Emission accomplished? Trump EPA gets closer to killing mobile GHG standards

Barring judicial intervention, the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding’s power is no more. A final rule to be issued by the EPA is set to rescind the overarching scientific conclusion that has driven environmental policy for 16 years. This in turn extinguishes “all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond,” the EPA announced on Feb. 12. In the commercial sector, this would remove heavy-duty Phase 1, 2, and 3 rules.

The EPA added that the “the almost universally hated start-stop feature” is also on the chopping block.

“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated.”

The Trump administration has billed this final rule, which was proposed last summer, as “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”

In particular, the GHG3 rules were seen as an EV mandate due to the increasingly strict emissions rules set on engine manufacturers through 2035, so this move has unsurprisingly gained the support of many trucking organizations, including The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the Clean Freight Coalition (CFC).

“Rescinding Phase 3 is a necessary step toward a more realistic approach that protects both environmental progress and the strength of our supply chain,” stated Patrick Kelly, ATA VP of energy and environmental affairs.

Jim Mullen, newly appointed executive director at CFC, added:

“From the outset, CFC members have expressed serious concerns about the unattainable targets and unrealistic timelines included in GHG3. Left in place, the rule would have imposed high costs on the trucking industry, disrupted the supply chain, and increased prices for goods for families and businesses across the country."

Why is the Endangerment Finding going extinct?

The scientific finding commissioned during the Obama administration found six GHGs to be so harmful to the public that regulatory intervention was required. These include: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.

Ultimately, though, President Trump’s EPA found that those regulations cause more damage to American taxpayers’ bank accounts. By removing the standards and the costly technology that enable emissions reductions, the EPA contends families will pay less for cars, and goods will cost less because the trucks that carry them won’t be so expensive. The estimated savings to taxpayers are $1.3 trillion.

Truck costs, though, are not coming down. NOx is not designated as a direct GHG, so the 2027 low-NOx rules for heavy-duty trucks are not affected by this move. That means heavy-duty truck prices are still expected to rise by a significant margin, upwards of 10%.

Furthermore, OEMs have already built these technologies into vehicles, which typically have seven-year design cycles, so it is unlikely the final rule will have an immediate impact. It does allow manufacturers leeway in future designs, though Trump policies can be reversed by a future administration, or overturned even sooner by any of the activist judges appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden who have stymied Trump on several occasions during his second term.

Will it stand?

The crux of the EPA’s reversal is that only Congress should have the authority to make such sweeping changes to engine emission standards, and the policies set by Obama reached beyond the scope of the Clean Air Act.

The finding is connected to Massachusetts v. EPA, a ruling that said that GHGs are air pollutants as defined by the CAA. But later rulings—West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—have complicated things, as they altered how courts can evaluate the EPA’s regulatory authority.

The EPA also disputes how effective these standards have been to mitigate climate change, citing that “there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.”

The California Air Resources Board and several other groups, the EPA would call “climate zealots,” have questioned the scientific validity of any such studies.

“EPA’s proposal is based on deeply flawed assertions that rely on unfounded and cherry-picked claims that originate from the oil industry and self-proclaimed climate skeptics while ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus,” commented CARB Executive Officer Steven Cliff during the comment period for the proposal last August. And he laid it on even thicker throughout his screed.

An overwhelming majority of commenters during the public hearings, many from the ultra-liberal Sierra Club, had similar criticism, but apparently the EPA ignored them as well.

This fight is far from over. This is a mid-term election year, and climate is one of the Democrats’ major platforms. Fleets should wait until this plays out in the courts before making any business decisions based on this final rule.