United States: Trump's Executive Order On Climate Change

The EPA's climate change program is a combination of rules issued under the Clean Air Act and executive orders implementing policies on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The most extensive program is contained in former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan rules,1 which are aimed at the energy supply and power generator industries. More recent rules governing oil and gas drilling by new sources also contain detailed standards.2

This expert analysis looks at how those rules could be affected by the presidential executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, which was issued by President Donald Trump on March 28.3

The executive order seems, on its face, to be directing actions in violation of the separation of powers.

States and other groups petitioned the government for greenhouse gas regulations. The Supreme Court, in the seminal case of Massachusetts v. EPA,4 recognized that controls on manmade carbon pollution (or greenhouse gas emissions) are administratively unusual in that they have an enormous regulatory impact on the energy sector, even though no federal statutes expressly require the government to regulate carbon pollution or set criteria to address climate change.

But the court concluded the actions the EPA had taken, as well as those the agency was asked to take in the petitions, were within the broad scope of its authority under the Clean Air Act.5

The Obama administration subsequently determined that greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment, and that motor vehicle exhaust emissions cause or contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens us.6

Multiple lawsuits challenged the EPA's initial greenhouse gas reporting rules, the endangerment findings on which they were based, and the requirement for permits for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

Even with "tailoring" rules that limited such regulations to very large emitters (greater than 100,000 tons per year) of greenhouse gas, the opposition became a partisan crusade in which no negotiation or compromise was possible.

The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rules in part and denied review of the rest of the challenges. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court.7

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2437 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the tailoring rules and said permits could not be required for sources that emit only greenhouse gases. It also allowed for the regulation of stationary sources that were already subject to Clean Air Act.

Unable to build a consensus for statutory amendments that would preclude greenhouse gas regulation, opponents continued to object to regulations on every ground, including denial of the scientific data and analysis supporting regulations.

The Obama administration proceeded to issue its Clear Power Plan, and the rules were immediately challenged in the D.C. Circuit by multiple states and other parties. The D.C. Circuit denied motions to stay the rules in an order issued Jan. 21, 2016.8

The significant potential impact of the rules yielded an unusual procedural outcome: The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 stay of the rules pending completion of judicial review.9 Although the Obama administration continued its defense the rules in court until the end of its term, the Trump administration was granted a 60-day stay of the case, thus preserving the stay of the rules.10

Eventually, procedure will have to give way to a review on the merits, either of the existing rules or any revisions made in response to the executive order.


Methane, carbon dioxide or other carbon-containing gases, which are created by both natural and manmade emissions, clearly fall within the very broad definition of "air pollutant" in Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act.11 The executive branch has already determined that these emissions pose a substantial potential for harm to human health, welfare and the environment.

When a prior administration has made discretionary decisions based on its analysis of a significant body of data collected over decades — and has taken regulatory actions that have been sustained by judicial review — does the law restrict a succeeding president's power to revoke, withdraw or modify those regulations? If so, does Trump's recent executive order follow the required procedures for the changes he apparently seeks to make?

The Trump executive order clearly intends to eliminate carbon regulations of the Obama administration in their entirety. However, it contains several qualifications reflecting statutory obligations that restrict his actions, or policy decisions relating to the regulation of fuels for power plants that reflect his own stated goals.

These are:

  • The executive order says it is not to be construed to impair or affect "authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or branch thereof," or to related budgetary functions, administrative action or legislative proposals. It is to be implemented consistent with applicable law and available appropriations.12
  • The executive order intends to promote the "clean and safe" development of energy regulations, which is "prudent" and avoids regulation that "unnecessarily encumbers" the energy industry.13


Section 3 of the order specifically revokes each executive order, presidential memorandum, report or plan of the Obama administration related to carbon pollution regulation and the energy sector.14

In effect, the Trump administration disagrees with the actions that were taken by the Obama administration as well as the analysis and conclusions that were used to support them. But the executive order does not provide supporting data for its stated goals of eliminating climate policies, plans, orders and rules of the Obama administration.

The approach of the Reagan administration might have been used as a guide to better procedure. The Reagan administration also sought to limit the EPA's regulatory reach. The mechanism for that process, Executive Order 12291, required a cost benefit analysis (also called a regulatory input analysis, or RIA) of all pending and future rules, and adherence to statutory requirements.

The Reagan EPA ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act when it tried to stay a final rule after it was adopted but before it took effect. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the stay in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752 (3d Cir. 1982). But the RIA process remains intact and functional today.

The Trump executive order also calls for a review process and compliance with the law. But it determines the goal of that process — revocation — in advance of the review. The immediate rescission of the executive plans and policies directing the development of the rules may be viewed as evidence of an intent to revoke them after the 180-day review period specified in the order.

