In a move that has sparked widespread controversy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to roll back more than a dozen core environmental regulations, targeting policies ranging from vehicle emissions standards to the scientific foundation for addressing climate change. Zeldin described the initiative as “driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion” and claimed it would create an environment where “businesses can thrive and infrastructure can be built.”
The proposed rollbacks, outlined in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and an EPA news release, include revisiting water pollution limits for coal plants, air quality standards for small particles, and mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting by large emitters like oil and gas companies. Zeldin also signaled the agency’s intent to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming and pose a threat to public health. This finding serves as the legal basis for the EPA’s climate-related regulations under the Clean Air Act.
“The endangerment finding is the one ring that rules them all,” said David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and energy department. “All of the climate protection rules—those targeting emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and the oil and gas industry—are grounded in this finding.”
Environmental advocates condemned the announcement, calling it an unprecedented attack on environmental safeguards. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, described the plan as “crazy” and “insane,” emphasizing the scale and speed of the proposed deregulation.
The EPA’s announcement is expected to trigger lengthy legal battles, as environmental groups have vowed to challenge the rollbacks at every step. Doniger noted that overturning regulations requires a rigorous process, including public comment periods and court defenses, which could take months or even years. He also expressed skepticism about the EPA’s ability to successfully overturn the endangerment finding, citing overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the link between greenhouse gases and climate change.
Some EPA staffers expressed dismay at the announcement, with one employee calling it “embarrassing” and a departure from the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment. “This is not the EPA we have dedicated our careers to,” the staffer said, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation.
In his opinion piece, Zeldin defended the move, arguing that the EPA’s core mission remains safeguarding human health and the environment. He emphasized a shift from “prescriptive bureaucracy” to “partnership” and “collaboration” as the new approach to achieving these goals.
The proposed rollbacks mark a significant shift in environmental policy and are likely to face fierce opposition from environmental groups, scientists, and policymakers.
For more updates, visit DC Brief.
