Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead on Next Chapter in US Climate Policy

**Bill Loveless** (0:00)
Just a quick note before we start today's episode. We've been responding quickly to the conflict in Iran, including with a new limited series called the Iran Conflict Brief. That work meant delaying the release of this episode, which we're glad to bring to you today.

**Jeff Holmstead** (0:22)
In this Boulder case, Boulder, Colorado case, if it does go to the merits, we'll almost certainly be decided before we know the fate of the endangerment finding.

**Michael Gerrard** (0:31)
There are going to be a whole lot of motions over the next several months. A whole lot of lawyers are going to become very busy.

**Bill Loveless** (0:36)
The climate policy landscape in the US is in flux. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed its own power to regulate greenhouse gases. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court said it will hear a case, which the city of Boulder, Colorado, brought against the oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor, that could determine the fate of lawsuits brought by cities and states against fossil fuel companies over damages from climate change. Since its adoption in 2009, EPA's endangerment finding, which says that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare, had formed the legal foundation for major federal climate regulations. In announcing its rescission, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it the largest single deregulatory event in US history. But the repeal may be held up in courts for years, and it's just one piece of a complicated regulatory puzzle. So how might these major policy swings play out in practical terms? What are the near and long-term stakes at the federal and state level? What are the reactions from, and the preferences of, industry? And how might all of this play out in terms of US greenhouse gas emissions? This is Columbia Energy Exchange, a weekly podcast from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. I'm Bill Loveless.
Today on the show, Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead. Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades. Jeff is a partner and co-chair of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell, LLP, an international law firm. From 2001 to 2005, he served as the assistant administrator for air and radiation in the US. Environmental Protection Agency during the administration of President George W. Bush. We talked about the significance of the endangerment finding and the potential legal arguments for and against EPA's decision as it works its way through the courts. Michael and Jeff also discussed how different industrial sectors are reacting to the repeal of the endangerment finding and what impact it might have on the regulation of emissions across the US. And they laid out the stakes for fossil fuel companies now that the High Court has agreed to take up the Colorado case. Here's our conversation. Michael Gerrard, Jeff Holmstead, welcome back to Columbia Energy Exchange.

**Michael Gerrard** (3:25)
Good to be with you.

**Jeff Holmstead** (3:26)
Thank you. Pleasure to be here.

**Bill Loveless** (3:28)
Well, I always appreciate the opportunity to speak to each of you about environmental law, regulation, and policy, and there's certainly reason to do that these days with what has been happening most recently here in Washington, DC. And so this, I know this will be a great conversation. And when it comes to emissions policy, there have been two big developments lately that are getting a lot of attention. One, of course, is the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to repeal the endangerment finding, which for years has been the basis for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. And the other is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an attempt by the oil industry to fend off dozens of lawsuits in states and cities seeking compensation for the impacts of climate change. Michael, then Jeff, just how significant are these two developments coming so close together?

**Michael Gerrard** (4:28)
Well, I think the revocation of the engagement finding is extremely important. It wipes out EPA's perceived authority to regulate greenhouse gases. And the recent action by the Supreme Court could wipe out all of these dozens of lawsuits brought by cities and states. But the revocation of the engagement finding interacts negatively with that possibility in ways we can talk about.

**Jeff Holmstead** (4:56)
I would just add, I think, at least so far, people have exaggerated the importance of the endangerment finding, at least when it comes to actually reducing emissions. It's been in place since 2009 The EPA has tried multiple times to impose pretty aggressive regulations. But they've been upended either by the courts or by the Trump administration. And I, and Michael and I can certainly talk about this. But I've tried to kind of walk through and figure out, you know, what emission reductions have occurred because of EPA's regulation. I think it's very, very modest. Especially when you consider what they could have done anyway under the CAFE program and by regulating VOCs under the Clean Air Act, which would include the regulation of methane. So I think people have exaggerated its importance so far. I think certainly in the environmental community, people are hopeful that, in the future, it could be more meaningful. But other things like the revocation of the IRA tax credits are much more important when it comes to impacts on US greenhouse gas emissions.