The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found itself in the crosshairs of 17 environmental organizations following its controversial decision to relax regulations on greenhouse gases. The disputed rule change is expected to elevate American energy expenses by an estimated $1.4 trillion, according to EPA’s own projections, combined with significant health and environmental repercussions.
Recently, the EPA, under the guidance of Lee Zeldin, declared that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants and, therefore, do not fall under the agency’s regulatory authority. This decision involved retracting the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which recognized greenhouse gases as threats to human health, in alignment with prevailing scientific consensus.
This revocation contradicts a prior Supreme Court ruling mandating the EPA to regulate such gases under the Clean Air Act. The “endangerment finding” has been a cornerstone of legal and congressional policy until now. Zeldin, who has reportedly received substantial political contributions from the oil sector, aims to dismantle clean vehicle standards with this rule change.
Although Zeldin justified the rule’s intent as a means to alleviate financial burdens on automakers, the EPA’s regulatory impact assessment indicates otherwise. According to their analysis, the financial burden on the public surpasses any savings, projecting a net national cost of $180 billion by 2026.
The comprehensive analysis accounts for increased operational expenses totaling $1.47 trillion, factoring in the longer refueling times of gasoline vehicles compared to electric vehicles (EVs), alongside an anticipated $1.29 trillion savings for the automotive industry, which would benefit from the ability to sell less technologically advanced vehicles.
Notably, the EPA’s assessment excludes potential health-related costs, as it recently adopted a controversial stance valuing human life at zero in its calculations. This omission could significantly inflate the rule’s economic burden, considering the exorbitant healthcare costs in the United States.
17 Groups Sue EPA – With More to Come
The lawsuit challenging the EPA’s ruling has been initiated in the DC Circuit Court, the designated venue for Clean Air Act-related cases. The plaintiffs include a coalition of health and environmental organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), among others.
These groups contend that the EPA’s action defies legal precedents and lacks scientific merit, referencing a history of regulatory practices and judicial decisions upholding the Clean Air Act’s application to greenhouse gases.
They argue that the EPA’s decision is not scientifically or economically sound. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, stated, “If they did this on science they lose, if they did this on economics they lose, if they did this on health they lose. Their rationale holds no coherent policy perspective at all.”
As the legal battle unfolds, more parties, including several state attorneys general, are expected to join the fray, suggesting a protracted legal struggle lies ahead.
Even if It Loses in Court, EPA Still Harmed America
Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, the EPA’s regulatory rollback risks hindering America’s progress in clean vehicle technology, potentially diminishing its competitive edge globally. This could isolate U.S. automakers from international markets and hinder their EV development plans.
The economic repercussions, coupled with the unaccounted health and climate impacts, are likely to exacerbate national costs and degrade the quality of life.
Other Potential Negative Effects of EPA’s Rule
In the absence of federal oversight, private nuisance claims against polluters could surge, complicating legal processes and imposing additional costs on businesses. The Sierra Club’s senior attorney, Andres Restrepo, noted that companies may face legal uncertainty without the Clean Air Act’s preemption of such claims.
Furthermore, state-level regulations, such as those in California, may gain prominence, potentially leading to a fragmented regulatory environment that complicates compliance for automakers.
Despite the EPA’s attempts to navigate these challenges, the legal and economic landscape remains complex, with significant implications for environmental policy and business operations.
Original Story at electrek.co