EPA move to undermine greenhouse gas regulation will hurt US competitiveness, says former Mass. energy official

IN HIS LATEST attack on policies that combat climate change, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, urged the Trump administration last week to reconsider a scientific conclusion – the “endangerment finding” — that has undergirded much of the agency’s actions to combat climate change.  

The endangerment finding is a 2009 determination that emissions of six particular greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — are harmful to public health and welfare. While the finding doesn’t impose requirements on industries, it is the basis that the EPA uses for implementing greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and power plants. There are many standards set by the Obama and the Biden administrations to reduce emissions from sources like power plants, vehicles, and oil and gas operations. All of those regulations would no longer be applicable if the endangerment finding were revoked. 

The finding is based on decades of climate science, which shows that greenhouse gases warm the planet and endanger human health.  

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, Massachusetts and several other states sued the EPA, arguing that the agency had a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, essentially forcing the EPA to take action on climate change by regulating carbon dioxide emissions.  

In an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which President Trump issued on of the first day of his second term, he tasked the head of the EPA with reviewing the “legality and continuing applicability of” the finding.  

Several members of Congress, including Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, have condemned this move by the Trump administration. “If Trump and his lackeys at the EPA go ahead to challenge the endangerment finding, the Trump administration will be creating a clear and present danger to the public because climate denial costs lives — American lives,” Markey said on February 27. 

CommonWealth Beacon spoke to Barbara Kates-Garnick, a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and the former undersecretary of energy for Massachusetts, about the role the endangerment finding plays in US climate policy and what the impact of revoking the finding would be, nationally and in Massachusetts. The following interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.  

COMMONWEALTH: Is there a scientific reason for the finding to be reconsidered at this time? 

KATES-GARNICK: Climate science is well established — that these pollutants cause climate change. I see no reason for a scientific undermining by the Trump administration. We’re seeing the intensification of real world impacts today, including record high temperatures, and anything that reduces our ability to reduce the emissions of those six gases that are covered under the Clean Air Act is a detriment to our country and the world. 

COMMONWEALTH: What would happen if the endangerment finding were to be removed? 

KATES-GARNICK: The removal of the endangerment finding would be very significant because it starts to wear away at the fabric of our ability to regulate greenhouse gases throughout the country. If you start to remove these regulations, over time, you could begin to have an even greater impact on climate, which is already impacting lives. You will begin to experience even greater health and welfare effects with great economic consequences. 

COMMONWEALTH: If the finding were revoked, what regulations would be impacted? 

KATES-GARNICK: There are a whole slew of regulations related to climate that are listed in Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order that will affect many sectors of the economy in addition to power plants and transportation, such as agriculture and energy efficiency. There will be a national retreat from climate action as it relates to the six pollutants scientifically known to cause climate change in both the power and transportation sectors. This new EPA order will have broad impact. 

COMMONWEALTH: If the finding were revoked, how would Massachusetts feel an impact? 

KATES-GARNICK: Massachusetts is well protected at a state level with our own legislation and regulations, particularly around energy generation. We can do the best that we can if federal regulations get weakened, but pollution knows no state boundary, nor does heat, drought, or intense storms. We will all be affected by weather and wind patterns. It will be a detriment because we all live on the same earth and in the same country.  

COMMONWEALTH: Does Massachusetts have policies that would allow us to continue regulating emissions even if the EPA weakened regulations on a federal level? 

KATES-GARNICK: Through a series of laws beginning with the Global Warming Solutions Act [a 2008 law that sets economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction goals for Massachusetts] and the Green Communities Act [a 2008 law that promotes expansion in energy efficiency and supports the development of renewable energy resources], there are other tools in Massachusetts’s toolbox.  Massachusetts, in 2024, enacted an “Act promoting and advancing a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers,” which strengthens our commitment to clean energy. Moreover, we are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a regional cap [with Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont] and trade program that impacts generation and tightens emissions over time. 

I believe that the Trump administration will constrain climate regulation at the federal level, but where the states have their own legislative commitments, there are standards set and goals to reach, which we will continue to implement. In Massachusetts, we have standards and guardrails, although, of course, we will experience the impact of the feds. 

COMMONWEALTH: How will this impact green technologies like electric vehicles? 

KATES-GARNICK: Removing the endangerment standard will slow the national movement toward clean energy vehicles. We are building a new industry. When combined with other actions, like making EV charging less available, we will delay the expansion of electric vehicle demand. The US auto manufacturers’ production of US EVs will be impacted. While other countries produce EVs, our production of these vehicles will decline relative to the rest of the world. US car companies will have less ability to compete globally in the clean car market. We’re going to get behind in our technology, not ahead. That is the real long-term tragedy of removing the endangerment finding. 

Manufacturers and industries don’t like patchwork regulations with different standards in every state or uncertainty in regulations. They like clear standards and certainty in order to build their production lines and train their workforce. If you have a patchwork of laws and uncertainty in regulation, then you are adding to costs. 

COMMONWEALTH: How will this move impact the entire country in the long term?

KATES-GARNICK: Removing the endangerment clause is so significant in the broader picture. Climate change affects us all, and we all need to understand the implications of this potential action. The impact of removing clean air requirements in transportation will have broad consequences over time. It will ultimately reduce the United States’s leadership in a global context when it comes to climate. We are the country with the greatest wealth and technology, but we’re losing our position in the world. That’s bad for the country, in my view.