On February 12, EPA issued a final rule rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas endangerment finding. This decision to revoke the basis for the majority of EPA’s regulations on GHG emissions, including for industrial and power plants, as well as vehicles, will be fought in court. Significantly, how the agency argues that it is empowered to rescind the finding will have profound impacts for where this case resolves, and what the future of federal climate policy looks like.

We convened experts to explore how rescinding the endangerment finding affects federal climate law, what to expect during ongoing litigation against EPA, and how states can still achieve climate progress in the absence of federal regulation.

Our expert panel included: 

• Janet McCabe, former Deputy Administrator for the U.S. EPA
• Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
• Hana Vizcarra, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice
• Marvin C. Brown IV, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice
• Jordan Gerow, Policy & Research Director at Climate XChange

Learn more by watching the webinar at 04:51

Janet McCabe, former Deputy Administrator for the EPA, provided a brief history on the endangerment finding (EF). Highlights from her presentation include:

• The endangerment finding was the result of Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) definition of air pollutants.
• The final EF rule was issued and signed by the EPA Administrator in 2009, establishing that six GHGs emitted by motor vehicles may endanger public health and welfare.
• The EF was the legal and factual basis for EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from vehicles, power plants, oil and gas operations, and landfills. In each of these subsequent rules, EPA updated and affirmed the EF.

Learn more by watching the webinar at 10:30

Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, explored main takeaways from the EF rescission and its impacts to climate policy. Highlights from his presentation include:

• Rescinding the EF is a direct attack on the EPA’s ability to regulate tailpipe emissions, based on a few key claims, including that:
  • The CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate GHGs due to the global nature of their impact
  • The “major questions doctrine” requires agencies to receive explicit Congressional authorization to regulate matters of major economic or political significance
  • Emissions from individual sources like motor vehicles have minimal impact on climate change and thus, addressing them through emissions regulation is futile. 
• The three main CAA-related laws at stake include emissions regulations from vehicles, which have been repealed; from the oil and gas industry, which are pending action; and from fossil-fueled power plants, which are in limbo under a proposed repeal.
  • Biden-era regulations in these sectors provided immense climate, economic, and public health benefits.

Learn more by watching the webinar at 29:52

Marvin C. Brown IV and Hana Vizcarra, Senior Attorneys at Earthjustice, provided an overview of the active litigation against EPA for the rescission of the EF, and what to expect in the coming months. Highlights from their presentation include:

• The lawsuit addresses the rescission of the EF under section 202 of the CAA, and the related repeal of emissions standards for motor vehicles. 
• The EPA kept all of the criteria pollutant standards for motor vehicles, but the repeal of GHG emissions standards will still increase criteria pollutant emissions, leading to major adverse impacts to public health and the economy.
• Joining Earthjustice in this lawsuit are dozens of national, regional, and local organizations, and at least three other lawsuits have been filed by other coalitions, including a coalition of clean vehicle manufacturers. 
• The final rule was published on February 18, 2026; organizations have until April 20th to file lawsuits. All petitions will be consolidated into one case and heard by the D.C. Circuit, and once a decision is reached, it may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
• While the final rule dropped the attack on the scientific basis of the EF, the litigation process may pull some scientific analysis back into the fray — for example, related to the futility argument.

Learn more by watching the webinar at 45:40

Jordan Gerow, Policy and Research Director at Climate XChange, rounded out presentations by providing an overview of the state-level policies available to continue reducing emissions from the sectors impacted by the rescission of the EF, regardless of the outcome of litigation against EPA. Highlights from his presentation include:

• States can regulate emissions from power plants, which may be more important for states with long-lived coal industries. Policy options include electricity sector GHG emissions reduction targets, coal phaseout requirements, coal plant securitization, and peaker plant regulations. States can also impact power sector emissions more broadly through renewable portfolio and clean energy standards and cap-and-trade programs. 
• States can regulate methane emissions from oil and gas facilities, as well as from landfills.
• States cannot currently regulate tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, but they can decarbonize the transportation sector through tax incentives and rebates for EVs and charging infrastructure, low carbon fuel standards, government procurement targets for EVs and electric buses, and indirect source review. 
  • States can also expand EV charging, one of the biggest obstacles to EV uptake, through EV charging rate design, PUC proceedings that build out charging infrastructure, statewide or multi-state EV planning, direct investments in charging infrastructure, streamlined permitting for charging stations, EV-ready building codes, and curbside charging-related zoning codes.
• States may be able to test federal preemption arguments; if the EPA is no longer authorized to regulate GHG emissions through the Clean Air Act, some commenters suggest that states may not be preempted from regulating them under their own purview. This may apply to issues like California’s waivers on tailpipe emissions, rescinded last year and still tied up in court, and “polluters pays” laws in New York and Vermont.

Learn more by watching the webinar at 57:24

Q: Is it correct to assume that the EPA’s final rule rescinding the Endangerment Finding is not “on hold” pending the outcome of the litigation, but rather is in full force and effect pending outcome of the final decision from litigation?

Q: Are there any strategies for states that have regulatory primacy, or those with laws that  prohibit regulations that are more stringent than federal policy?

Q: Are the federal Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Air Emission Standards undermined from the EF rollback?

Q: How do you expect this development to influence private sector behavior? 

Q: Are there longer term opportunities to ‘build back better’ on the EF? Could there be a superseding approach that could move us further than the EF framework did?

Q: Can you elaborate on how the scientific angle will or will not play a role in the litigation and ultimately at the Supreme Court?