The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today the formal repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a move that effectively strips the federal government of its primary scientific and legal justification for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The decision represents a pivot in federal environmental policy, undoing the foundational determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a direct threat to public health and welfare. In response to the announcement, the advocacy group Protect Our Winters (POW) has issued a formal demand for the immediate resignation of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, citing a dereliction of the agency’s duty to protect the environment and a disregard for the mounting climate crises affecting the American West and the broader national economy.
The Endangerment Finding, established under the Clean Air Act following the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, required the agency to regulate pollutants that contribute to climate change if they were found to endanger public health. By repealing this finding, the EPA has removed the legal "backbone" that supported dozens of federal climate protections, including fuel economy standards, limits on power plant emissions, and methane leak regulations. The agency’s current leadership maintains that the repeal is part of a broader effort to streamline regulations and promote domestic energy production, but critics argue the move ignores decades of peer-reviewed climate science and places vulnerable communities at risk.
Historical Context and the Legal Evolution of Climate Regulation
The legal journey toward the Endangerment Finding began in the late 1990s when a coalition of states and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The agency initially declined, arguing it lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act. This led to the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, where the Court ruled that greenhouse gases fit the definition of "air pollutants" and that the EPA must determine whether they contribute to climate change that endangers public health.
In December 2009, the EPA finalized the Endangerment Finding, concluding that the atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—threatened the health and welfare of current and future generations. This finding was not merely a symbolic gesture; it was the prerequisite for nearly every climate-related regulation issued by the federal government over the last 15 years.
Since January 2025, the EPA under Administrator Zeldin has moved aggressively to dismantle these precedents. The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is the culmination of a series of deregulatory actions aimed at reducing the oversight of fossil fuel industries and rolling back the transition to renewable energy. Legal experts suggest that this repeal will likely trigger a protracted battle in the federal court system, as environmental groups and several state attorneys general have already signaled their intent to challenge the scientific basis of the agency’s new position.
Current Environmental Indicators: The "Snow Drought" in the American West
The EPA’s policy shift comes at a time when environmental data points to accelerating climate impacts across the United States. In particular, the American West is currently experiencing what hydrologists term a "snow drought." Scientific measurements from the SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) network and satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicate that snowpack levels across several Western states are at historically low levels for this period of the year.
This phenomenon is characterized not necessarily by a lack of total precipitation, but by unusually high temperatures that cause precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, many basins in the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains are reporting snow-water equivalents (SWE) significantly below their 30-year averages.
The implications of a diminished snowpack extend far beyond the winter recreation sector. Mountain snowpack serves as a natural reservoir, slowly releasing water throughout the spring and summer to feed rivers, sustain agricultural irrigation, and provide drinking water for millions of residents. When snowpack is thin, water supplies tighten, hydropower generation capacity is reduced, and the risk of catastrophic wildfires increases due to the early drying of forest fuels. Protect Our Winters highlights these data points as evidence that the "endangerment" identified in 2009 is not a theoretical future threat but a present reality.
The Economic Impact on the "Outdoor State"
The outdoor recreation economy, often referred to as the "Outdoor State," represents a significant portion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the outdoor recreation economy accounts for approximately $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity and supports nearly 5 million jobs. This sector includes everything from skiing and snowboarding to fishing, hiking, and hunting—all of which rely on stable climate patterns and healthy ecosystems.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is viewed by industry leaders as an existential threat to this economic engine. In their call for Administrator Zeldin’s resignation, POW emphasized that the loss of predictable winter seasons and the degradation of clean water supplies directly undermine the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Small businesses in mountain towns, outdoor gear manufacturers, and tourism-dependent rural communities are among those most vulnerable to the long-term effects of unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the "Outdoor State" represents 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor activities annually. This demographic spans the political spectrum, yet they share a common dependence on the federal government’s ability to manage public lands and protect natural resources. The repeal of climate protections, POW argues, is a direct affront to the economic stability of these communities.
Chronology of EPA Actions Since January 2025
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is the latest in a series of actions taken by the EPA that represent a departure from its traditional mission of protecting human health and the environment. Since the beginning of the year, the agency has initiated several key policy shifts:
- January 2025: The EPA announced a review of the "Social Cost of Carbon," a metric used to estimate the economic damages of CO2 emissions. The agency subsequently lowered the estimate, reducing the perceived benefit of climate regulations.
- February 2025: Rollbacks were initiated on the Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, easing the requirements for automakers to produce low-emission vehicles.
- March 2025: The agency moved to weaken the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), arguing that the costs to the coal industry outweighed the public health benefits of reducing heavy metal pollution.
- April 2025: The EPA issued a new guidance document that limits the ability of states to use Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to block fossil fuel infrastructure projects like pipelines and export terminals.
- Today: The formal repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding was finalized, removing the scientific mandate for greenhouse gas regulation.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Perspectives
The reaction to the EPA’s decision has been polarized. Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the move in a press briefing, stating that the repeal returns the agency to its "original statutory intent" and ends "regulatory overreach that has stifled American energy independence." Industry groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), have cautiously welcomed the decision, suggesting that a more flexible regulatory environment will allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors.
However, the backlash from the scientific and environmental communities has been swift. In a statement, Protect Our Winters characterized the repeal as a "dangerous new low" for the agency. "An EPA that ignores science and dismantles the tools designed to protect public health and the environment cannot fulfill its mission," the organization stated. "Administrator Zeldin has overseen the systematic unraveling of environmental protections while climate impacts mount."
Tribal nations have also expressed concern, noting that the repeal ignores the federal government’s trust responsibility to protect the natural resources upon which many Indigenous communities depend for food sovereignty and cultural practices. Representatives from several Tribal councils noted that the increase in wildfire risk and the disruption of water cycles disproportionately affect Tribal lands in the West.
Analysis of Implications and Future Outlook
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is expected to have immediate and long-term consequences for both domestic policy and international climate negotiations. Domestically, the move creates a "regulatory vacuum" where the federal government no longer has a mandate to limit carbon pollution. This will likely lead to an increase in emissions from the power and transportation sectors, which are the two largest sources of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
From a legal standpoint, the repeal sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown. Legal analysts suggest that the EPA will have to prove that the scientific consensus has changed significantly since 2009 to justify the repeal—a difficult task given that global temperatures have continued to rise and extreme weather events have become more frequent. If the courts uphold the repeal, it could permanently limit the executive branch’s power to address climate change without new, explicit legislation from Congress.
Internationally, the move signals a retreat from the goals of the Paris Agreement. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. transition away from climate regulation may embolden other nations to scale back their own commitments, potentially undermining global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
In the immediate term, the focus remains on the leadership of the EPA. The call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation by Protect Our Winters reflects a growing frustration among stakeholders who believe the agency has been "captured" by the very industries it is meant to regulate. As the American West prepares for a summer of heightened wildfire risk and water shortages, the debate over the Endangerment Finding will likely remain at the center of the national conversation regarding the balance between industrial growth and environmental preservation.
