by Jake Spring and Anusha Mathur (Washington Post) The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday announced a proposal to rescind the landmark legal opinion that underpins virtually all of its regulations to curb climate change.
The move would end EPA regulations on greenhouse gases emitted by cars, while also undercutting rules that limit power plant emissions and control the release of methane by oil and gas companies.
“If finalized, today’s announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States, ” EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said Tuesday at a truck dealership in Indianapolis.
...
Zeldin said that he aims to balance economic growth with environmental protection and that the EPA remains committed to preserving clean air and water.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group which represents almost all U.S. domestic and foreign automakers, is studying the proposal but broadly supports changing the policy, President John Bozzella said in a statement.
“There’s no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren’t achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions, to keep the auto industry in America competitive, and to keep the industry on a path of vehicle choice and lower emissions,” Bozzella said.
The endangerment finding has long been a target of libertarians and many conservatives seeking to cut back regulations they see as burdensome.
“This is a very expensive regulation,” said Diana Furchtgott‑Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and the Environment at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“The endangerment finding should be rolled back, because right now it is responsible for regulations that raise the cost of energy and raise the cost of transportation, and disproportionately burden the poor, burden farmers, and burden small businesses,” she added.
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, a conservative advocacy group, said that the repeal is key to cementing Trump’s energy legacy.
...
The endangerment finding has been at the center of the political fight over climate change for more than 15 years. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA issued the endangerment finding two years later, and then established carbon limits for vehicles and power plants.
Experts say that going after the endangerment finding is a risky legal move. But if the administration is successful, it would eliminate the key hurdle to implementing Trump’s energy agenda.
“They think this is a holy grail to get rid of the whole thing in one fell swoop as opposed to having to weaken regulations one by one,” said Richard Revesz, law professor at New York University and former administrator of the White House Office of Information Regulatory Affairs. “It’s like betting on this big thing, but if you lose, you end up empty-handed.”
Kenny Stein, vice president for policy at the conservative Institute for Energy Research, said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA made a shaky legal argument and has been undermined by more recent rulings.
A 2022 Supreme Court ruling struck down Obama-era power plant rules, saying that in order for an agency to exercise a broad new authority — such as regulating greenhouse gases — Congress needs to explicitly give it that authority.
“With the massive change in the complexion of the Supreme Court, I think that if the case got to the Supreme Court on this topic, Massachusetts v. EPA would be overruled pretty comprehensively,” Stein said.
The EPA’s proposal now enters a 45-day period for public comments, after which the agency must respond before submitting the final version.
...
Environmental groups have vowed to challenge the repeal. David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said his group plans to submit comments and take the EPA to court if they are not addressed.
“The law unambiguously includes greenhouse gases as air pollutants, and the law unambiguously makes it clear that the endangerment and contribution findings limit that to public health and science issues, not to broad economic and policy issues,” Doniger said. “When they assert the opposite, they will lose.”
...
If the repeal does survive court challenges, it would leave future administrations unable to address climate change using the Clean Air Act.
“You’re asking the American people who are living through wildfires, floods, hurricanes, heat domes and so on, not to believe what they’re going through, not to believe their own eyes,” Doniger said. “At some point what they’re claiming is going to appear to people to be mind bogglingly false, and out of touch.” READ MORE
Related articles
Excerpt from U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority News: The bedrock scientific determination underpins EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. Repealing it while gutting emissions standards for vehicles sets the stage to roll back regulations on power plants, airplanes, and more.
Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), issued the following statement after Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed repeal of EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and welfare. The endangerment finding underpins all greenhouse gas regulation, and repealing it would ignore overwhelming scientific evidence and set the stage for rolling back regulations on power plants, airplanes, and more—making it easier to pollute. EPA is seizing the opportunity to propose gutting vehicle standards in the same regulatory action.
“The endangerment finding is the bedrock scientific finding underpinning EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, and the Trump Administration’s repeal has the fossil fuel industry’s oily fingerprints all over it. That greenhouse gases harm public welfare was supported by overwhelming scientific evidence when the endangerment finding was issued in 2009; 16 years later, the evidence has only gotten stronger, and the looming economic harms more dangerous. Administrator Zeldin’s corrupt giveaway doesn’t change the science, but by wishing away the problem, this Administration leaves EPA without the tools to forge a solution.
