Key Contacts
Practice Areas
EPA’s Proposed Retreat from Regulating Greenhouse Gases
In 2025, EPA proposed to rescind greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations including the 2009 Endangerment Finding that serves as the underpinning of much of EPA’s efforts to establish GHG emission limitations as well as the Agency’s and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that requires mandatory GHG emissions reporting from wide sectors of the economy. Both proposals received extensive public comment, to which EPA must review and respond before finalizing the proposed recissions anticipated for later in 2026.
Proposed Recission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding
In the early 2000’s, several organizations petitioned EPA to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 202(a) requires EPA to establish emission standards for “any air pollutant” emitted by new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution” which may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” When EPA denied the petition on the basis that GHGs are not “air pollutants,” the organizations appealed. Eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) that GHG emissions from motor vehicles may qualify as “air pollutants” subject to regulation under Section 202(a) if EPA makes the requisite determination that GHGs “cause or contribute to air pollution” that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA eventually promulgated the Endangerment Finding in December 2009 finding that “six [GHGs] taken in combination endanger both the public health and welfare of current and future generations” and that motor vehicles in particular contributed to the buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere. See 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009). EPA then used the Endangerment Finding to promulgate emission standards for vehicles under Section 202(a) of the CAA.
Since then, EPA has relied on the Endangerment Finding to regulate GHG emissions beyond the transportation sector, including oil and gas facilities and fossil fuel-fired power plants. In President Trump’s very first executive order of his second term, Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025), the Endangerment Finding was expressly identified as a rule to be evaluated by EPA for its “legality and continued applicability.” Thereafter, in August 2025, EPA proposed to repeal all GHG emission standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines under 40 C.F.R. Parts 85, 86, 1036, and 1037, with “conforming adjustments” to other vehicle-related provisions. EPA’s stated rationale reflects a sharp shift in legal interpretation. 90 Fed. Reg. 36288 (Aug. 1, 2025). Specifically, the Agency argues that intervening Supreme Court decisions issued since Massachusetts v. EPA — including Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014); West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022); Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) — have clarified the limits of agency authority. According to EPA, the term “air pollution” is best understood as addressing local or regional harms, not global climate change, and regulating worldwide GHGs under Section 202(a) presents a “major question” of political and economic significance that Congress must clearly authorize. On the scientific front, EPA asserts that newer research undermines earlier conclusions about the potential changes to public health and welfare resulting from GHG emissions, and that reducing motor vehicle emissions would not measurably affect atmospheric GHG concentrations or the pace of climate change.
If finalized, any regulatory program that depends on GHGs being classified as “pollutants” with the potential to impact public health under the CAA could be vulnerable. Litigation risk may also shift, as state tort claims that were previously preempted by federal GHG regulations could gain traction. Moreover, vehicle manufacturers have invested heavily in technologies and compliance strategies built around existing standards, and rescission has the potential to disrupt long-term planning.
EPA received over half a million comments on this proposal, underscoring its political and economic significance.
Proposed Recission of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
Separately, EPA has proposed to dismantle much of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP or the “Program”), which requires businesses and other entities in certain regulated sectors to report annual GHG emissions. The Program was created by EPA pursuant to its authority under Section 114 of the CAA in response to a directive from Congress in its 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Section 114 provides EPA with the ability to request information from regulated entities for the purpose of, among other things, “developing or assisting in the development of” any implementation plan, standard of performance, emission standard, or regulation of solid waste combustion.
Under the proposed recission of the Program, reporting obligations would be eliminated for all source categories except petroleum and natural gas operations under Subpart W, which would be deferred until 2034 and tied to EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge authority. 90 Fed. Reg. 44591 (Sept. 16, 2025). For all other regulated sectors, reporting would end after completion of 2024 submissions.
EPA contends that the Program is unlawful because the data collected is not used to further EPA actions or obligations under the CAA, including New Source Performance Standards or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In the alternative, EPA argues that its authority to collect information under Section 114 is discretionary; therefore, EPA will be exercising its discretionary authority in rescinding the program. The Agency also cites Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation, and asserts that the data collected under the Program are unnecessary because EPA can obtain similar information through targeted information collection requests under Section 114. Further, EPA justifies recission based on estimated nationwide savings of approximately $303 million annually through 2033.
Some of the roughly 50,000 comments submitted to the regulatory docket point out that the proposed GHGRP rescission raises legal questions about statutory authority and the role of executive orders in dismantling long-standing regulatory programs. Recission also has the potential to create practical challenges, as many federal and state programs rely on GHGRP data, and states use federal reporting to inform their own climate initiatives. States without independent reporting regimes may move to create them. Recission would also impact corporate sustainability reporting as many reporters rely on the information submitted to the Program to shape disclosures to shareholders and market participants.
Taken together, EPA’s proposed actions signal a potential turning point in federal GHG regulation. Whether these proposals survive legal challenge will shape the next phase of climate policy.
