President Trump’s administration is not the first to say it lacks the legal power to regulate greenhouse gases. Back in 2003, President George W. Bush’s team reached a similar conclusion. However, this did not stop states like Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut from stepping up and pushing for regulations. Their actions over the last two decades significantly shaped how the U.S. deals with climate change.
Now, as Trump’s administration plans to undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, we might see a repeat of state and federal clashes over climate initiatives.
The Trump administration’s EPA claims that allowing states to regulate or file lawsuits regarding greenhouse gas emissions would be “preempted”—essentially, prohibited. But many legal experts believe that despite this claim, the repeal will spark renewed legal battles between states and the federal government over climate action. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell expressed concern, stating, “We’re not going to stop holding EPA accountable now.”
In support of its stance, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that ending the endangerment finding would clear up confusion for automakers and consumers. He accused previous administrations of misusing science and law to create a regulatory burden. Environmentalists quickly criticized his claims, fearing that without federal guidance, states might be left to create their own rules, which could lead to inconsistency and confusion.
This isn’t the first time states felt compelled to act independently on climate issues. Massachusetts was at the forefront in 2007, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that classified greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In California, regulations shifted the conversation on vehicle emissions from miles per gallon to carbon emissions per mile. This led to widespread litigation until an agreement in 2009 essentially adopted California’s rules nationwide.
Connecticut’s attempts to hold power companies responsible for emissions through public nuisance lawsuits faced challenges as the Supreme Court blocked such actions in a unanimous 2011 decision. This was largely due to the protections afforded by the endangerment finding.
Interestingly, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents electric companies, supports the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. They warn that without federal guidance, states might impose conflicting regulations, ultimately raising costs for consumers.
Experts like Richard Revesz from New York University School of Law assert that the EPA’s contradictory arguments may weaken its case for retaining regulatory authority. “They don’t want to regulate greenhouse gases but also want to prevent states from doing so. Their ability to pull this off is questionable,” he said.
Legal expert Brittany Pemberton added that there are many uncertainties around using state law to address emissions, especially if the EPA steps back from carbon regulation entirely. “This repeal could complicate matters further,” she noted.
As discussions continue about the endangerment finding repeal, states like Massachusetts and California called for an extension of the public comment period, stating that 45 days is insufficient given the proposal’s complexity and potential impact on health and the environment.
This ongoing discourse emphasizes the broader conflict between state initiatives and federal regulations on climate change. With climate change becoming a pressing global issue, the outcome of these debates could shape the future of environmental policies in America.