“The vehicle emissions rollbacks will unleash unchecked greenhouse gas pollution and leave us dangerously unprepared for the deadlier storms, disappearing coastlines, and more intense heat from unmitigated climate change. EPA had a chance to save 40,000 lives and help families save more than $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, but Trump chose his fossil fuel megadonors over the American people. Thanks to EPA’s pay-to-play corruption, Big Oil gets to sell more gas while American families foot the bill.
“While there is no substitute for federal action to limit carbon pollution, I expect that states and cities across the country will try to fill the void created by EPA’s shameful retreat, and the oil and gas industry, facing a patchwork of regulatory regimes, will rue the day it put this awful scheme in motion.” READ MORE
Excerpt from Associated Press/ABC News: President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
The “endangerment finding” is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was "the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan.
He singled out the endangerment finding as “the Holy Grail of the climate change religion” and said he was thrilled to end it “as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.''
The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency’s dual mission to protect the environment and human health.
“If there’s an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they’re doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,” Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public.
The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report “on the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding.
Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases.
But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually “impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.”
Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a “kill shot’’ that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change.
"The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
“Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA’s responsibility to protect Americans’ health and well-being,'' he said. “It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government’s responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution." READ MORE
Excerpt from CNN: Zeldin on Tuesday spoke proudly of his agency’s move to repeal the endangerment finding as the “largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” speaking on “Ruthless,” a conservative podcast, and referred to climate change as dogma rather than science.
“This has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,” Zeldin said.
...
Zeldin said during the podcast he believes the scientific finding that climate change threatens human health was a guise used to attack polluting industries, and that the human health finding was “an oversimplified, I would say inaccurate, way to describe it.”
Many rigorous scientific findings since 2009 have showed both climate pollution and its warming effects are not just harming public health but killing people outright.
The Trump administration has also commissioned a new report on climate change and climate science in conjunction with its proposed regulatory repeals, Energy Sec. Chris Wright announced during a Tuesday afternoon press conference.
...
As CNN earlier reported, Wright’s Energy Department recently hired three prominent researchers who have questioned and even rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-caused climate change — John Christy and Roy Spencer, both research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
The report was not immediately available, and Energy Department spokespeople didn’t reply to CNN’s request for comment whether Christy, Spencer and Koonin were involved in it.
Wright said climate change “is a real, physical phenomenon” that is “worthy of study” and “even some action.”
“But what we have done instead is nothing related to the actual science of climate change or pragmatic ways to make progress,” Wright said. “The politics of climate change have shrunk your life possibilities, have put your business here at threat.”
...
The findings of international climate scientists have been reaffirmed in the fourth and fifth US climate assessments, the former of which was released during the first Trump administration.
...
“Both the scientific certainty around climate change and evidence of the dangers it is causing have grown stronger since 2009,” Hausfather (climate scientist Zeke Hausfather) told CNN in an email. “There is no evidence that has emerged or been published in the scientific literature in the past 16 years that would in any way challenge the scientific basis of the 2009 endangerment finding.”
Global warming is supercharging extreme weather events such as heavy precipitation, heat waves and wildfires. It is making these extremes more likely, intense and in some cases, longer-lasting. READ MORE
Excerpt from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: If finalized, this proposal would undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations, save more than $54 billion annually -- At an auto dealership in Indiana, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has been used to justify over $1 trillion in regulations, including the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate. If finalized, the proposal would repeal all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines, thereby reinstating consumer choice and giving Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their family while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver. Administrator Zeldin was joined by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Indiana Governor Mike Braun, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, U.S. Representative Jim Baird (R-IN-04), Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources Suzanne Jaworowski, and the Indiana Motor Truck Association.
Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, many have stated that the American people and auto manufacturing have suffered from significant uncertainties and massive costs related to general regulations of greenhouse gases from vehicles and trucks. Finally, EPA is proposing to provide much needed certainty and regulatory relief, so companies can plan appropriately, and the American people can have affordable choices when deciding to buy a car.
“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year. We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA's GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide which the Finding never assessed independently, was the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.”
“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America is returning to free and open dialogue around climate and energy policy - driving the focus back to following the data,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “Today’s announcement is a monumental step toward returning to commonsense policies that expand access to affordable, reliable, secure energy and improve quality of life for all Americans.”
“The Obama-Biden EPA used regulations as a political tool and hurt American competitiveness without results to show for it. Today's announcement is a win for consumer choice, common sense, and American energy independence. President Trump, Secretary Wright, and Administrator Zeldin are returning the EPA to its proper role, and I'm proud they chose Indiana as the place to make this announcement because our state is proof we can protect our environment and support American jobs,” said Governor Mike Braun.
“Over the last four years, conservative state attorneys general were the last line of defense in fighting back against the Biden administration’s federal overreach and green new scam agenda,” said Attorney General Todd Rokita. “However, thanks to President Trump and patriots like Administrator Zeldin and Secretary Wright, we are now on the front lines helping to unleash American energy.”
“We commend President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin for taking decisive action to rescind the disastrous GHG Phase 3 rule. This electric-truck mandate put the trucking industry on a path to economic ruin and would have crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses. Moreover, it kicked innovation to the curb by discarding available technologies that can further drive down emissions at a fraction of the cost. For four decades, our industry has proven that we are committed to reducing emissions. The trucking industry supports cleaner, more efficient technologies, but we need policies rooted in real-world conditions. We thank the Trump Administration for returning us to a path of common sense, so that we can keep delivering for the American people as we continue to reduce our environmental impact,” said American Trucking Association President and CEO Chris Spear.
The Endangerment Finding is the legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Absent this finding, EPA would lack statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prescribe standards for greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal, if finalized, is expected to save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.
If finalized, this proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, starting with EPA’s first greenhouse gas set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines—which includes off-cycle credits like the much hated start-stop feature on most new cars.
EPA’s proposal also cites updated scientific data that challenge the assumptions behind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Cited data includes the updated studies and information in the Department of Energy’s 2025 Climate Work Group study that is concurrently being released for public comment.
EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website.
How We Got Here
Congress tasked EPA under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act with prescribing emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines when the Administrator determines that emissions of an air pollutant from any class of vehicles causes or contributes to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. But the Obama Administration ignored Congress’ clear intent, slicing and dicing the language of the statute to make an “endangerment finding” totally separate from any actual rule setting standards for emissions from cars.
In an unprecedented move, the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles – in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t even emit – contributes some unspecified amount to climate change, which in turn creates some unspecified amount of endangerment to human health and welfare. These mental leaps were admittedly novel, but they were the only way the Obama-Biden Administration could access EPA’s authority to regulate under Section 202(a).
Likewise, the Obama EPA did not consider any aspect of the regulations that would flow from the Endangerment Finding. EPA subsequently relied on the Endangerment Finding to underpin seven vehicle regulations with an aggregate cost of more than $1 trillion. The Endangerment Finding has also played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks, resulting in additional costly burdens on American families and businesses.
Much has changed since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, including new scientific and technological developments that warrant review. Additionally, major Supreme Court decisions in the intervening years, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, Michigan v. EPA, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, have significantly clarified the scope of EPA’s authority under the CAA. The decisions emphasized that major policy determinations must be made by Congress, not by administrative agencies.
Background
On the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in the history of the United States in March 2025, Administrator Zeldin announced that the agency was kicking off a formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget and other relevant agencies in addition to reconsidering all of its prior regulations and actions that rely on the Endangerment Finding. Please visit the Endangerment Finding Reconsideration website to learn more.
Administrator Zeldin also announced the agency would reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Please visit the Termination of the EV Mandate website to learn more.
These were announced in conjunction with a number of historic actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback. While accomplishing EPA’s core mission of protecting the environment, the agency is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law, and give power back to states to make their own decisions. READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News by Politico: Zeldin took aim Tuesday at both the process and science that the Obama administration used to arrive at its finding nearly 16 years ago that greenhouse gases pose a public danger.
“They didn’t actually study carbon dioxide individually, and they made assumptions on the science that actually turned out not to be true,” Zeldin said on the podcast.
The endangerment finding that was finalized under then-Administrator Lisa Jackson was based on U.S. and global climate assessments through 2007. Those findings are now often considered to be conservative. Subsequent assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the global climate science body — and by U.S. government agencies have expressed greater levels of certainty about more serious and imminent climate risks.
The Obama-era finding considered all six “well-mixed” greenhouse gases together, in evaluating the risk they collectively pose to the public. That’s the same approach EPA has used to evaluate dangers from other classes of pollutants, like particulate pollution and volatile organic compounds that contribute to ozone depletion. Still, Tuesday’s proposal is expected to argue that EPA erred in not considering the six gases individually.
Zeldin also argued that the Obama administration didn’t follow the proper administrative process in finalizing the 2009 declaration.
“They didn’t go out for public comment, and they didn’t weigh the economic impacts of the regulations that would follow if they did the endangerment,” he said on the podcast.
The Obama administration did follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which establishes the process for government decisionmaking, when it wrote the finding. It issued a proposal in April 2009, followed by a 60-day public comment period. The responses to the comments that EPA received during that period remain on its website.
The endangerment finding is not a regulation, though it cleared the path for regulations. Historically, EPA has not weighed policy ramifications when determining that a new pollutant or set of pollutants endanger public health and welfare — the legal predicate for Clean Air Act regulations. But the questions about whether EPA should have weighed the costs and benefits of rules that followed from the 2009 finding are likely to pervade the agency’s new proposal.
On the podcast, Zeldin faulted the Obama-era EPA for not considering benefits from carbon dioxide emissions alongside costs. And he pledged that his EPA would “consider all the advancements in technology over the course of the last 20 years” and U.S. progress in reducing emissions over the last two decades.
EPA in 2009 did consider the benefits of heat-trapping emissions. The finding acknowledged short-term benefits to “certain crops” and to forestry from warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons.
But it added that there “is significant uncertainty about whether this benefit will be achieved given the various potential adverse impacts of climate change on crop yield, such as the increasing risk of extreme weather events.”
Forestry benefits, it said, are “offset by the clear risk from the observed increases in wildfires, combined with risks from the spread of destructive pests and disease.”
The long-term effects of climate change on both sectors, the finding found, would be overwhelmingly negative.
Zeldin hinted Tuesday that the finding would make the case that the U.S. economy is decarbonizing on its own, downplaying the need for regulations. The Trump EPA did not release its most recent data for U.S. emissions this spring, and it has suspended a long-standing program that required major emitters to report their greenhouse gas output.
But the Environmental Defense Fund posted EPA’s inventory for 2023 emissions after obtaining it in May through a public records request. It showed that U.S. emissions had declined only 17 percent between 2005 and 2017, well short of what scientists say the world’s largest economy and second-largest annual emitter would need to do to avoid the worst effects of global warming. READ MORE
Excerpt from The Hill: The 2009 endangerment finding proposed that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases (GHG) threaten public health and welfare, and that vehicular emissions are a contributing factor.
The Trump administration is now proposing to find instead that “that there is insufficient reliable information to retain the conclusion that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines in the United States cause or contribute to endangerment to public health and welfare in the form of global climate change.”
The impacts of Tuesday’s proposal appear to be limited to its regulations on the auto industry and does not directly address the EPA’s regulations on other emitting sectors including power plants.
However, in June, the Trump administration separately proposed to find that power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions “do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution” and therefore should not be regulated.
The Trump administration estimated that repealing all climate regulations on cars and trucks will result in between $157 billion and $444 billion worth of benefits between 2027 and 2055. This includes between $114 billion and $365 billion in savings due to projected changes in the makeup of the vehicle market — namely that fewer vehicles will be electric than under Biden-era rules.
...
However, if finalized, the moves are expected to put more carbon dioxide into the air and therefore exacerbate climate change.
...
The rules are also expected to lead to increases in pollutants like soot that also stem from gas-powered cars.
...
In conjunction with the EPA move, the Energy Department released a report claiming that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright has a history of downplaying climate change’s impacts.
While on the campaign trail, President Trump repeatedly pledged to repeal climate regulations on cars in particular, arguing that they harmed the auto sector and consumers’ choices.
Zeldin previously indicated plans to reconsider both the endangerment finding and climate regulations. READ MORE
(Nebraska Ethanol Board) The Nebraska Ethanol Board (NEB) today announced the publication of the interim report for Phase II of the E30 Demonstration. The project is demonstrating the viability of E30 fuel (a blend of 30% ethanol and 70% gasoline) in non-flex fuel vehicles. Phase I was conducted in 2019, and the ongoing Phase II began in 2023. So far, the 94 State of Nebraska light-duty vehicles involved in Phase II have collectively driven more than 215,000 miles on E30 fuel. The research team, from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has found further evidence of the conclusions from Phase I: E30 is safe and effective for non-flex fuel vehicles, and E30 is economically viable for broader consumption.
“The results in the interim report are very encouraging,” NEB Executive Director Ben Rhodes said. “While we’re not surprised to learn that non-flex fuel engines can safely utilize E30, it’s still exciting to see the data demonstrate that fact. Plus, the report makes it clear that E30 is far cheaper than E10, which we know is thanks to the inclusion of more ethanol. This price advantage comes with a fuel economy gain for some vehicles on E30 compared to E10—a groundbreaking result—or only a very small reduction that is more than covered by the cost difference. These are all strong signs that mid-level ethanol blends like E30 are a prime long-term option for the world’s transportation energy needs.”
Currently, E30 fuel is only approved for flex fuel vehicles, but the demonstration has specific approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test E30 in non-flex fuel vehicles.
The interim report analyzes data from several key different aspects of vehicle and engine performance, including short- and long-term fuel trim (STFT and LTFT), downstream oxygen (O2) sensor voltage, diagnostic trouble code (DTC) count, fuel economy, engine coolant temperature (ECT), catalytic converter temperature (CT), and throttle parameters. All analysis indicated that engines remained within safe operational margins while using E30.
The interim report highlights the results drawn from data collected by the onboard diagnostic (OBD) tracker connected to each involved vehicle. The vehicles are split into two groups: one control group using E10, and an experimental group using E30, with both groups designed to maximize diversity in vehicle makes, models, years, and engine types. This expands the demonstration beyond the scope of Phase I, which studied a much more limited set of vehicles.
Key results from the Phase II interim report:
· LTFT distributions shift upward and widen under E30 while STFT and downstream O2 sensor behavior remain stable, collectively indicating that modern engine control unit (ECU) strategies effectively manage E30 fueling through long-term adaptation without compromising real-time fuel control or emissions after-treatment.
· For vehicles 2020 – 2024, the average fuel economy for vehicles operating on E30 was 20.75 miles per gallon (MPG), compared to 22.03 MPG for vehicles on E10, a reduction in fuel economy of only 5.8% for E30, which is more than offset by E30’s 16.3% price advantage.
· For vehicles 2003 – 2019, the average fuel economy for vehicles operating on E30 was 17.08 MPG, compared to 15.81 MPG for vehicles on E10, an E30 mileage advantage of 7.5%.
· The average price of E30 in Nebraska was $2.70 per gallon, while E10 averaged $3.22 per gallon, resulting in a 16.28% price advantage for E30.
· No vehicles in either group exhibited coolant temperatures exceeding critical thresholds, indicating that E30 is thermally compatible with modern engine cooling architecture and does not induce abnormal heating or cooling behavior.
· The increased CT observed with E30 enhances catalyst performance without inducing thermal overstress.
· Although the E30-fueled vehicles exhibited higher throttle angle values, all readings remained within safe operational margins, indicating that drivability and engine responsiveness were not compromised.
· Long-term durability testing of E30-fueled vehicles confirmed that the increased throttle activity did not accelerate actuator wear or induce throttle-body fouling, reaffirming the mechanical robustness of current systems under mid-level ethanol operation.
“With a year’s worth of data still to be collected and analyzed, the interim report is clear evidence that Phase II of the E30 Demonstration is moving in the right direction,” Rhodes said. “The report validates all the hard work done so far, and it generates momentum for the remainder of the project. Today’s publication of the interim report marks an important step toward the long-term goal of widespread E30 adoption and use.”
The full interim report can be read here. A final report is expected in late 2026.
The Nebraska Ethanol Board works to ensure strong public policy and consumer support for biofuels. Since 1971, the independent state agency has designed and managed programs to expand production, market access, worker safety and technology innovation, including recruitment of producers interested in developing conventional ethanol, as well as bio-products from the ethanol platform. For more information, visit www.ethanol.nebraska.gov. READ MORE
by Sean Reilly (Politico Pro Climatewire) The move opens the door to revise a suite of rules clamping down on heat-trapping emissions, especially from the industrial and transportation sectors. -- EPA has taken its first public step toward revisiting the landmark 2009 determination that underpins most of the agency's climate regulations.
The move marks an introductory and pivotal step for the Trump administration to rewrite the foundation of a suite of rules that aim to clamp down on heat-trapping emissions, especially from the industrial and transportation sectors.
EPA on Monday sent the proposed rule, titled “Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration,” to the White House regulations office for a routine review, according to a notice posted on a government tracking website.
While the proposal’s contents were not made public, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had targeted the endangerment finding in a list of planned regulatory rollbacks released in March.
At a congressional hearing in May, he suggested that the original Obama-era finding was flawed because it failed to consider the harm done by each of the half-dozen greenhouse gases deemed dangerous because they contribute to global climate change. READ MORE
Related articles
Excerpt from Aiken Gump: EPA faces scientific and legal barriers to challenging the endangerment finding.
First, scientific data on the impacts of GHGs on climate change has only increased since the original 2009 finding. Scientists can more readily link impacts attributable to anthropogenic climate change and the relative contributions of different sources for those impacts, undermining arguments that emissions reductions in one jurisdiction will not meaningfully “contribute” to addressing global climate change.9
Second, any decision against the findings would be immediately challenged in court. The findings have been upheld against various legal challenges over the years, with the Supreme Court declining to hear challenges to it as recently as December 11, 2023.10
Nevertheless, recent landmark decisions in the Supreme Court have demonstrated a willingness to deviate from precedent in matters of environmental regulations and otherwise. If challenged, these potential legal proceedings will present opportunities for engagement for environmental and industry groups to file amicus briefs or join likely challenges from Democratic states. READ MORE
Excerpt from Policy Integrity: EPA made the 2009 Endangerment Finding following the Supreme Court’s determinations that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court further clarified that “[i]f EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.” Consistent with this obligation, after making the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA then proceeded to issue regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and later from power plants, landfills, aircraft, and the oil and gas sector. Many of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, alongside the 2009 Endangerment Finding itself, are now in the crosshairs of EPA’s reconsideration.
EPA’s March 2025 press release emphasized that when EPA made the Endangerment Finding in 2009, the agency did not consider the costs of future regulations that would limit emissions. That’s true—but it is not evidence that regulatory costs went unconsidered. To the contrary, EPA considered regulatory costs when the relevant statutory provisions indicated they should be considered: at the time it issued the various regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from particular sectors. As explained in this issue brief, this approach is required by the law and best practice.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess regulatory costs when setting emission standards, not when making an endangerment finding that underlies the regulations. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA first makes a scientific judgment regarding whether certain emissions “endanger public health or welfare” (a.k.a., an endangerment finding). For emissions meeting that criterion, EPA then separately issues emission standards. The courts have made clear that cost is considered only at the stage of issuing specific standards to limit emissions. The plain text of the Clean Air Act compels this approach, and Supreme Court case law further affirms this understanding of the text and appropriate practice. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico Pro: The EPA’s proposal to reconsider its 16-year-old bedrock finding on the dangers of greenhouse gases is now in the White House’s hands — a move that sets the stage for a broad attack on a wide range of federal climate regulations.
Details on the proposal are still unclear, but it is expected to significantly weaken — if not revoke outright — the agency’s 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases endanger human health. That in turn would free EPA from the legal obligation to regulate climate pollution from most sources, including power plants, cars and trucks, and virtually any other source.
The EPA submitted its proposal (Reg. 2060-AW71) to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review on Monday, according to the agency’s website.
The rule is styled as "Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule" — indicating it may revoke the agency's tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles at the same time it undoes the endangerment finding. That would free automakers from having to comply with Biden-era rules that Republicans have argued amounted to a de facto electric vehicle mandate. Restoring auto industry jobs through deregulation is a main pillar of Administrator Lee Zeldin's EPA agenda . READ MORE
Excerpt from Inside EPA: EPA has sent to the White House for final review a proposed rule walking back the landmark GHG endangerment finding and vehicle emissions standards -- confirming expectations that the agency would combine its endangerment finding reconsideration with a vehicle rule repeal even as the regulation’s exact scope remains unclear. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received the proposal, titled “Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule,” on June 30. EPA’s planned rollback of the greenhouse gas endangerment... READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico Pro E&E Daily: (Aaron) Szabo’s elevation to head the Office of Air and Radiation formally positions him to play a lead role in a host of Clean Air Act rollbacks already planned by Administrator Lee Zeldin.
The White House regulations office, for example, is reviewing an EPA proposal to revisit the landmark 2009 endangerment finding that undergirds the agency’s work to regulate greenhouse gases.
At a March hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Szabo acknowledged the impacts of climate change, but would not commit to doing anything to rein in heat-trapping pollution. READ MORE
Excerpt from New York Times: The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan.
...
The E.P.A. proposal, which is expected to be made public within days, also calls for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. Those regulations, which were based on the endangerment finding, were a fundamental part of the Biden administration’s efforts to move the country away from gasoline-powered vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
The E.P.A. intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration’s plan. They asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to discuss the draft proposal.
The draft proposal could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year.
Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., did not confirm the details of the plan. In a statement she said the E.P.A. sent the draft proposal to the White House on June 30, and that it “will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.”
If the Trump administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources. It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications.
...
In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft E.P.A. rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren’t warming the planet.
Instead, it argues that the E.P.A. overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare. It makes the case that the E.P.A. administrator has limited power that apply only to specific circumstances.
Joseph Goffman, who led the air office at the E.P.A. under the Biden administration, said the rule would all but certainly face legal challenges if it is finalized.
He said the Trump administration’s proposed rule conflicts with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., a landmark case that found for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That led the E.P.A. to make the finding in 2009 that said that six greenhouse gases were harming public health.
In more than 200 pages, the E.P.A. at that time outlined the science and detailed how increasingly severe heat waves, storms and droughts were expected to contribute to higher rates of death and disease. READ MORE
Excerpt from Reuters:
- Proposal will be published for public notice, White House says
- Source: Finding to focus on EPA's legal authority, not science
- International Court calls emissions an 'existential threat'
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.
Reversal of the "endangerment finding" would gut one of the most consequential federal standards that had enabled the U.S. to tackle climate change by regulating vehicles, industries, and energy-producing facilities that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Without the finding, the EPA could more easily undo major regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the sources said.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency sent its proposal for reconsidering the endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review on June 30 and it is being reviewed by other federal agencies.
"The proposal will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator,” an EPA spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post first reported on the decision.
The International Court of Justice on Wednesday issued a landmark advisory opinion saying greenhouse gas emissions pose an "existential threat" to the world and countries must cooperate on concrete emission reduction targets.
One source said the proposal would focus on EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the scientific basis for it. Lawyers have said that challenging the scientific basis of the finding would be difficult because the body of evidence that humans are causing climate change is “unequivocal.”
"It would be a shocking dereliction of a clear statutory duty to protect the public and an indefensible denial of overwhelming science. Also a national embarrassment," said Sean Donahue, a lawyer with Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog, who has represented environmental groups in cases before the Supreme Court.
The U.S. is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and currently the No. 2 emitter after China.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Massachusetts vs. EPA case in 2007, said the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and required the agency to make a scientific finding on whether they endanger public health.
In 2009, the EPA under former President Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. It was upheld in several legal challenges and underpinned subsequent greenhouse gas regulations.
The EPA declined to take action on the endangerment finding during President Donald Trump's first term as industry raised concerns. The current Trump administration set its sights early on the endangerment finding.
In January, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told his confirmation hearing the agency has authority but not an obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In March, the EPA launched a review of the finding, obeying a day-one executive order by Trump.
White House budget director Ross Vought said the review was "long overdue" because the finding had led to regulations that he said harmed the economy.
Zeldin announced over two-dozen de-regulatory actions aimed at "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion." READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: Instead of challenging the science, which would require EPA to assemble a body of evidence rejecting the overwhelming consensus that humans are driving climate change primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, the Trump administration would lean into an argument that a key 2007 Supreme Court ruling allowed but did not require the agency to regulate greenhouse gases, according to the three people who were granted anonymity to discuss a draft regulation not yet made public.
...
The Justice Department has also helped shape the draft, which relies on a legal rather than scientific rationale to topple the endangerment finding, according to the two people as well as another individual granted anonymity to discuss the draft rule.
...
Going the legal route to end the endangerment finding will come amid fresh headwinds. The United Nations International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat” — a non-binding opinion that will likely factor into court cases around the world. The court said countries must cooperate to keep temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, adding that failing to do so could violate international law. The court also said that leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which Trump has said the U.S. will exit, does not excuse countries from their obligations to curb warming.
But Trump officials appear prepared to take the fight to the courts. Framing their case as a legal rather than scientific matter represents a departure from the strategy it once mulled under then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during Trump’s first term, which consisted of challenging the comprehensive, Obama-era scientific analysis that determined six greenhouse gases posed human health and safety risks necessitating regulations.
...
U.S. climate rules flow from the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The high court ruled that EPA can avoid regulating greenhouse gases only if it can prove they do not contribute to climate change or if it can come up with “some reasonable explanation” why it won’t issue an endangerment finding.
“To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design,” the court added, a caveat that will make it harder for EPA to simply argue that the Trump administration has declared an “energy emergency” or adopted a fossil fuel-friendly policy position.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent in that 2007 case. He argued that material loss from rising temperatures was “pure conjecture” and cast doubt on EPA’s ability to blunt the damaging effects of climate change given “the complexities of global warming.” The Supreme Court has since shifted to a 6-3 conservative supermajority, with Trump appointing three of its members during his first term.
...
Jeffrey Clark, who ran the Justice Department’s environmental division in Trump’s first term, has led the administration’s endangerment finding proposal through his new perch at OMB. Vought previously hired Clark to work at Vought’s Center for Renewing America, where the two workshopped policy ideas during the Biden administration.
Clark is personally connected to the effort to unwind the endangerment finding. He successfully argued the Massachusetts v. EPA case in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as a DOJ appointee for former President George W. Bush. But he left the government before the case landed in the Supreme Court.
...
One of the people familiar with the Trump administration’s upcoming proposal said that in addition to EPA, OMB and DOJ, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s team has also played into the strategy, as have the White House counsel’s office and the Energy Department.
OMB and DOJ, however, have taken a prominent role, the people familiar said. Public records, meanwhile, showed that EPA has been absent from meetings with OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to discuss the upcoming rule with interested parties like industry and environmental groups.
Environmental groups were quick to criticize the Trump administration’s planned move. READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News Greenwire: The proposal is expected to focus more on legal arguments about the original Obama-era finding than on the science of climate change.
Two people said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin would make the announcement while visiting an Indiana facility with links to the truck manufacturing supply chain. The transportation sector is the largest source of planet-heating gases in the U.S.
If the courts uphold Trump’s move to repeal the endangerment finding, it could be easier for EPA to quickly undo a host of Biden-era climate rules for power plants and oil and gas methane without replacing them with new standards. READ MORE