Proclaiming ‘the death of the Green New Scam,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has committed his agency to “driving a dagger through climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age.”
In a sweeping March 12 announcement, Zeldin called for “reconsidering” (meaning, in most cases, revoking) 31 EPA rules and regulations, most of which were imposed by the Biden and Obama administrations to combat human-caused climate change. Breaking with elite opinion on the necessity of sacrificing for the sake of the planet, Zeldin wrote in the Wall Street Journal that, because of his actions, “the cost of living for American families will decrease, and essentials such as buying a car, heating your home, and operating a business will become more affordable.”
Instead of having EPA hew to its traditional role as the nation’s most potent and feared regulatory agency, Zeldin is seeking to make EPA a partner in the Trump administration’s quest for American energy dominance. The green policies facing a partial or complete rollback by Zeldin’s team are among the most controversial measures adopted under Biden and Obama.
On the chopping block is the Biden-era de facto EV mandate, which uses stringent tailpipe emissions standards to force automakers to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2030 in favor of battery-powered cars and trucks. Also in the crosshairs is the Biden administration’s April 2024 “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” which severely limits greenhouse-gas emissions from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants by 2032. Rigorous requirements for reporting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and manufacturing facilities are also targeted by Zeldin’s actions, as are all Biden-era regulations hobbling oil and natural gas production in the U.S.
However, the most significant impact will be the Trump/Zeldin challenge to EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruled that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Seeing an opening to extend the agency’s writ into nearly every nook and cranny in the nation’s economy, Obama officials at EPA issued the Endangerment Finding two years later. It declared six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, as hazardous to public health, unleashing an onslaught of regulations targeting the energy, transportation, construction, and other sectors. By overhauling the Endangerment Finding, Zeldin is striking against what he called “the holy grail of climate change religion.”
Overturning the climate policies made possible by the Endangerment Finding will not occur overnight. It will require an arduous administrative process that will take up much of Trump’s remaining time in office. Environmental groups, recognizing the threat Zeldin’s move poses to their agenda of ridding the world of fossil fuels, will sue the agency and can count on the support of a slew of blue-state attorneys general.
But the legal landscape for challenging Zeldin may not be as hospitable as it once was. Two recent Supreme Court decisions, West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), have sharply curtailed federal agencies’ power to issue regulations without specific congressional authorization. In its West Virginia decision, the high court ruled that EPA lacked the authority to enact the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The similarity between that ruling and Zeldin’s initiatives does not bode well for green plaintiffs.
Furthermore, lawsuits opposing Zeldin’s revoking of the Endangerment Finding run the risk of the issue landing at the Supreme Court, which could reverse its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, citing a lack of congressional authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Zeldin’s actions are not taking place in a vacuum. Not only has Trump withdrawn the U.S. from the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and blocked American officials from participating in U.N.-sponsored climate panels, but once-green elements in the private sector are turning over a new leaf. Once at the forefront of the green energy transition, oil giant BP told investors in early March that its “optimism for a fast transition was misplaced” and that the company would be shifting billions of dollars in investments from green energy to fossil fuels,” the Washington Post reported.
Confronted by soaring demand for reliable electricity to power AI in data centers, Silicon Valley and New York investment firms have second thoughts about parting with fossil fuels. BlackRock’s Larry Fink, until recently an ardent proponent of renewable energy, is singing a different tune. “We have to think about power and energy in a pragmatic way,” he recently told a high-powered energy meeting in Houston, the Post reported. “Let’s pause for a second. First, gas will play a major role in the U.S. for tens of years. Maybe 50 years.”
The vaunted green transition runs headlong into a rapidly changing business, legal, and political climate.
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
