Where to Listen:
The Environmental Protection Agency is quickly getting out of the protection business. And no where is that more clear than its new plan to get rid of the Endangerment Finding, the landmark legal and science determination that climate change hurts people and that the EPA has the responsibility to do something about it.
On this episode a look at why the EPA is now insisting climate pollution won’t hurt you, and what walking back the endangerment finding could mean for Wisconsin.
Host:
Amy Barrilleaux
Guest:
Katie Nekola, Clean Wisconsin general counsel
Resources for You:
Take Action: Tell the EPA not to rescind the Endangerment Finding
Transcript:
Amy Welcome to The Defender, Wisconsin’s environmental podcast. I’m Amy Barrilleaux. The Defender is powered by Clean Wisconsin, your environmental voice since 1970. So what is the government’s role? We probably all have different answers to that, but on some fundamental level, it boils down to protection. Our government is here to protect us, from the military to the National Weather Service. And I think we expect that protection. It doesn’t matter who you are, what party you voted for, where you live. If you found out tomorrow that your land was polluted, your water poisoned, you would expect the government to act. You would be asking, where is the EPA, to hold the polluter accountable, to pay to clean things up? Every single person in this country has that expectation, except apparently the EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency is quickly getting out of the protection business, and nowhere is that more clear than its new plan. To get rid of the Endangerment Finding, the landmark legal and science determination that climate change hurts people, and that the EPA has the responsibility to do something about it. On this episode, a look at why the EPA is now insisting climate pollution won’t hurt you and what walking back the Endangerment Finding could mean for Wisconsin. That’s right now on The Defender. Just days before historic flooding hit the Milwaukee area, and not so long after wildfire smoke from Canada had been choking our skies, I sat down with Clean Wisconsin attorney Katie Nekola to talk about the landmark climate ruling that the Trump administration is now working hard to erase. Katie, thank you so much for being here.
Katie Thank you for having me.
Amy So I think this Endangerment Finding may be something that most people haven’t heard of, but it’s really, really important. So break down, I guess, the history of this legal finding, the Endangerment Finding, and how we kind of got up to this point.
Katie In 1999, several states and environmental groups filed a petition urging the Clinton administration to limit greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide from motor vehicles. In 2003, the Bush administration denied that petition and the case went to court. That resulted in Massachusetts challenging the denial in federal court, and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in a landmark 2007 decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. However, the court also said that in order to regulate green house gasses, the agency needed to demonstrate that those emissions threatened public health and welfare. That’s what the endangerment finding is. So the EPA did its scientific work. And concluded based on the evidence that greenhouse gasses do in fact endanger public health and welfare. So the agency then outlined all of the science and detailed how increasingly severe heat waves and storms and droughts and so forth do actually contribute to higher rates of death and disease.
Amy So basically, the EPA had to establish under this court ruling that climate change hurts us. And I think, I can see how maybe 10, 15 years ago that was kind of a big deal because climate change seemed so far away. But here we are sitting in Wisconsin when we spent the whole first part of August not being able to go outside and enjoy it because we were all under these air quality alerts. Is that the kind of thing that we’re talking about, this sort of public health impact of climate change?
Katie Right, that’s exactly the sort of thing we’re talking about. And if there was enough evidence back in 2009 to prove that this was harming the public health and welfare, then imagine the evidence that they’ll have now. And that’s one of the things that the EPA has to do. It has to prove scientifically that it can repeal this rule. And that what they are embarking on. That’s what they want to do now.
Amy So what’s the rationale from the Trump administration and the current EPA to say, oh, no, there is no reason to regulate emissions, greenhouse gas emissions? What are they saying is wrong with that idea?
Katie What they’re doing is entirely focusing on the costs of regulation as they see it, and they’re ignoring the benefits of regulation. So, you know, under that scenario, any time you, if you make that calculation, if you ignore the benefits and talk about the cost, there’s only going to be costs, right? And so even the cost they don’t have a basis for. They’re claiming that it’s costing Americans more to, for example, buy cars, but because of emissions controls in cars and and fuel economy standards and so forth. They have no data to back that up. I mean, the car industry has moved on. It’s already retrofitted, it’s making cleaner cars, and to claim that this is costing us more money is just wrong.
Amy And this, I mean, this may have started off about motor vehicles, you know, cars and trucks, but it became about power plants too, right? So the EPA was able to look at coal and gas-fired power plants and say, hey, you need to take care of greenhouse gas emissions in some way. So we expect that if this endangerment finding does go away, then it’s going to impact more than just cars.
Katie That’s absolutely correct. It will impact power plants, industry, which is also a source of greenhouse gas emissions, and of course, you know, vehicles.
Amy You know, looks to be part of a large effort from the Trump administration to walk back climate progress in this country. But I think young voters, voters in their 20s, are incredibly concerned about climate change and that crosses party lines. So Republicans and Democrats and independents, young people want clean energy. They want solutions to this climate crisis. So politically, it feels like maybe this doesn’t make a lot of sense for the EPA to just say, you know, we’re not going to bother with any kind of standards for anything that has to do with fighting climate change. Do you think that that’s how this is being interpreted when the EPA made this announcement that they are seeking this rule change, that it was met with kind of like, why are you doing this? This, you know, we’ve come a long way since 1999 and this is an urgent crisis right now.
Katie I think it’s probably perceived by a lot of people as just part of the general effort of the Trump administration to dismantle protections of all kinds for the American people. I think that this administration has made it very clear that they’re not interested in protecting people’s health and welfare. And I think this is just part it. I think there’s a kind of erroneous perception that somehow it’s they can appeal to people by saying that all these regulations cost more. I think the only people that that really appeals to are certain businesses who want to cut corners.
Amy When you were talking about the history of this endangerment finding, I think this is true for a lot of environmental rules and regulations and efforts, that you get something on the books and then the powers that be, the polluters, the industry folks, the very powerful groups start to try to pull it back. I know it feels kind of unique that we’re in this Trump administration where a lot things are getting pulled back all at once, but is it fair to say that, you know, any time there’s an effort to protect people and the environment, there’s also a concurrent effort to stop those protections.
Katie I think what’s different now is that it’s become so ideological. I think that a lot of businesses and industries now recognize that there are benefits to taking care of the planet and taking care of, for example, their sources of water for clean air. I mean, if you don’t want to locate an industry someplace that has really dirty air because you’re not going to get workers to come and work there. I think, I think that’s what’s different. I think a lot of industry has kind of moved on. You know, from resistance and on the ground. I mean, GM, for example, is one of the, has pledged to go emissions-free by 2035 with its vehicles. Microsoft, you know. A lot of these industries are embracing what we want them to do, and it’s because it’s good business. But I think now what’s different is that, The Trump administration and whoever is, you know, whether it’s Project 2025 or whoever is pulling these strings, is really doing all of this for ideological reasons, and it’s sort of a culture war. That’s my opinion.
Amy I think we’re in a place where we’re seeing a lot of strange things happening at the federal level. You know, the EPA’s mission is to protect public health, to protect people. And it seems like the federal government is kind of moving away from that “we should protect people” role, not just through the EPA, but through, you know, a whole host of changes throughout our federal agencies. When you look at what’s happening at a federal level at the EPA I think it’s easy for people to kind of lose hope. To think, well, all these protections we fought for, they’re all going away. So what’s your reaction to that, that kind of moment of shock and overwhelming feeling that I think a lot of people have?
Katie Well, I think all of us need to take a minute and just go ahead and acknowledge that things are hard right now, very hard. And I think we also need to look for other ways to fight back. I think, we need to really stop and think, what can we do at the state and local level? I think there’s a lot that we can do. I think have leadership at those levels. I think. We also need get out there and resist. There’s just no substitute for it. That they need to hear. Loud and clear that this is not acceptable.
Amy We were talking about the courts, so you’re an attorney. The endangerment finding was that was a landmark Supreme Court decision. Now we have a different kind of Supreme Court. Do you feel, I guess, concerned that our legal system is not strong enough to keep these protections in place?
Katie I’m always concerned about that because you just never know. I have to hope that the current Supreme Court will take seriously its responsibility here to protect the citizens of this country from the sort of extreme rollbacks that we’re seeing. I don’t know whether that will happen, but I think that, again, we need to send a strong message to Washington. To anybody that will listen, really, that we’re just at a critical time. If we don’t take this seriously now and do everything we can to curb climate change, we’re going to continue to have more flooding and more deaths, more wildfires, more smoke, more hurricanes, and the crazy high temperatures that we are seeing all summer long here. In Wisconsin.
Amy I do want to stress that right now the endangerment finding is still on the books. The EPA still, for now, is responsible for protecting public health from climate change. What has to happen for that important responsibility to go away?
Katie Okay, there’s a whole rule-making process that has to happen, which was launched here last week. And so the EPA launches this rule- making. There’s a comment period where the public can weigh in. They have only 45 days from the time it’s published in the Federal Register to write a comment to EPA. And I urge everyone to do that, after which, they go through a whole process of… The rule-making process basically, and finalize the rule sometime next year probably, at which time there will be a lot of lawsuits.
Amy You say there are going to be a lot of lawsuits, so you expect like environmental groups like Clean Wisconsin to sue, things like that, or states, or how does that work?
Katie Well, I think just like with other rules that the Trump administration has tried to roll back, like the power plant rules, and the mercury rules and so forth, I think a lot of states will sue because a lot states have a big interest in clean air. Well, they all do actually, but, and of course environmental groups definitely will sue.
Amy Do you predict that the state of Wisconsin will sue, or that clean Wisconsin might be involved in any of this kind of thing?
Katie I think it might be likely. We certainly have been in the past. We’ve joined with other groups and national environmental groups to sue in the DC Circuit over these power plant rules and mercury rules and so forth. The state of Wisconsin has also the government about a lot of this, so I think it might be.
