting the law, and we at CCL want to support Congress' efforts by submitting this formal comment, which will make that point.
After the public comment period, EPA will respond to the comments and the finalize the rule. A variety of groups will then bring lawsuits, including some of our allied organizations who have that expertise and those resources, and ultimately it will be appealed up to the Supreme Court in a several-years-long process. To learn more about the potential outcomes of that Supreme Court case, read my article, because this post is already getting too long, and I have all the details here 🤓
@Dana Nuccitelli
Thank you, Dana, for this post. I am pleased that CCL is commenting on the EPA's “audacious” (as you so understatedly characterize it) proposal to repeal the endangerment finding. And thanks for the excellent Yale Climate Connections article.
Other things our chapter members could consider doing:
- register to testify at the EPA virtual hearings and/or submit comments to the EPA
- get our local governments, other non-profits, and anyone else we know to submit comments
- write op eds and LTEs about this proposed repeal
- if tabling in the next several weeks, make opposing the repeal part of tabling activities
And why not contact our MOCs about this? You have given us the rationale to do so:
“Congress has done its job here in passing the Clean Air Act and consistently supporting EPA climate-related regulations over the past three-plus decades, including very recently further codifying EPA's mandate in this arena in the IRA … The EPA is defying Congressional effort and intent here by reinterpreting the law…”
With gratitude,
Deirdre
@Dana Nuccitelli Thank you, Dana, for this lucid explanation of this outrageous and self-destructive luddite attempt to take us backwards and down the mine shaft of fossil energy. Our chapter has arranged for our friend, Dr. Ben Santer, to expound on this at our August 9 meeting just ahead of the National call. Hope to see you there and spread the word.
Dr. Ben Santer: Denying Reality, DOE and EPA try to reverse 30 years of progress
Saturday, August 9, 2025 at 0900 AM Pacific Time, here at the Marin/Sonoma Chapters' meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84835301244
Last week, the US Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency released statements aimed at rolling back decades of progress on climate change. A small group of well known climate “skeptics” have again challenged the world’s scientific consensus in a non-peer reviewed report. Simultaneously, the EPA announced its intention to reverse its 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” the legal basis for US regulations limiting GHG emissions, which was based on the 2007 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA.
Renowned climate scientist, Dr. Ben Santer is not taking this lying down. Having devoted his entire career to better understanding the human impacts of burning fossil fuels, he’s again ready to defend the science, as he’s done many times before. After 30 years working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, leading assessment reports for the IPCC, authoring innumerable peer-reviewed publications, receiving numerous awards, being elected to the National Academy of Sciences and receiving appointments at other major institutions, Dr. Santer remains a fierce advocate for the science now under attack -- and he’s still in fight mode.
Come prepared to hear an earful at the Marin/Sonoma California Chapters’ meeting on Saturday, August 9, 2025 at 0900 AM Pacific Time here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84835301244
Dr. Santer's current essay on LinkedIn
@Dana Nuccitelli thank you for this post, for your article and for the notification that CCL is taking a stand on this despite it being outside of CCL’s normal focus of lobbying Congress. Taking a stand on this is seeing the forest for the trees and it’s important that CCL, all of us, give ourselves the latitude to confront the scope of anti climate and anti future actions, and inactions, that are unfolding at a rapid pace. In terms of CCL’s bandwidth and resources, I have a feeling that CCL has a lot more resources that go untapped but exist in the talents and expertise of its many members. Seeking that talent might help just as much as donations.
Thanks again for the post, article and all the work you do.
@Dana Nuccitelli, volunteers are asking me if they should contact their MOCs about this. My reaction is that it would not be useful until at least hearings are scheduled.
What do you think?
Yeah there's not a lot MOCs can do about it right now, @Richard Knight.
@Deirdre Henderson Seems like we need to make sure the third day (and maybe more…) is required by mobilizing a huge number of people to testify (ideally of all ages and political persuasions). Is that something CCL leadership could help organize or is it better to come through CCL members organically?
@Dana Nuccitelli When talking about climate science, it seems one can't argue against the fact that CO2 emissions are leading to an increase in ocean acidification, which clearly endangers our food supply. Is this a reasonable argument to make? Also, am I right that this is less disputable as one can easily demonstrate the phenomenon of ocean acidification with a very simple setup?
It seems like the Endangerment finding is fundamental. It’s outrageous and part of a full on war against climate progress at a time when we are nearing dangerous tipping points. Push back by calling congress seems like a good thing to do now and all through this process. The actions of the administration and all of the compliant members in congress are dangerous. So yes, call, write, pushback, in every way possible.
