To view the video please click here.
On this episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, Jeff Holmstead joins Daniel Pope and Taylor Stuart to discuss greenhouse gas regulations, the controversial endangerment finding and the future of environmental policy under the second Trump administration. They delve into the origins of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases and explore its implications and the potential impact of current administration efforts to reconsider it.
Featured Guests
Name: Jeff Holmstead
About: Jeff Holmstead, former assistant administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency for Air and Radiation, is one of the nation's leading climate change lawyers as recognized by Chambers USA (2008-2024). He advises clients dealing with an increasingly complex regulatory, legal and public relations landscape, drawing on his experience in policy development, administrative and legislative advocacy, litigation and strategic communications.
Company: Bracewell
Connect: LinkedIn
Episode Highlights
[02:12]The EPA's Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Jeff provides context to the endangerment finding. He breaks down the central – and controversial – question of whether the EPA has any authority from Congress to regulate CO2, and the eventual determination under the Obama administration that EPA not only had the authority, but had an obligation to regulate it.
[15:06]Complications Surrounding CO2 Regulation: EPA programs and the Clean Air Act were not designed to deal with substances like C02, Jeff notes. Other than carbon capture utilization and sequestration, the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to use less fossil fuel, which has provided a foundation for much of the economic growth the last 200 years.
[20:29]The Trump Administration's Strategies for Revoking the Endangerment Finding: Although the Trump administration has signaled a desire to revisit and repeal the endangerment finding, there is still uncertainty around what the administration will do and what arguments they will make. While costs around regulation is certainly a factor they will consider, the administration will likely face hurdles when it comes to this line of argument.
[29:33]Will Revoking the Endangerment Finding Topple Existing Regulations? Jeff suggests that reversing the endangerment finding would not automatically revoke all regulations predicated on the finding. The EPA would still need to go through a separate process to propose and finalize rules.
[36:53]Future Flip-Flopping of the EPA: Without climate legislation to provide a more stable investment in climate for companies, there is a likelihood that future administrations would continue to change course on the endangerment finding and climate regulation. Even in light of the Loper Bright decision, which ideally would eliminate flip-flopping on statute interpretations, a new administration could still offer additional science or different interpretations of existing science they can rely on.
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.
