The EPA has announced that it is proposing the recension of the “Endangerment Finding” for greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically for automotive. The EPA says that these regulations have cost automakers $1 trillion and removing them would save $54 billion annually.
The regulations in question were enacted during the Obama administration in 2009 and then furthered by the Biden administration later on. Called the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the change was a legal prerequisite to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles via the Clean Air Act. It was essentially a declaration by the EPA that it had the authority to regulate GHGs. It did so without congressional approval through directives given by two past presidents. This means it is within the EPA’s power to reverse that finding without congressional approval, under the directive of the current president.
Because the findings then and now were under EPA process, they must undergo the required processes to be removed. This means proposals of change, a period of public comment, potential revisions, more public comment, and the finalization of the changes. This will take some time. The current window for public commentary closes on September 21, 2025.
The response to this proposal has been very loud, very political, and often very panic-driven. Some are touting it as the smartest move the EPA could make while others are declaring this the harbinger of the end times. Few are looking at it with a level, non-politically-motivated head.
The truth is that there is little evidence to support either side’s claims. There is as much evidence for the economics as there is for the climate disaster this would bring.
In practical terms, the removal of GHG emissions requirements for automakers would mean a longer wait for a fully battery-electric future. Which appeared to be the case regardless of the EPA’s emissions stance. It will not, however, mean a return to the 1950s where gas-guzzling V8s and smog-inducing emissions were the norm.
Most emissions from automobiles will remain firmly under the purview of the EPA. Emissions such as NOx gases, particulates, and so forth will still be heavily regulated. This will not mean a return to the hazy LA skyline or the black smoke seen above New York. GHGs are unseen, unfelt, and non-toxic as emissions when it comes to direct impacts on human health. Most of their health impacts are tied to the warming of the globe on the whole, not on the direct emissions themselves. The arguments against the Endangerment Finding back in 2009 were all rooted in this fact. The merits of the argument one way or the other are debatable and not relevant to this article.
What is relevant is how it will change auto manufacturing. For the most part, other than the lingering of combustion engines during the transition to other energy formats, the change wouldn’t affect things from the consumer side very much. Consumers and most governments outside of the U.S. still require stringent emissions reductions and high fuel economy. So a return to gas guzzlers and smog producers won’t be a result.
What will result are, theoretically, lower prices for consumers thanks to lower costs for automakers. The greatest change would probably be to catalytic converters no longer needing to be three-way, removing the CO oxidization requirement. For diesel engines, it would change little as the urea exhaust treatments required mostly convert NOx and not GHGs.
Most of the savings will be in testing requirements rather than on-vehicle equipment. The majority of the emissions-scrubbing equipment on today’s cars and trucks is designed to scrub NOx and particulates. So far, the best solution to solving the GHG emissions issue with today’s engines has been to boost efficiency to reduce emissions overall. With the requirements to test more than just easily-identified particulates and NOx gases, the development and production of combustion engines will lower in cost.
The real problem won’t come from this removal of EPA regulations for GHG emissions. It will come with two other changes that the current administration has been working on: the removal of CAFE standards and the recent revocation of California’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate waiver. CAFE requirements (set by the Department of Transportation) regulate fuel economy requirements for automakers. Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandates require that manufacturers achieve a total fleet average set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Those have already been backpedaled by the current president’s administration and are under review for removal altogether.
California’s waiver, which allowed the state (and those that adopt California emissions laws) to make is own regulations, was recently pulled by congress. The result is that those following California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards will no longer be following those and will have to follow the EPA’s standards instead. About a dozen of the 50 states adopt CARB rules, so this change impacts a large portion of the automotive market in the U.S.
On the automaker’s part, the response to the EPA’s proposal has been pretty much on the fence. The calls are mostly for a “stable rule,” or as Ford put it in a statement “..a single, stable standard to foster business planning.” A full reversal from Ford’s statements when the Biden administration proposed adding more emissions and efficiency regulations to automotive.
On the whole, the changes to the automotive market if the EPA’s GHG rules are removed won’t be too large. Some cost savings, but mostly business as usual will be the result. It’s the other changes that will make the larger impact. But automakers also know that politics are fickle and change with each new administration. So four years from now, the landscape may change yet again.