Well they're not disputing basic climate science, @Paul Bernstein, just arguing it's not urgently dangerous. They would make the same argument about ocean acidification.
@Peter Joseph You mention spreading the word about your chapter's Zoom with Dr. Santer, so are you OK if I invite my chapter members to join? Not sure if there's an attendee limit for the Zoom link, but as an option I could limit my invites to just folks that RSVP'd to be at my chapter meeting that morning.
Appreciate you setting this up and the help in having experts inform us. Our monthly CCL national meetings used to have a range of climate-related experts inform us all, and I miss that emphasis for guest speakers.
@Anthony Israel @Deirdre Henderson @Chris Eastland Thanks for raising up ways/reasons why CCL staff and members should be more active on this endangerment finding problem. I couldn't agree more.
As Dana's helpful analysis shows, this looks to be a multi-year regulatory (US EPA), legislative (Congress, Clean Air Act) and legal (Supreme Court) battle, driven in part by a lazy Congress that shifts hard decisions to regulators/courts. As the right/left pendulum swings it's no surprise and dare I say reasonable that conservatives/courts want to reign in some portion of that regulator latitude. A durable, long term solution will be for Congress to fix its Clean Air Act, with clear direction to control GHGs and climate change. At risk are the science-based, big climate solutions CCL is known to support, like control of truck/car pollution, power plants and more.
CCL's nurturing, informing and mobilizing of citizen lobbyists to focus on Congress fits well with this endangerment finding problem. Like our multi-year work for CF&D and a Congressional vote, this problem can similarly benefit from CCL citizen lobbyists' unique, strategic, non-partisan force.
As Dana's note reminds us, CCL isn't so good at tracking the multitude of regulatory matters, but when it comes to big climate solutions like those in place because of the endangerment finding we have a shot to really help with awareness and action from Congress. Submitting a comment letter is a good step, and we can do more without stepping outside CCL's mission and values.
Working to empower Congress, and the regulators that need their direction, actually fits with that mission and those values! Including where we track and adjust to other climate stakeholder/NGO actions within their realms of regulatory/legal expertise. There's lots we can do with the commitment of CCL member and staff leadership as usual, but also as we adjust to be an effective counter to a full attack on multiple climate solutions.
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks for providing the overview of the present attempt to strip EPA of their ability to regu greenhouse gases.
As a concerned citizen and scientists watching to see what pathways to take to lend my voice, I had high hopes in 2007 when the ruling in EPA v Massachusetts stated that EPA does have the right to regulate greenhouse gases.
I watched the Endangerment finding become official two years later in 2009 and then saw the attempts at regulation such as through efficiency in mileage for cars and power generation. But the total amount of CO2 from human activities continued to increase as I raised my two girls. The problem was that the amount any of us can use is not tied to the amount we pay for the use.
Clearly, by the time I heard about CCL and carbon fee and dividend in 2013, I has to join. 😅
Finally, something that would get to the root of the problem as upstream as possible-carbon fee and dividend.
If CFD in the form of Energy Innovation Act had passed, we would not need the endangerment finding because we would be logically transitioning out of fossil fuel….
I am sharing this thought because it is important to share about the beauty of system changes like CFD in the face of what seems like wack-a-mole way of mitigating the worse of climate change
@Dana Nuccitelli
Here are two Wall Street Journal video OpEds praising the EPA's move to rescind the endangerment finding. I post it to help give a sense of how the EPA's move is being portrayed by intelligent opponents of our case. While I have no doubt that all the points can be effectively rebutted, it looks like we're in for a difficult battle. In addition, concern about climate is being labeled a left-wing concern. The current direction of all branches of the federal government leaves me with little hope that we can prevent the recision, but when people are paying attention to the issue, we need to be sure and be heard.
@Dana Nuccitelli
Dana's excellent info is linked to an EPA reg on Endangerment Finding re: VEHICLE pollution with a comment deadline Sept. 15. However, the Endangerment reg for fossil fuel power plants has a comment deadline of THIS Thursday August 7. The Endangerment Finding ONLY relates to human health, not climate change directly. The proposal also states “The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.” This flies in the face of info from none other than the EPA. (search EPA.org for “air pollution and asthma”)
Link to leave public comment for EPA rule revoking greenhouse emissions from power plants: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-0001 (comment open til 8/7)
and here for (including mercury) Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units : https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-6978 (comment open til 8/11)
Great summary and language for comments on attack on Endangerment Ruling:
@Dana Nuccitelli I looked up the docket number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194) on Regulations.gov and saw that the number of comments received is 2,253, but the number of comments posted is only 5 - two in favor of rescinding the Endangerment Finding and three against. Is this normal? I was inclined to suspect the EPA of screening the comments somehow, but in that case I'd expect them to let only the favorable ones through.
I don't know @Amy Livingston, I think comments have to be reviewed for sensitive information before they're posted.
@Dana Nuccitelli
It could be that this docket has a deadline of Sept. 15, but the one for power plants (similar outcome of rescinding protections has a deadline of this Thursday August. 7.
@Fran Ludwig
It would be important for CCL to respond to this as well, but it isn't the “Endangerment Finding.” Perhaps the thing to do is to search for any previous post indicating that they have responded.
@Dana Nuccitelli Here's Professor Michael Gerrard, Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University Law School and a CCL advisory panel member, on what this means from a legal perspective:
@Dana Nuccitelli and maybe @Flannery Winchester- will CCL be hosting any events coaching people through the process of constructing a good comment? It seems worth taking the time to do well and reading advice like this, I feel like I could use some help personally. I'm willing to pitch in to help volunteer (and I'll also post to the SCs about this).
While volunteers of course have the option to submit a comment, CCL's involvement will be limited to our organizational comment, @Sara Mason.
@Sara Mason Yes it would be terrific if CCL would help by crafting language to help our volunteers who want to comment on the endangerment finding. If not, we're all left to craft our own action alerts for our chapter members, which seems very inefficient.
I understand and synpathize that we're stretched thin staff-wise but perhaps we could use some of the expertise and knowledge of on this thread! I would love to be able to take advantage of it in a strong message and helping volunteers make comments would be a good way for us to continue empowering volunteers.
@Kathy Seal I agree. There are so many who have worked so hard over so many years. The talent and accumulated knowledge available from member volunteers should be utilized rather than limiting and constricting what CCL can address.
@Dana Nuccitelli
This is very disappointing. Beyond filing a public comment in the EPA rulemaking, CCL should also, IMHO, be making a public statement along the lines of this one from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:
@Dana Nuccitelli One of my chapter members wrote this and offers it up as a template for anyone to respond to this despicable proposal ….
@Sara Mason
Sara, Moms Clean Air Force, the American Public Health Association, the Medical Society Consortium for Climate and Health, Elders Climate Action and other organizations held an online workshop on Monday to help ordinary citizens comment on EPA's proposed endangerment finding rulemaking. Here is the link to the excellent one pager they created to help citizens to submit comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1am1y_wNHXGkToJgDRWQFMDiqpdMw-rWsimIOrfiH-Nc/edit?tab=t.0
And here is a link to the workshop video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFb30Ur-JrA
I wonder why CCL was not a sponsor of this workshop with all of these aligned organizations?
@Kathy Seal
Kathy, in the absence of any help from CCL, see my post to Sara Mason herein with another resource to help ordinary citizens make a comment to the EPA on the endangerment finding rulemaking.
Subject: Leveraging the recent ICJ Advisory Opinion (July 2025) to rebut EPA effort to rescind Endangerment Finding
In listening to various podcasts on this topic, I thought I would use AI (ChatGPT and Copilot) to do some analysis:
- Review ICJ (International Court of Justice) Advisory Opinion - July 2025, (https://enb.iisd.org/international-court-justice-advisory-opinion-climate-change-briefing-note) to extract key points that can be used to rebut the EPA filing (https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0093)
- Does the EPA also claim in their revocation documents that climate impacts are not really that bad and that the cost of action on climate would be harmful to our economy? If so, what are good rebuttal points that could be added to the memorandum?
- The EPA filing to ask if it includes analysis as to the costs of inaction on climate such as rising insurance costs, costs of recovery from increasingly intense extreme weather events, and US and global GDP impacts out to 2050?? IT DOESN'T
The following is a chatgpt generated memorandum that compiled all the above in a nice document which focuses on these three points:
- Legal Findings from the ICJ Opinion and Their Relevance to EPA's Proposal
- Rebuttal to the Claim that U.S. Emissions Are Insignificant
- Rebuttal to EPA’s Claims on Economic Harm and Minimal Climate Impacts
Since I have already submitted my comments (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0096), please feel free to review the attached document, use and share it as a reference with others who might want to submitted comments at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194, or for review and revision by your favorite AI tools to further craft your own comments.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency