EPA Moves to Reverse 2009 Climate Finding
The Trump administration is preparing to scrap a key Obama era climate ruling that declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health. That 2009 decision, known as the endangerment finding, formed the legal backbone for federal limits on carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat trapping emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to formally withdraw the finding this week. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has described the move as the largest deregulation effort in U.S. history.
Why the Repeal Could Change the Legal Landscape
Legal scholars warn that ending the finding may open a new path for lawsuits against energy producers and other major emitters. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA, not the courts, should regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. That decision effectively blocked public nuisance lawsuits tied to climate change.
Now, if the EPA steps away from regulating emissions, that legal shield may weaken. Experts say this shift could allow state and local governments to revive public nuisance claims against companies they believe contribute to climate related harm.
Robert Percival, an environmental law professor at the University of Maryland, suggested the rollback could backfire. He argued that removing federal oversight might hand more power to the courts instead.
What Are Public Nuisance Lawsuits?
Public nuisance claims focus on activities that harm public health or safety. State and local governments often file these cases. They typically seek financial compensation or court orders requiring companies to fix harmful conditions.
These cases are difficult to win. Plaintiffs must show a clear link between a company’s emissions and specific environmental damage. Even so, environmental advocates view them as one of the few legal tools available to hold corporations accountable for climate impacts.
A Look Back at the 2011 Supreme Court Ruling
In 2004, California and five other states sued major power companies, arguing that their emissions contributed to climate change and created a public nuisance. The case reached the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous 2011 decision, the Court ruled against the states. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Because the agency had acted through measures like the endangerment finding, the Court said federal law displaced such lawsuits.
If the EPA now retreats from that regulatory role, courts may revisit similar claims.
Industry Reaction and Legal Risks
Many electric utilities have supported Trump’s broader deregulatory agenda. However, some industry groups have warned that repealing the endangerment finding could invite more litigation. The Edison Electric Institute previously noted that ending the finding may increase lawsuits based on common law claims, regardless of their strength.
As a result, companies could face years of costly legal battles even if plaintiffs struggle to prove direct harm.
