USA – TEXAS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Gerald J. Pels, Elizabeth E. Mack, Gerald D. Higdon, Susan Rainey, Elizabeth Corey and Brett A. Miller, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
Introduction Immediately upon taking office, the Trump Administra- tion embarked upon an unprecedented effort to roll- back and streamline environmental regulation intend- ed to enable expedited permitting and foster energy and project development. This “agenda” was initially laid out in several Executive Orders and later clari- fied in a March 2025 pronouncement (“Pronounce- ment”) by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Administrator Lee Zeldin. The Pronouncement identi- fied 31 regulatory measures that EPA would review for reform. These initiatives generally focused on foster- ing energy production through the rollback of air emis- sion regulations, but also went further, in addition to mitigating regulatory burdens associated with energy production. Additionally, EPA has signalled through- out 2025 that it would address burdensome wetlands and PFAS regulation, and chemical usage bans. To achieve these goals, the EPA heavily relies on recent judicial precedents, previous EPA policies, statutory interpretations, and advancing scientific knowledge. EPA’s utilisation of these touchstones is especially apparent in its efforts to reform air regulations impact- ing the energy industry. EPA’s Rollback of Air Emissions Rules EPA has primarily concentrated on reforming methane regulations and standards for air toxics that impact power plant emissions. EPA’s proposed methane deregulation is discussed below and impacts at least six regulatory regimes, including EPA’s: • 2009 Endangerment Finding (“Finding”); • Clean Power Plan 2.0; • Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (“GHGRP”); • Waste Emissions Charge (“WEC”); • Quad Ob and Oc regulations governing methane/ VOC emissions from the oil and gas industry; and On 1 August 2025, EPA published its proposal to rescind the Finding, which describes how and why greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) threaten human health and welfare. The Finding pertained to vehicle emis- sions but formed the basis for the EPA to regulate stationary sources, including the oil and gas and ener- gy sectors. Many legal experts believe that, absent • social cost of carbon (“SCC”). Proposal to rescind the Finding
the Finding, EPA lacked authority to regulate meth- ane in any meaningful way. EPA’s proposal attacked the Finding in several ways. First, EPA noted it was the first time ever that regulation of domestic emis- sions was “based on global climate change concerns rather than air pollution that endangers public health and welfare through local or regional exposure.” EPA noted that in 2009, the agency stated it could issue “standalone” findings triggering a duty to regulate without considering pollutant-specific standards, because the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) was silent on the issue. As such, the EPA then made separate find- ings that “global” concentrations of six “well-mixed GHGs” constituted air pollution, that GHG emissions from all motor vehicles contributed to global GHGs, and that GHGs generally constitute air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This Finding was based on several assumptions. First, global GHG concentrations from sources of all countries are the “largest driver” of climate change. Second, climate change increases morbidity and mortality, most likely indirectly through increased temperatures, impacts on food production, and extreme weather. The current administration identified flaws in this approach, noting that these findings do not support a contribution of air pollutants to local or regional issues. Inconsistencies were also identified in the logic behind the Finding. In 2009, the EPA focused on six GHGs collectively without analysing their individual characteristics and health effects and acknowledged that its conceptu- alisation of public health and welfare was atypical. Further, EPA acted “independently from any new con- gressional mandate.” The current EPA found support in recent judicial deci- sions, eg, the US Supreme Court (“USSC”) rejected a prior attempt to extend GHG emission standards to stationary sources subject to Title I and Title V in Utility Regulation Group v EPA and in West Virginia v EPA, the USSC held that EPA could not “shift the power grid from using fossil fuels through GHG standards for exiting power plants” because such actions impli- cated a major national question that must be clearly Congressionally authorised – much like regulating a global emissions issue. Further, the recent USSC Lop- er Bright decision generally overturned the concept that courts should defer to agency action, particularly where statutes are silent. The EPA now asserts that
492 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook