Amorie Hummel is quoted in E&E News’ article discussing the EPA’s recent repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. Based on the argument that the Clean Air Act provision at issue never gave the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gases and citing a strike against “climate religion,” the move is an attempt to permanently block future federal climate regulation. Without the EPA’s authority, states may gain broader power to impose their own greenhouse gas rules, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape, particularly for motor vehicle emissions.

The repeal could also expose major emitters to increased legal risk. For years, companies have relied on federal preemption and Supreme Court precedent holding that EPA regulation displaced climate-related lawsuits under federal common law. By asserting it never had that authority, the EPA may weaken those protections, opening the door for litigants to pursue damages claims over climate impacts. However, Amorie noted that the repeal only covers a narrow section of the Clean Air Act and does not likely negate preemption, while also observing that the EPA has likely “weakened its argument, and it’s certainly giving states an argument to make on their own behalf.” She said the agency seems to be trying to make a field preemption argument, which holds that federal law covers an area so completely, there is no room for the states. “The question becomes: can you have your cake and eat it, too?” Amorie continued. “There is air pollution, but not rising to the level where we have the authority to regulate, yet still rising to the level where Congress doesn’t want any state to touch this regulatory area.”

To read more, click here.