Contributed by Isaac Smith, Principal, PPM Consultants
In a previous article from March 2025, I outlined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement of a wide-ranging deregulatory agenda aimed at unleashing American energy, lowering the cost of living, revitalizing the auto industry, and returning greater decision-making authority to states. In that announcement, the Administrator outlined 31 actions the agency planned to initiate to roll back or reconsider existing regulations.
Many of the actions focused on power generation, methane and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector, and vehicle emission standards in the automotive manufacturing industry. The breadth of the list was staggering, but so was the volume of major EPA rules issued or advanced in the prior administration’s climate and energy push. Since the initial deregulatory announcement, surprisingly, there hasn’t been as much in the way of proposed rulemaking as compared to the original list of items. Most of the output has been in the way of news articles, press conferences, or tweets, but not so much actual rulemaking, until now.
Update (February 12, 2026): EPA has now moved from “reconsideration” to a formal rescission of the central scientific finding that underpinned much of the climate regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA): the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding is the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and it has served as the legal foundation for vehicle GHG standards and many broader federal climate rules. The administration has described the move as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history and has argued it will lower consumer costs, particularly by eliminating or weakening vehicle GHG standards, while critics argue it ignores settled science, undercounts climate and health damages, and will be challenged in court.
What the Endangerment Finding rescission changes
The 2009 Endangerment Finding was a prerequisite for EPA’s authority under CAA Section 202 to set GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines. EPA’s 2025 proposal and the 2026 final rescission, take the position that the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gases in the manner the agency has for the last 15+ years. Because the Endangerment Finding has been used as the gateway for a broad suite of federal climate rules, rescinding it is intended to unwind federal vehicle GHG standards and to undermine (or remove) a key legal justification for climate regulations across multiple sectors.
EPA’s 2025 proposal advanced two core rationales: (1) a new, narrower interpretation of CAA authority and (2) a reinterpretation of climate science that leaned heavily on a Department of Energy “Climate Working Group” report produced by five scientists, an approach critics say disregards the broader peer‑reviewed scientific consensus. EPA also included an alternative proposal to rescind all regulation of GHGs emitted by U.S. vehicles even if the Endangerment Finding were to remain in place.
For regulated entities, the immediate operational impact will vary by sector and by how quickly EPA follows with conforming rescissions, revisions, or enforcement posture changes across rule programs. For states and tribes, the rescission and related rollbacks raise the stakes on state-led policy, permitting approaches, and potential state-by-state divergence, particularly in the vehicle sector if federal standards are eliminated or substantially weakened.
Financial Impact
EPA’s own economic analysis underscores that the financial impact of this change is large, but highly dependent on assumptions. In its fact sheet and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) supporting the February 12, 2026, action, EPA highlights roughly $1.3 trillion in “savings” (2027–2055), driven primarily by reduced vehicle technology costs and avoided charging infrastructure investments. At the same time, the RIA also presents cases where those savings are partially or fully offset by other modeled impacts (including fuel and related consumer cost components), such that the net outcome varies by scenario. EPA’s headline gross savings equate to roughly $9,600 per household over the analysis period, while EPA’s net results span roughly –$1,300 to +$1,900 per household, depending on the scenario.
Legal Challenges and Pushback
The Endangerment Finding rescission is expected to be the focal point of the legal battle. Challengers will argue that the scientific basis for endangerment remains robust and that Supreme Court precedent, including Massachusetts v. EPA, limits EPA’s ability to disclaim authority over GHG once they have been found to “endanger” public health and welfare. Supporters of the rescission will argue EPA is correcting a decades-long overreach and aligning climate policy with congressional intent and more recent Supreme Court doctrines on agency authority. Either way, litigation is likely to delay implementation and produce significant regulatory uncertainty for years.
If you would like to discuss the proposed actions and what they may mean for regulated facilities, state programs, or compliance planning, please feel free to contact me at Isaac.Smith@ppmco.com or (251) 266-7921.
Relevant links and resources