Amy So I think it’s easy to kind of get in a dark place when you start seeing all these rollbacks. I mean, I had one episode not too long ago where I just kind of listed out a bunch of things that had been rolled out and it was not a complete list. And so I think, it can be overwhelming. But at the same time, if you look at how far we’ve come, I went through some historic photos of downtown Madison with a coal plant or the Wisconsin River covered with some kind of foam that came from a paper mill, like totally really, really bad pollution moments. And here we are, we’ve come so far, despite this sort of pendulum of we get a regulation and then it gets clawed back, kind of back and forth. You’ve been working in the environmental space for a long time, you’ve fought very hard for a lot of protections that we have right now. What kind of perspective can you give people who are feeling kind of like, wow, is the environmental. Moment over.
Katie I never say it’s over because it can’t be over. We can’t let it be over, I think we’ve got to recognize the seriousness of the moment that we’re in now, but I think that’s just a sign that we have to work harder to protect the gains that we’ve already made. I’m encouraged because, you know, for example, the coal industry is not coming back. It’s not gonna come back no matter what Trump does because it’s just too expensive and it’s too. It’s just seen its day, it’s not gonna come back. It’s unfortunate that he’s rolling back incentives for renewable energy, but again, the renewable industry is in its prime. It’s doing great, and the tariffs are not helping, but I do think it’s got momentum now that it didn’t have before, so I’m encouraged by that. The mercury rule, for example, you know, power plants in Wisconsin have already retrofitted so that they’ve got mercury controls in place. So you know I think the gains, some of the gains that we have made cannot be rolled back because they’ve been adopted by industry already and I think that the fact that industry itself has recognized that it’s necessary to embrace some of these environment friendly and health friendly policies and practices is really working in our favor. So I think. I think that the Trump administration is kind of living in another century in their minds, and hopefully we can just move past them.
Amy What do you expect, let’s say something happens and the endangerment finding goes away, or some of these protections that are in the middle of being rolled back go away? How do you see those impacts playing out in Wisconsin, or what are the, I guess, backstops we have to keep the harms from being as bad as they could be?
Katie I think it depends on how the federal government regulations play out in a lot of these cases because in many cases, Wisconsin can’t have stricter regulations than the federal government. And so currently, for example, there needs to be motor vehicle testing, emissions testing in the southeastern counties because they’ve got air quality challenges over there more than, for instance, the rest of the state. That may go away. Which would be unfortunate, which would increase the ozone problem in Milwaukee and the surrounding counties. And I think, you know, it might have a snowball effect by just sort of reducing the amount that Wisconsin itself can do to keep its own air clean and water clean.
Amy Yeah, that’s a good thing to point out, because I think today, as we’re recording this, there is an ozone alert happening in like four or five different counties in Wisconsin. So to think, we think of Wisconsin and canoeing down the Wisconsin River and everything, so pristine here, but it’s not, that is not the case in a lot of counties. There’s certainly pollution here.
Katie Oh, definitely. I mean, there’s groundwater pollution in a lot of the state from agricultural activities and, you know, contaminated wells, drinking water. And yeah, the southeastern counties are really challenged without air quality. And, you, know, again, the Trump administration has rolled back the Good Neighbor Rule, which helps to limit or would help to limit pollution coming from other states, air pollution. And so it’s an assault on public health and welfare, definitely.
Amy I think we’ve touched on this already. But what would you say to somebody who’s listening, who feels kind of like so overwhelmed by, it’s not just an assault on environmental protections, but it’s a rapid assault on environmental protections. It’s very difficult to even keep up. What would you say to kind of help people build a movement or to think about how to connect with other people in this moment that you have pointed out is so critical?
Katie Well, I would say join Clean Wisconsin. Yeah, yeah. No, I mean and there’s, it’s, I’m not just joking about that. It doesn’t have to be Clean Wisconsin, but that’s always a good one. But, you know, be with people who are doing this kind of work and who are resisting and, you know, get out there. And if you don’t want to get out there yourself. You know, write letters, you know or just talk to people, make it a part of the everyday conversation, this stuff matters. And I think, you now, and it’s very understandable that we’re all living our lives and we’ve got a lot of other things on our minds and things to worry about, and you know if you think about the endangerment finding you’re not gonna necessarily think that has anything to do with you, right? But there’s always something. It doesn’t have to be this. You know, there’s a whole ground swell of resistance to this, all of this, these rollbacks to all of our protections in terms of health and, you know, environment. And there’s something. It all affects you, but maybe pick the thing that affects you the most and try it and just talk to people about it and see where you can kind of plug in and if there’s something that you can do.
Amy Clean Wisconsin General Counsel Katie Nekola, thank you so much for your insight and for explaining the endangerment finding so that we can all understand it, I appreciate it.
Katie Thank you.
Amy And thank you for listening to The Defender. If you want to make your voice heard and send a comment to the EPA about its proposed rule to get rid of the Endangerment Finding, I have put a link to do that in the show notes, or you can log on to cleanwisconsin.org/action. I’m Amy Barrilleaux, talk to you later.
