Feb. 18 (UPI) — A group of environmental organizations filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for rolling back rules to cut tailpipe pollution.
On Thursday, the Trump administration announced an end to greenhouse gas emission standards for all vehicles made in 2012 or later. It revoked the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and all other emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA said in a press release that it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion.
The lawsuit, announced by the Environmental Law & Policy Center, names the agency and its administrator, Lee Zeldin.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to limit vehicle emissions of any pollutant that the agency determines “cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” the ELPC press release said.
In Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007, the Supreme Court said that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the release said. The court told the EPA to determine, based on science, if that pollution is dangerous to human health and welfare. The EPA determined that it was in 2009, leading to new standards for vehicles, the plaintiffs said in the release.
“In its repeal, the Trump EPA is rehashing legal arguments that the Supreme Court already considered and rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA,” the release said.
The EPA’s clean car standards set in 2024 would save drivers of new cars an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles, the release said.
“The EPA’s own analysis found that eliminating the vehicle standards will increase gas prices, force Americans to spend more on fuel, and be a net negative for the economy,” it said.
But in its press release last week, the EPA touted saving money as a motive for changing the rule.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a statement. “The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning common sense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”
But the plaintiffs said the changes mean the EPA is abandoning its duty.
“After two decades of scientific evidence supporting the 2009 finding, the agency cannot credibly claim that the body of work is now incorrect,” said Brian Lynk, senior attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, in a statement. “This reckless and legally untenable decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses, guarantees prolonged legal battles and undermines the stability of federal climate regulations. The EPA cannot be permitted to abandon its responsibility to protect public health and welfare.”
Other plaintiffs said the EPA’s legal arguments are weak.
“The Trump EPA’s slapdash legal arguments should be laughed out of court,” said Meredith Hankins, legal director for federal climate at plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. “Undercutting the ability of the federal government to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is deadly serious, but the administration’s legal and scientific reasons for doing so are a joke.”
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.