In the meantime, the EPA is seeking to stay the individual rules to allow time for review under the order and any public comment period required for revocation. The executive order says that any decision to suspend, revise or rescind a rule will be made "appropriately." But the word "appropriately" is used in conjunction with references to compliance with law, not burdening energy development, protecting the public interest or respecting the roles of the federal and state government.

The biggest challenge for supporters of greenhouse gas regulation may be dealing with an agency without a budget.

Such ambiguous references to standards for "appropriate" consideration cannot mask the bias reflected in the rescission or revocation of all executive memoranda, orders or plans from which rules such as the Clean Power Plan arise.

Any appropriate consideration cannot reasonably result in rescission if nothing is presented to contradict the data and analysis on which the Obama administration rules are based. And no specific plan for data collection or analysis to identify contradictory data prior to action has been presented.


In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court noted that a substantial body of data supports the greenhouse gas effects that drove the EPA's Obama-era regulations. The Trump executive order may be read simply to require a fair review of those rules on the record, but that reading raises questions.

For example, where will the data come from for that review to support any suspension, revision or rescission of the rules? And how much time will be required to complete the process needed to stay, amend or rescind any rules? Is 180 days really enough time for an "appropriate" review? And will courts agree to delay the effective dates of rules that are final but not yet implemented — or to suspend rules that are in effect to permit such data collection and review?

The Trump executive order does nothing to answer the data question. The Trump administration is actively working to reduce staff, eliminate scientific advisory boards and reduce operating budgets.

Unless the plan is to have the regulated community or environmental groups provide the data and research, the order does not contain adequate planning or resources for the review it purports to require.

The order reasserts long-standing objections to EPA rulemaking where the legislative delegation is not completely explicit, or where the rules would impose extensive regulatory requirements on the states.

The Supreme Court decided the issue of legislative delegation in favor of the Obama rules in Whitman v. America Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (authored by Justice Antonin Scalia).

Federal authority to regulate motor fuels and emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act is beyond question. The inability of the states to manage such carbon pollution problem was discussed in Massachusetts v. EPA.

No convincing arguments have been presented to contradict the executive authority to regulate carbon fuel production and use due to the air pollutants they produce, which have the potential to impact climate change. Decades of data collection and analyses have established the existence and severity of manmade carbon pollution in the air.

So we return to the need for a factual — rather than legal — basis for revocation. Here, the glaring omissions of research, analysis and data collection initiatives in the executive order become critical problems.

If the data supporting its intended action exists, when will we see the analysis and conclusions supporting the actions being taken? If more data is believed to be needed, what is the plan? What are the actions and deadlines for collecting and analyzing the data and presenting new conclusions and actions?


The Trump executive order removed the underlying policy statements regarding man-made climate change, its significance and the need to base decision-making in favor of actions that reduce carbon emissions. Trump's action may forestall numerous federal agencies from further research, data collection or analysis that reinforces prior executive decisions on climate change.

The constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law15 should encompass the duty to continue data collection and analysis needed to execute the law properly. The Trump administration may dispute the existence of this duty in the absence of specific climate change legislation (which is not likely to be forthcoming).

The administration would argue that in the absence of air quality criteria and a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for greenhouse gases under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act, the president cannot be forced to disprove the data and analysis supporting prior policies and current rules of the Clean Power Plan.

As discussed, the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA forecloses that argument, but a new review in a changing Supreme Court may bring a different result.


The executive order calls for the rescission of policies supporting climate change rules and the review of existing rules. This includes 40 C.F.R. Parts 85-86, 98, 600 and Subchapter U rules, among others.

Such ambiguous references to standards for "appropriate" consideration cannot mask the bias reflected in the rescission or revocation of all executive memoranda.

The rescission potentially includes the endangerment findings under Title II of the Clean Air Act, pending challenged final rules such as the Clean Power Plan rules, the greenhouse gas reporting rules, and the standards for methane gas and other emissions from the oil and gas industries. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has issued notices withdrawing all proposed rules and commencing review of existing final rules.16

Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, which governs review of most final actions under that statute, makes it clear that revisions to existing rules under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act must follow the APA's notice-and-comment procedures and are subject to judicial review.

There is no doubt that APA procedures would apply, and judicial review would be available, for any revocation of the Clean Power Plan rules remaining in effect following the outcome of current litigation over those rules.

The current jurisprudence on standing requirements presents no obstacle to suits seeking judicial review of rescission of the Obama rules.


Can the president avoid his duty to faithfully execute the laws, as stated in Article II of the Constitution, simply by failing to obtain budget resources or by declining to enforce the laws during a lengthy period of review and litigation? The federal Budget Control Act requires the president to submit a budget.

Moreover, the failure to seek funds required to carry out a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act could fall under the citizen suit provision allowing litigation against the Trump administration for failure to perform any nondiscretionary act or duty under that law.17

If the administration is willing to endure such litigation (and legal costs and fees) to delay the rules, the only way to ultimately enforce proper executive action is by impeachment, which is a political move rather than a legal matter.


The administration is implementing the executive order, and following procedures for notice and comment, while seeking to stay implementation of the Obama administration's final rules and standards. Initially the courts have allowed a stay of litigation in the appeals of the Clean Power Plan and a brief stay of the oil and gas industry rule.

On July 3 the D.C. Circuit reviewed a lengthy, open-ended stay of the oil and gas rule pending review. In a 2-1 decision, it vacated the stay because an immediate stay modifies the rule without going through proper rulemaking and procedures.

The stay was not authorized by Section 307(d). The court found that the criteria under that section were not met and that the stay was therefore "arbitrary, capricious [and] in excess of statutory authority."18

This decision suggests that courts will accept jurisdiction and act to prevent excessive stays of pending proposed rules or delays in the implementation of final standards during new reviews.

After a period of litigation over stays, environmental advocates will need to be prepared to challenge decisions resulting from EPA review and to file citizen suits to enforce standards and require the EPA to implement existing rules.

The biggest challenge for supporters of greenhouse gas regulation may be dealing with an agency without a budget. Even citizen suits depend on access to filed reports by the regulated industries.

If the EPA has no resources to maintain those reports and respond to Freedom of Information Act requests and file reviews, citizen suit enforcement may become much more difficult.


Trump's executive order does not violate the law. In fact, it contains qualifying provisions that require compliance with the law and protection of the environment.

Actions taken under it to revoke existing rules will be subject to public comment and judicial review, absent legislative action amending the Clean Air Act.

The order does raise serious doubt concerning a commitment to the constitutional duty of faithful execution and enforcement of the law. The complete absence of requirements to compile the data and analysis needed to change the rules is arguably evidence of bad faith — that the administration is unwilling to do what is needed to justify a proper review of the rules.

The lack of provisions addressing the scientific data and analysis needed to undo climate change rules is surprising. Unless the Trump administration can counter the existing body of data and analysis, it must collect data supporting a contrary model.

Modern courts will not tolerate a quasi-Scopes trial19 on climate change without a proper record rebutting the substantial supporting record.

Most opposition to climate change science and its regulatory progeny seems to be based on cost benefit analysis. But cost as an argument against regulation will require an amendment of the Clean Air Act, and Congress does not appear to have the appetite for such action.


1 80 Fed. Reg. 64662-64964 (Oct. 23, 2015); 80 Fed. Reg. 64510- 64660 (Oct. 23, 2015).

2 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824-35,942 (June 3, 2016).

3 Exec. Order 13,783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017).

4 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

5 Id. at 507-514.

6 74 Fed. Reg. 66496-66546 (Dec. 15, 2009).

7 The first wave of lawsuits were decided under the name Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). A second wave of lawsuits challenging the EPA's review of state regulations for greenhouse gases was rejected under Texas v. EPA, 726 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Petitions for rehearing on the second wave of litigation were denied May 4, 2015, and no appeal was taken. By that time the Supreme Court had ruled on the first lawsuits under the name Utility Air Regulatory Group.

8 West Virginia et al. v. EPA, No. 15-1363, stay motions denied (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2016).

9 West Virginia et al. v. EPA, No. 15A773, 2016 WL 502947 (U.S. Feb. 9, 2016).

10 Order of abeyance, West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15-1363 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017).

11 42 U.S.C.A. § 7602(g). See also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 528- 529.

12 See Section 8, 82 Fed. Reg. 16096 (Mar. 31, 2017).

13 See Section 1, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017).

14 82 Fed. Reg. 16094 (Mar. 31, 2017).

15 U.S. Const., art. II, § 1. See In re Aiken Cty., 725 F.3d 255, 259 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

16 The EPA withdrew two proposed Clean Power Plan rules April 3. 82 Fed. Reg. 16144. In an April 18 letter Pruitt announced he was convening a proceeding to reconsider the methane gas rules for the oil and gas industry. A notice granting a stay of the existing rules until Aug. 31

based on the petition was published June 5. 82 Fed. Reg. 25730. Soon thereafter, the EPA proposed to suspend the existing rules for two years during its review of the existing rules. 82 Fed. Reg. 27645 (June 16, 2017).

17 Clean Air Act Section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C.A. § 7604(a)(2). Although Congress sets the budget, the executive is required to propose a budget to meet the obligations imposed under the law.

18 Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, No. 17-1145, 2017 WL 2838112 (D.C. Cir. July 3, 2017).

19 The 1925 Tennessee state court criminal trial of a teacher for violating the Butler Act, a state law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in contradiction of biblical text. John Thomas Scopes was convicted and fined, but the case invited broad public discussion of the freedom of scientific education to challenge religious doctrines.

Previously published in Westlaw Journal Environmental on August 4, 2017

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions