EPA Rescinds the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding — What It Means for Your Business

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has eliminated the legal foundation supporting sixteen years of federal climate regulation. On February 18, 2026, the Agency finalized the rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding—the legal predicate that enabled every major federal greenhouse gas rule since the Obama Administration (Final Rule). Administrator Lee Zeldin has characterized this as "the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history," with claimed savings of over $1.3 trillion. 

A key point of clarification: the Final Rule directly repeals GHG emission standards only for motor vehicles—light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and engines. It does not, on its own terms, touch power plants, oil and gas facilities, or other stationary sources. But that framing understates the significance for those sectors. The Endangerment Finding was the legal foundation for EPA's authority to regulate GHGs across the board. With that foundation now removed, the path is clear for EPA to rescind GHG regulations for power plants, aircraft, oil and gas operations, and other sectors—and the Agency has already signaled its intent to do exactly that.

This alert breaks down what the Endangerment Finding was, how it shaped the regulatory landscape for utilities, pipelines, and other businesses, and—critically—why industry should not assume this is an unqualified win.

Background: The 2009 Endangerment Finding

To understand the significance of this action, it is necessary to go back to 2007. That year, the Supreme Court handed down Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), holding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court directed EPA to make a threshold determination: does this pollution endanger human health and welfare? 

Two years later, the Obama EPA answered that question in the affirmative. The December 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—threaten public health and welfare, both now and for future generations. The Finding’s scope was expansive. EPA concluded that vehicle CO2 emissions, combined with five other greenhouse gases (some of which motor vehicles do not even directly emit), contribute to atmospheric concentrations that, through a chain of climatological effects, endanger Americans. 

Once that finding was on the books, the floodgates opened. Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set emission standards for any air pollutant from new motor vehicles that "causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The Endangerment Finding satisfied that statutory threshold—and gave EPA the legal hook for everything that followed. 

Regulatory Costs Imposed on Industry

And what followed was a lot. The Endangerment Finding became the foundation for a sprawling regulatory scheme touching virtually every corner of the economy—automakers, trucking companies, utilities, oil and gas producers, and airlines. By EPA's own count, the Finding underpinned seven vehicle regulations with an aggregate cost exceeding $1 trillion. 

But the reach extended well beyond the tailpipe. Power plant rules, oil and gas methane standards, landfill regulations, aircraft emissions—all traced their legal lineage back to the 2009 Finding. 

Administrator Zeldin has not been subtle about his views. He contends that "the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science," imposing "hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year" on American families and businesses. In Zeldin's telling, the Endangerment Finding was "the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach" - one that "strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry."

The administration projects the rescission will save $54 billion annually by eliminating all GHG vehicle standards, including what it characterizes as the Biden EPA's "electric vehicle mandate." That works out to projected savings of over $2,400 per vehicle. 

Implications for Utilities and Power Plants

For utility clients, the implications are substantial. Power plants are the nation's second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Endangerment Finding was the legal linchpin for federal regulation of that sector. 

Although the Final Rule eliminates GHG standards for vehicles—light-, medium-, and heavy-duty, regulations on criteria pollutants and air toxics from vehicles remain in place. The larger significance is what comes next. With the foundation of the Endangerment Finding gone, EPA has cleared the path to repeal GHG limits on stationary sources, including power plants and oil and gas facilities. This is not speculation. EPA already proposed in June 2025 to repeal the Biden-era rule requiring certain coal- and gas-fired plants to deploy carbon capture or shut down. EPA has also expressly indicated its intent to rescind the 2016 Aircraft GHG Endangerment Finding under CAA Section 231. The fate of GHG emissions limits in Prevention of Significant Deterioration pre-construction permits, and Title V operating permits is also now unclear. A parallel rollback of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), reverting to 2012 requirements, is designed to reduce costs for utilities running older coal plants. 

Implications for Natural Gas Pipelines and the Oil and Gas Sector

The picture for oil and gas is more nuanced. This sector is the nation's largest industrial source of methane emissions, and methane has more than 25 times the global warming potential of CO2. The Endangerment Finding provided the legal foundation for methane monitoring and control requirements across petroleum and natural gas systems. 

Here is the critical consideration: although the Endangerment Finding rescission does not directly repeal the methane standards for oil and gas under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, EPA faces a difficult legal path in extending the rescission to those rules. EPA has signaled it intends to revise, not repeal, those methane rules. Why? Because the industry itself has asked for it. The American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil sector's main trade association, has supported continued methane regulation as a hedge against more aggressive state rules and as a way to signal to global buyers that U.S. producers take environmental performance seriously. In its comments, API urged EPA to "clearly establish in the final rule" that the Endangerment Finding rescission applies only to motor vehicles—not to oil and gas. 

One additional complexity: the Congressional history surrounding the Section 111 methane standards may actually complicate EPA's legal defense of the Endangerment Finding rescission itself. In 2021, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to reinstate the Obama-era methane standards that the first Trump Administration had repealed, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 codified EPA's authority to regulate methane emissions. This Congressional ratification of methane regulation under the Clean Air Act—pursuant to the same Endangerment Finding—could undercut EPA's argument that Congress never clearly authorized GHG regulation. Oil and gas companies should be prepared for the possibility that the methane standards remain on the books even as vehicle standards are repealed. 

Increased Exposure to Climate Nuisance Lawsuits

Here is the catch that many in the industry have long recognized: the Endangerment Finding also provided a shield. Courts have dismissed climate tort suits on displacement grounds, reasoning that the Clean Air Act's comprehensive regulatory framework for GHGs left no room for common law claims. The leading case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), where the Supreme Court held that federal common law nuisance claims seeking to abate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants were displaced because Congress delegated the authority to the EPA under the Clean Air Act.  

There is a reason industry groups historically did not push to repeal the Endangerment Finding: removing EPA’s regulatory authority under federal law could open the door to state restrictions and, more troublingly, a wave of climate nuisance suits that would no longer be displaced by the Clean Air Act’s delegation to EPA. With that shield gone, plaintiffs may test the new legal landscape, potentially resulting in increased climate nuisance litigation. 

Legal Challenges to the Rescission

The lawsuits have already started. On February 18, 2026, a coalition of environmental and public health groups—including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, NRDC, EDF, Sierra Club, and others—filed suit in the D.C. Circuit. American Public Health Association, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lee Zeldin, Administrator, Case No. 26-1037 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 18, 2026). According to the lawsuit, EPA is attempting to repackage legal arguments that the Supreme Court already considered and rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). In other words, this fight is heading right back to where it started. 

Looking Ahead: What Industry Should Do Now

So, where does this leave companies impacted by this change? The regulatory terrain has shifted dramatically, but uncertainty remains.

Litigation over the rescission of the Endangerment Finding will dominate the near term. The outcome is genuinely uncertain. The Trump Administration may welcome a Supreme Court showdown—with hopes of locking in a ruling that would block any future administration from reinstating the Endangerment Finding without an act of Congress. 

For companies in the energy industry, litigation risk is evolving, not disappearing. The removal of federal regulations may embolden plaintiffs' lawyers and environmental groups to bring climate tort claims that were previously displaced. Major emitters—utilities, power plants, and oil and gas companies—should reassess their exposure and watch EPA's next moves closely. Industry stakeholders should monitor the EPA’s forthcoming regulatory actions. Rulemakings on power plant standards, oil and gas methane, and other sectors will define the practical scope of this rollback.

We are tracking these developments in real time and will provide updates as the situation evolves.