Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted four days’ worth of hearings to gather public testimony on its proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and the suite of existing greenhouse gas (GHG standards for cars and trucks that the finding supplies the legal justification for. The vast majority of the participants testified in strong opposition to the proposal, and included a broad cross-section of our society: faith leaders; a high school student; community organizers; and concerned grandparents.
We were proud to join this group and offer the Center’s own unique perspective on the harms of the EPA’s proposal. Specifically, we used our testimony to explain how strong regulatory institutions, when properly designed and executed, can make our democracy and economy more inclusive of the public, and particularly those from structurally marginalized populations. The EPA’s proposal does just the opposite and illustrates why reforms to make our administrative more robust and responsive to the public are so vital at this time.
Accordingly, one of us (Catalina) discussed the responsibility that EPA has to protect Americans from harms to human health caused by greenhouse gases and other climate-related air pollutants, including PM2.5 fine particle pollution and nitrous oxides (NOx) from the transportation sector, and especially from vehicle emissions, which is the single largest U.S. contributor of GHG emissions. Citing an overabundance of scientific evidence that combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for premature deaths, respiratory and cardiovascular illness, and other maternal and developmental harm as well as evidence that communities and vulnerable populations across the country are already feeling the effects of climate change in the form of fires, floods, extreme heat and drought, we thus urged the EPA to withdraw its unscientific proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment finding.
The other of us (James) described how the EPA had not properly considered the harms the proposal would have on small businesses, which violates a law called the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because small businesses make an important part of the supply chain for clean technology for automobiles, the rescission of the GHG standards for automobiles will significantly decrease these firms’ revenues and potentially put them out of business. Accordingly, the EPA is at risk of having its proposal struck down by the courts if it does not start over the rulemaking process so that it can come into full compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s requirements.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that this administration takes public input seriously, and that these hearings are just a check-the-box exercise. Still, we felt it was important to participate in order to keep alive our political tradition of regulatory democracy during these difficult times. The experience will also inform our ongoing efforts to develop and promote necessary reforms bringing the administrative state closer to its full democratic potential.
