The Brief

The Trump administration's plan to undo a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare poses lots of risks for corporate America.

The Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding has served as the legal basis for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act since 2009. The finding concludes that the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere endangers people's health and the well-being of communities. Reaching that determination was a prerequisite to set limits for the pollution. Getting rid of that authority would lead to the repeal of "all greenhouse gas standards" at the federal level, according to the EPA, amounting, it says, to "one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history."

Companies have long complained that the government's efforts to rein in heat-trapping pollution are impractical. But a lot of businesses want the EPA to be in charge of setting national standards of some kind, according to proponents and legal experts, because it helps shield them from lawsuits and creates a predictable environment in which to make big, long-term investments.

"I look at what the administration wants to accomplish with regards to our national security and winning the AI race — we want to have expansive energy production. We have that opportunity. We can do that affordably, and we can do it while we're managing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," says Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, whose members include major electricity producers and a trade group for the natural gas industry.

"I would like to focus more on that, than changes to these regulatory policies," Jacobson says, "which will cause disruption in planning and moving forward with projects we need today."

Jeff Holmstead, an environmental lawyer at the firm Bracewell, says he doesn't know of any major industry groups that pushed the EPA to reverse its position on the dangers posed by climate pollution.

"Several of them have opposed it," says Holmstead, who was an EPA official under then-President George W. Bush. "And I know that a number of companies were trying to persuade the administration not to do it."

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for oil and gas companies, told NPR that it "continues to support a federal role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions."

The EPA said in a statement to NPR that Congress never authorized the agency to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin "has long been on the record that the climate is changing," the agency said. "EPA's proposal is primarily legal."

The Trump administration said this spring that it was reconsidering the endangerment finding as part of a sweeping initiative to roll back environmental rules. At the time, Zeldin said the goal was "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion."

Public hearings on the EPA's plan are scheduled for this week.

Rain from Hurricane Ian in 2022 floods a street in Charleston, South Carolina. Neighborhoods in Charleston are flooding more often as climate change raises sea levels and drives more intense rainstorms.

(

Scott Olson

/

Getty Images

)

Companies use EPA regulations as a defense in lawsuits

Environmental advocates, public health experts and former EPA employees say the Trump administration's proposal contradicts a long-standing scientific consensus that climate pollution, mainly from burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, is raising global temperatures and driving more intense storms, floods and wildfires that threaten communities.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist whose work is cited in the EPA proposal and in an Energy Department report on the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, said in an online posting that the Trump administration "cherrypicks figures and parts of studies to support a preconceived narrative that minimizes the risk of climate change."

The EPA said in a statement to NPR that it "considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions made, and assumptions used, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding are accurate and consistent" with the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act. The Energy Department said in a statement that its climate change report "critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence — not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations."

The impacts of rising temperatures are being felt in communities around the United States. And states and localities have filed dozens of lawsuits in recent years alleging fossil fuel companies misled the public for decades about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. The lawsuits seek money to help communities cope with risks and damages from global warming.

Those cases have been filed in state courts. In some instances, the EPA's current regulation of climate pollution has helped protect oil and gas companies from litigation.

A state judge in South Carolina recently dismissed a lawsuit that the city of Charleston filed against companies in the oil and gas industry, in part because, the judge said, greenhouse gas emissions are an issue for the federal government to deal with.

"One of the main defenses that the oil companies are raising in these lawsuits pending in state courts is that there is preemption by the federal Clean Air Act," says Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School. "If the federal Clean Air Act is no longer regulating greenhouse gas emissions through EPA, then that defense could go away."

Weakening a defense used by the fossil fuel industry could expose companies to more legal risk, Holmstead says. "There [are] plenty of people out there who want to bring lawsuits," he says, "and it seems like this would just invite a lot more litigation."

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, says the EPA's proposal to stop regulating climate pollution doesn't affect the oil and gas company's defense. Regardless of what the Trump administration does, the Supreme Court has already ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are covered by the federal Clean Air Act, Boutrous said in an emailed statement to NPR.

But Trump administration supporters think the Supreme Court is poised to overturn that ruling.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, said in written comments to the EPA that the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 2007 case in which it labeled carbon dioxide as "air pollution" under the Clean Air Act. The group notes that the five justices in the majority on that case are gone from the court. The comments were submitted on behalf of four California businesses and trade groups, including a company that uses natural gas boilers to make tomato products and a trucking association whose members are subject to EPA climate regulations.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin testifies before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment in May. The EPA has proposed undoing a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare.

(

Kevin Dietsch

/

Getty Images

)

Regulatory debate highlights tensions on the right

Holmstead says it's a toss-up what the Supreme Court would do now.

The court historically has been reluctant to reverse prior rulings, Holmstead says. But he says the court's conservative supermajority "probably would agree that Congress didn't clearly intend for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

Such a ruling could create havoc for businesses, according to a trade group for electric utilities. In a 2022 Supreme Court brief, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) said that having the EPA regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency's authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said, adding: "This would be chaos."

"Industry really has accepted the endangerment finding. They have accepted that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are pollutants and that something needs to be done with that," says Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group.

But in the conservative movement, "there's an element out there that just wants to pretend that [climate change] is not a problem," Murphy says, "and that this is something that snowflakes and soft folks on the left are screaming about."

EEI said in a statement to NPR that it supports EPA "establishing clear, consistent regulatory policies that drive energy infrastructure investment and strengthen America's economic and energy security."

The fact that the EPA is moving ahead with its plan to stop regulating climate pollution despite serious concerns from corporations highlights a growing divide between the business and ideological wings of the Republican Party, says Holmstead, who under George W. Bush's administration ran the EPA office that develops air pollution regulations.

"Traditionally, Republican administrations have believed in trying to reduce the regulatory burden, but I think they've paid more attention to the concerns of the business community," Holmstead says. "And I don't want to suggest that the Trump administration is impervious to those concerns. But for ideological reasons, they are doing a number of things that U.S. business is not supportive of."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Nationwide election results came at a relentless pace Tuesday night, each more of a Democratic upset than the last. But you may not have known if you were attending the California Republican Party's election night event in Garden Grove.

In the dimly lit Hyatt ballroom where gubernatorial longshot Steve Hilton and his supporters gathered, the news channels were off, the music was turned up and “Don’t Stop Believin’” blasted throughout.

Minutes after the polls closed at 8 p.m., the Associated Press called the governor’s race for Democratic favorite Xavier Becerra.

Around the room, the occasional person glanced at their phone to sneak a peek at the growing GOP carnage. More of the crowd instead looked at each other or toward the empty stage, where a lectern stood in front of a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge at sunset.

Not long after, Hilton took the stage to concede the race — which had always been heavily favored against him in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1.

“Maybe this isn’t the best year to be running for office as a Republican,” Hilton told his supporters, alluding to the election results that would soon lead the Democratic Party to win so big in the House and the Senate that many dubbed it a blue tsunami. “We see what’s going on around the country.”

Hilton knew the odds were long. He’d tried a number of tactics to win over California, including a suggestive advertisement suggesting voters should “Just Try” voting for him. He’d done his best to separate himself from President Donald Trump, who backed his campaign. He also attacked Becerra for staying largely out of the limelight since making it out on top of a chaotic primary.

None of Hilton’s appeals made a significant mark on the result, which trailed at around 36% of the vote as of Wednesday afternoon.

Standing outside the ballroom, Matt Shupe, a spokesperson for the California GOP, conceded it was challenging terrain for Republicans this year across the country — and always in California.

“It’s pretty typical that the party that's not in power gains some seats, so I think that was pretty expected for the most part,” he said. “We'll plan on bringing the fight more intensely than ever in 2028.”

By 9:30 p.m., people were headed to their cars to go home.

Voters in the city of Los Angeles are poised to pass all eight ballot measures put before them this year — six related directly to charter reform and two that are tied to the aftermath of the Palisades Fire in January 2025.

Proponents of city reform welcomed the results.

“Last night was a phenomenal Election Day for charter reform,” said Diego Andrades, who served as a Charter Reform commissioner. Andrades said he wasn’t surprised the amendments passed, tying voter support to the substantial public input in the process long before Election Day.

For example, Andrades said Measure PRK, which doubles the parks department budget, was “purely recommended by the public.”

“That was something we weren't even looking at,” Andrades said. “Everything that we recommended to the City Council was driven by who we were serving.”

Zev Yaroslavsky, the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, noted that none of the measures saw much coordinated opposition.

The six measures involving amendments to the city charter (the document that functions as the city’s constitution) originated from the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission’s recommendations to the City Council.

There is likely more to come. City Council members voted in June to leave some of the commission’s more controversial recommendations, including proposals to expand the City Council and implement ranked-choice voting, off the November ballots.

Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. County Supervisor and L.A. City Council member, called the amendments on the road to passing “non-controversial, but important.”

Yaroslavsky pointed to the Charter Amendment LA, which, among other changes, allows the City Council to eliminate or change the Department of Public Works, something Yaroslavsky said the City Council tried to do when he was a member more than 30 years ago. Other amendments, such as giving the ethics commission more authority and expanding the parks department budget, are also welcome changes, Yaroslavsky said.

“They were not ideological charter amendments; they were administrative charter amendments," he said, “but they allow the city to do things that they haven't done before.”

Andrades said the success of the charter amendments builds momentum for the City Council to further some of the other recommendations from the charter commission in future elections.

“The charter amendment process is not finished,” Andrades said. “We will see these reforms on the ballot, and when they are ready, I think we will see voters pass them.”

Two other ballot initiatives stem from the 2025 fires. Measures FD and TE, respectively, seek to expand the Fire Department Budget and cancel the so-called “mansion tax” for victims of the Palisades Fire who sell their residential property until 2030.

Like the charter amendments, these proposals didn’t see much pushback, Yaroslavsky said. As ballots continue to be tallied, here’s a look at how Angelenos voted on each measure:

Note: AP estimates about 67% of the vote was in as of Wednesday evening.

