More than 300,000 comments were filed in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to rescind the controversial 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) and its subsequent greenhouse gas vehicle standard. A statute which has become the cornerstone of expansive climate regulation in the U.S, this one directive underpins costly fuel economy standards, justifies a de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate, and empowers agencies to impose sweeping rules with minimal legislative oversight. Its scientific foundation is dubious, its legal authority problematic, and its economic consequences severe. It is time to repeal it.
The EF originated from the Supreme Court’s narrow 5–4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which interpreted the Clean Air Act (CAA) to include greenhouse gases as “air pollutants.” But dissenting justices rightly argued that the CAA was designed to address local, toxic pollutants—not global climate dynamics. Subsequent rulings have reinforced the dissenters’ view.
In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Court invoked the “Major Questions Doctrine,” requiring clear congressional authorization for regulations of vast economic and political significance. Congress has never granted EPA the authority to regulate CO₂ under the CAA. Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) further dismantled Chevron deference, curbing agency overreach and restoring interpretive authority to the judiciary. Michigan v. EPA (2015) declared it not “appropriate and necessary” to impose significant economic costs in exchange for much smaller returns. These decisions collectively undermine the legal basis for the EF.
The EF rests on the premise that rising CO₂ levels are driving dangerous global warming. But climate science is not settled and is ongoing. For one, Urban Heat Island effects—a specific trend bias where weather stations surrounding urban areas erroneously inflate average temperatures—distort temperature records. Evidence also suggests that any increase in global temperatures is more natural, perhaps significantly more so, than we are led to believe.
Climate science is a complex issue requiring further study; therefore, policymakers should exercise extreme caution before implementing measures that could significantly transform entire industries and inflict economic hardship.
The EF has enabled regulators to impose austere fuel economy standards. The Biden administration set a rule so stringent automakers would be forced to sell mostly EVs in order to comply. Such mandates distort consumer choice and saddle taxpayers, ratepayers, and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle buyers with hidden costs.
An EV sticker price is higher than an ICE vehicle, and billions in subsidies, tax credits, and infrastructure upgrades are quietly passed on to consumers. A recent study estimates over a 10-year time frame, each 2023 EV will cost society between $94,000 and $152,000 in hidden subsidies. Utility rates are also rising nationwide to accommodate EV charging demands. Manufacturers are forced to absorb losses or pay penalties, which are then passed on to ICE buyers.
Most Americans don’t want an EV, which is evident by the lackluster 7.5 percent they represented in new car sales for this year’s first quarter. Nearly 5,000 auto dealers urged the Biden administration over a year ago to “hit the brakes” on unrealistic mandates, citing stockpiles of unsold EVs and inadequate charging infrastructure.
Recent Department of Energy findings confirm that U.S. emission cuts will have “undetectably small” impacts on global climate. Even if the U.S. eliminated all fossil fuel induced CO₂ emissions by 2030, the average worldwide temperature would only be reduced by a mere 0.052° C. The climate benefits are negligible; the economic costs are not.
Contrary to popular narratives, rising CO₂ levels are not synonymous with disaster. They enhance agricultural productivity, reduce cold-related deaths, and have no toxic effects at ambient levels. Hurricanes and tornadoes show no clear upward trend in frequency or severity. Natural climate oscillations—not CO₂—drive weather variability.
The Endangerment Finding has become a blunt instrument for climate policy—one that bypasses Congress, distorts markets, and burdens consumers. Its legal foundation has eroded, its scientific claims are contestable, and its policy outcomes are economically regressive and environmentally inconsequential.
Rescinding the EF would restore regulatory integrity, respect constitutional boundaries, and allow for a more balanced, evidence-based approach to environmental stewardship. Climate policy should be grounded in science, constrained by law, and responsive to economic realities—not driven by bureaucratic fiat.
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow on X @ConsumerPal.
