EPA Moves to Repeal Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

In early January 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a draft final rule to the Trump administration for review that would repeal what is commonly known as the “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act. While the rule is not yet final, the submission marks a significant legal development with broad implications for environmental regulation, industry, and state and local governments, including New York.

To understand why this action is noteworthy, it is necessary to understand what the endangerment finding is, how it has functioned for more than a decade, and how the proposed repeal would alter the legal landscape.

What Is the Endangerment Finding?

The endangerment finding is a formal determination by the EPA that certain air pollutants “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In 2009, the EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide and methane—met this standard.

That determination did not, by itself, impose emission limits. Instead, it served as the legal foundation that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and certain industrial sources under existing provisions of the Clean Air Act.

The legal basis for the finding traces back to a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2007, Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that greenhouse gases qualify as “air pollutants” under the Act and that EPA must determine whether they endanger public health or welfare. The 2009 finding was the agency’s response to that mandate.

Since then, the endangerment finding has served as the cornerstone for federal climate-related air regulations.

What the Draft Final Rule Proposes to Do

The draft final rule proposes to rescind the greenhouse gas endangerment finding entirely. In practical terms, this would remove the EPA’s determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare for purposes of the Clean Air Act.

Unlike prior regulatory actions, which often adjusted emission standards, compliance timelines, or sector-specific requirements, this proposal targets the underlying legal predicate itself. If finalized, it would mean that the EPA no longer has an active endangerment determination supporting greenhouse gas regulation under key Clean Air Act programs.

It is important to note that the rule is described as a “draft final” rule. Before it can take effect, it must complete Trump administration review and then be formally issued. Litigation is widely expected, but the proposal itself already has immediate legal and planning implications.

How This Differs from Past EPA Climate Rules

Most prior federal climate actions under the Clean Air Act accepted the endangerment finding as settled law. Regulatory debates tended to focus on questions such as:

• How stringent emission limits should be;

• Which sources should be regulated;

• How compliance costs should be calculated; and/or

• How federal rules interact with state programs.

Even when administrations changed, they generally sought to revise or replace specific regulations rather than revoke the endangerment finding itself.

This proposal is different in terms of both scope and strategy. By rescinding the endangerment finding, the EPA would effectively remove the statutory trigger that requires or authorizes greenhouse gas regulation under multiple Clean Air Act provisions. In that sense, the rule is structural rather than incremental.

Legal Consequences Under the Clean Air Act

If the endangerment finding is repealed and upheld, EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under certain sections of the Clean Air Act would be significantly constrained. Regulations tied directly to that finding could be weakened, suspended, or rendered legally vulnerable.

However, this does not repeal the Clean Air Act itself, nor does it amend the statute. Congress would need to act to change the law. Instead, the proposal reflects a reinterpretation of how existing statutory terms, particularly “endangerment,” are applied to greenhouse gases.

The legal question is not whether climate change exists, but whether greenhouse gas emissions meet the statutory threshold that triggers Clean Air Act regulation. That distinction is likely to be central in any future court challenges.

Impacts on Industry and Development

For regulated industries, the proposal introduces both short-term uncertainty and potential long-term change.

Industries that have been subject to federal greenhouse gas permitting or emission standards—such as power generation, manufacturing, and large-scale development—may see changes in federal compliance obligations if the rule takes effect. However, the immediate effect is not deregulation across the board; existing rules remain in place unless and until they are revised or invalidated.

Developers and infrastructure sponsors should be aware that regulatory uncertainty can affect project timelines, financing, and permitting strategies. Lenders and investors often rely on stable regulatory assumptions; and so, shifts at the federal level can prompt closer scrutiny of risk allocation.

The Role of States Like New York

The proposed repeal does not eliminate state-level climate authority. New York, for example, regulates greenhouse gas emissions under state statutes and regulations that are independent of the federal endangerment finding. State environmental review, permitting, and climate laws would continue to apply regardless of federal action.

However, differences between federal and state regulatory approaches could widen. This raises questions about coordination, preemption, and the extent to which states may fill regulatory gaps left at the federal level.

For municipalities, the change may influence how local land use approvals, environmental reviews, and infrastructure planning are framed, particularly for energy, transportation, and industrial projects.

Why the Proposal Matters Now

The submission of the draft final rule signals that the EPA is moving beyond conceptual debate toward concrete legal change. Whether or not the rule ultimately survives judicial review, it marks a turning point in how the federal government approaches greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.

For the public, the proposal underscores that environmental regulation often turns on statutory interpretation and administrative process, not just policy preferences. For regulated entities and local governments, it reinforces the importance of monitoring federal actions that can reshape the legal framework governing development and environmental compliance.

As the rule proceeds through final review and likely litigation, its outcome will shape the next chapter of federal environmental law, with ripple effects reaching well beyond Washington, DC.

Jacob H. Zoghlin is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental Law and Municipal Law practice groups. He focuses his practice in the areas of environmental law, municipal law, development law, energy law, zoning and land use law, cannabis law, Article 78 proceedings, and related litigation. He can be reached at jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com or 585-258-2834.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.