In 2009, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its “finding” that greenhouse gas emissions from cars endanger human health in some indirect way. That finding was, in effect, a domino that EPA used to massively expand (by its own say-so, not Congress’s) the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions not just from cars but from every conceivable human activity in the Nation. But the finding was—called the 2009 Endangerment Finding—was constitutionally and legally flawed from the start. EPA has now recognized the errors and proposed to rescind the finding.
In support of that effort, Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) has joined with the Montana Petroleum Association, Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, and Texas Alliance of Energy Producers to support EPA’s proposal to reconsider and repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases.
Why? We believe the 2009 Endangerment Finding was unconstitutional, unlawful and imposed significant costs on energy producers, working families, and the economy. In 2009, EPA applied the Clean Air Act in a way that expanded the statute beyond its intended scope—using a law designed for local air pollutants like smog that might have acute effects to create a nationwide climate policy not authorized by Congress.
For over a decade, this interpretation has imposed costs without delivering measurable benefits to the global climate. EPA’s proposal to revisit the 2009 Endangerment Finding provides an opportunity to restore the rule of law and correct an overextension of agency authority.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s Wrong With the 2009 Endangerment Finding?
1. The EPA Exceeded Its Authority
The Clean Air Act was never meant to give EPA control over global climate policy. Section 202(a) was written to target local air pollution that directly harms public health—things like soot, lead, and ozone—not greenhouse gases dispersed in the upper atmosphere.
Even in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Court only required EPA to consider whether greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants. EPA’s subsequent interpretation effectively extended its reach into nearly every sector of the economy—an interpretation that does not withstand scrutiny after later Supreme Court decisions in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024). Put another way, EPA took the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts ruling (which, by the way, EPA had fought against) and, in a subsequent presidential administration, use that ruling as a basis for departing from the Constitution and Clean Air Act entirely for the purpose of accumulating for itself supposedly greater regulatory authority by its own fiat. That was not constitutional, nor was it good governance.
2. The Process Was Flawed
When making the Endangerment Finding, EPA did not submit its conclusions to the Science Advisory Board for peer review as required. Instead, it relied heavily on international assessments, such as those from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This reliance meant the agency avoided the independent review Congress intended for a regulatory change that would so devastatingly impact the Nation.
EPA’s avoidance of the required review—especially on a matter with such sweeping economic consequences—revealed that the Finding was more about political ambition and undermines confidence in the 2009 Endangerment Finding’s validity.
3. The Regulations Are Futile and Harmful
Even if one accepts the premises EPA set forth in 2009 about greenhouse gases, the regulations stemming from the 2009 Endangerment Finding have been costly and largely ineffective.
- U.S. passenger vehicles account for less than 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Eliminating them entirely would have negligible impact on worldwide climate.
- The Finding triggered fuel-efficiency and emissions rules that raised vehicle costs for American families, with disproportionate effects on working households.
- By raising prices, these rules slowed the replacement of older vehicles, ironically leaving higher-emitting cars on the road longer.
In short, the 2009 Endangerment Finding imposed high costs for very little benefit.
Why Does This Matter?
Congress never authorized EPA to transform the Clean Air Act into a climate-change law. Agencies cannot assume powers Congress withheld, especially on issues of “vast economic and political significance.” This principle—known as the Major Questions Doctrine—is critical to preserving constitutional governance.
Rolling back the 2009 Endangerment Finding will restore the proper balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, and reduce unlawful regulatory burdens on American energy producers, landowners, and businesses throughout our economy. Accordingly, along with our coalition of co-signers, we have asked EPA to promptly move forward with its reconsideration and rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
Our Coalition
MSLF and our coalition represent voices harmed by EPA’s regulatory overreach:
- Montana Petroleum Association: Over 150 companies employing Montanans in oil and gas production, refining, and transport.
- Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association: Representing independent producers and royalty owners across Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico since 1929.
- Permian Basin Petroleum Association: The largest regional oil and gas association in the U.S., supporting the world’s most prolific producing region.
- Texas Alliance of Energy Producers: Representing more than 2,600 individuals and companies, including many small- and mid-sized businesses directly affected by these regulations.
Together, we speak for the thousands of workers, landowners, and communities whose livelihoods depend on responsible energy development—and whose futures were jeopardized by the unlawful Endangerment Finding.
For more than 15 years, the 2009 Endangerment Finding has exemplified regulatory overreach: an agency asserting authority it was not given, and then using that assumed authority to impose significant costs nationwide without meaningful benefits. It has just been an exercise by federal regulators in seeing how much power they could accumulate for themselves and then get away with it. And that is ultimately why we are stepping in to support this very important correction.
EPA should rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, restore the Clean Air Act and its own implementation of the Act to proper roles, and reaffirm that elected representatives—not federal regulators—make major national policy decisions.