Measure EE

What's at stake

In addition to reducing the number of City Council meetings from three per week to one, Charter Amendment EE makes changes to the Los Angeles City Charter that supporters say will help hold city government accountable. Those changes include increasing the penalty for campaign finance violations, increasing the authority of police and fire department oversight offices, increasing the number of signatures required for ballot referendums and barring ethics commissioners from running for local office for five years following their terms.

Measure LA

What’s at stake

At its heart, this wonky amendment changes how the city manages its budget and oversees infrastructure projects. Charter Amendment LA moves the city from a one-year to a two-year budget cycle, allows City Council to eliminate or change the Board of Public Works while giving the director of Public Works more power, and removes restrictions prohibiting the city from engaging in certain commercial activities. The hope is these changes will make it easier for the city to plan for and execute infrastructure projects.

Measure PL

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PL consolidates Los Angeles’ seven Area Planning Commissions into a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission and streamlines the city’s planning process. In addition to reducing annual costs for commission staffing and other resources, the changes are meant to simplify the process and shrink the timeline for proposed developments.

Measure PRK

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PRK doubles the L.A. parks department’s minimum budget over the next 10 years. A city-commissioned study last year found that the department’s budget has grown at a slower pace than other city agencies and that department staffing has shrunk while responsible for more park space and facilities.

Measure PRT

What’s at stake

Charter Amendment PRT adds new members to the Board of Airport Commissioners who live in communities near LAX and Van Nuys Airport, updates the rules around leases for the Airports Department, Department of Water and Power and Harbor Department and adds transparency requirements to Harbor Department leases. Supporters say the changes will increase community influence over major infrastructure and help the city attract more investment around airports and the waterfront.

Measure SC

What’s at stake

Los Angeles Unified school board elections follow much of the same campaign finance rules as mayoral elections, but those rules are spelled out in different parts of the city charter and municipal code. Charter Amendment SC removes much of the language specific to LAUSD elections and applies the same rules as those governing mayoral candidates, with a few exceptions. Supporters say the amendment doesn’t substantively change the election rules, but removes duplicative language in the city charter.

Measure FD

What’s at stake

The L.A. firefighters’ union supported this measure to increase the citywide sales tax by 0.5%. The increase will add an estimated $345 million to a new dedicated special fund that must be spent on Fire Department staffing, facilities, equipment and other “core functions.” Measure FD’s supporters say the department has been underfunded and needs thousands more firefighters to keep up with growing call volume.

Measure TE

What’s at stake

Proposition TE cancels the city’s "mansion tax" for victims of the Palisades Fire who decide to sell their residential property in the wake of the disaster. The mansion tax was created by Measure ULA in 2022, supporters of Proposition TE say voters passed that measure to raise money for affordable housing and homelessness prevention programs, not to punish disaster survivors who sell their homes. The exemption applies to properties owned as of Jan. 7, 2025, and sold until Jan. 6, 2030.

Ask us a question

Angela Gonzales-Torres has unseated U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez in the 34th Congressional District race, according to the Associated Press on Wednesday.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Gonzales-Torres led Gomez 59% to 41% in the race for the district that includes downtown Los Angeles, Koreatown, Boyle Heights and Eagle Rock.

She finished 15 percentage points behind Gomez in the June primary election.

“I look forward to working for my community in Congress, holding the Trump administration accountable, abolishing ICE, and putting money back into our communities instead of funding endless wars,” Gonzales-Torres said in a statement.

Gomez, who was elected to the seat in 2017, conceded the race in an emailed statement to LAist, saying he was proud of accomplishments like expanding paid family leave, negotiating labor protections and fighting for working parents and their children.

“Everything I've done in public service has been about making sure the opportunities my parents sought remain possible for the next generation,” Gomez said. “Serving Los Angeles has been a privilege. Titles come and go, but the people and the values we fight for endure.”

Newcomer vs. veteran

Both candidates ran as Democrats and shared some priorities, including the Green New Deal, affordable housing and Medicare for All.

However, Gonzales-Torres criticized Gomez during the campaign for taking money from the tech industry and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, also known as AIPAC. Her campaign website says she plans to get money out of politics by abolishing super PACs.

Gonzales-Torres, who is from Highland Park, was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America and gathered support from progressive leaders in California, including U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez and L.A. City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

A relative newcomer to politics compared to her opponent, Gonzales-Torres served as president of the Highland Park Neighborhood Council and as a regional representative on Metro’s Public Safety Advisory Committee.

Gomez was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). He was also supported by the California Democratic Party and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff.

Allegations of misconduct sway race

Gomez was a campaign co-chair for former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a close ally who faces allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.

Swalwell has denied the allegations. Federal and state investigations are ongoing.

Gomez resigned from Swalwell’s campaign in April, shortly after the accusations became public. He also called for Swalwell, who resigned from Congress, to end his bid for governor.

Months later, in August, the House Ethics Committee announced that Gomez was under investigation on allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. He has denied those allegations, but they stuck with voters.

In October, a Democracy and Fair Elections Lab at USC poll found that concerns about ethical and sexual misconduct allegations against Gomez were top of mind for many voters.

Ask us a question