About two weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was beginning the process of rescinding its 2009 “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution — a bureaucratic maneuver that has been the basis for numerous questionable federal and state environmental regulations.

EPA chief Lee Zeldin — a former congressman from New York, well-known on the East Coast but less well-known here in the West — described the decision: “EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty. (Previous) EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes.”

Making the announcement, Zeldin was joined by several other administration officials. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright added: “America is returning to free and open dialogue around climate and energy policy — driving the focus back to following the data.”

And U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler spoke in even harsher terms: The “green new scam era is finally coming to an end. EPA’s reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding will eliminate burdensome regulations and save small businesses at least $170 billion.”

So, why is the EPA’s reversal of this “Endangerment Finding” so important? Because it’s been the bureaucratic prerequisite used to regulate — among other things — emissions from new motor vehicles and new vehicle engines.

Without the “Finding,” the EPA (and the Washington Department of Ecology, our state’s version of the EPA) would lack statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to prescribe standards for GHG emissions. The reversal will repeal all GHG standards, including the EPA’s (and Ecology’s) electric vehicle mandates. It will also remove all GHG emissions standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. This includes so-called “off-cycle credits” like the controversial “start-stop” feature now standard on most new cars.

The EPA’s proposed reversal also addresses the problem of disputed and debunked “scientific data” (which former Gov. Jay Inslee often mispronounced as “science ‘n’ data”) that environmental radicals forced on the agency when it made the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The “science” behind the “Endangerment Finding” has always been dodgy. In 2009, EPA ruled that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles — in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t emit — contributed an unspecified amount to climate change, which in turn created an unspecified amount of endangerment to human health and welfare. This weak methodology was the only way the Obama-Biden Administration could invoke EPA’s authority to regulate under the CAA. And, at the state level, it was the only way the Inslee-Ferguson Administration could extend the Department of Ecology’s authority.

Updated data that debunks the 2009 “science” and supports the proposed reversal includes studies and information in the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2025 Climate Work Group report.

Also, since 2009, the legal world has changed. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions — including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA — has clarified the scope of EPA’s authority. The decisions emphasize that major policy decisions must be made by Congress or the state Legislature, not by bureaucratic agencies.

American Trucking Association President Chris Spear spoke for several industry and trade groups when he offered support for the proposed reversal: “We commend EPA Administrator Zeldin for taking decisive action to rescind the disastrous ‘GHG Phase 3’ rule. This electric-truck mandate put the trucking industry on a path to economic ruin and would have crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries and raised prices for American families and businesses. The trucking industry supports cleaner, more efficient technologies, but we need policies rooted in real-world conditions.”

So, how will this rock Olympia? Many of the disastrous bills and bureaucratic rules made in the state Capitol have cited the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” as their scientific and legal basis. With that basis rescinded, the laws based on it are vulnerable to court review and legislative reversal. The bureaucratic rules based on it become even more vulnerable. These weak laws and rules include: the Climate Commitment Act, the Clean Energy Fuel Standard, the failed scheme to mandate “electric ferries” for the Washington State Ferry system, the Department of Ecology’s various “zero emissions” rules and its scheme to ban all internal-combustion vehicle sales by 2035 … or some other date.

These laws and rules are precious to various virtue-signaling politicians. Current Gov. Bob Ferguson quickly condemned the EPA’s proposed reversal, calling it “reckless” and a “step in the wrong direction.” But a close reading of the current governor’s comments suggests he may not have read Zeldin’s comments or fully understood the mechanics of the “Endangerment Finding.”

State Attorney General Nick Brown responded by filing yet another lawsuit against the White House — but on an issue that doesn’t actually involve the EPA “Endangerment Finding.”

These responses suggest knee-jerk anti-Trump politics more than any understanding of or appreciation for the “science” supposedly establishing the danger posed by GHG emissions. Of course, that “science” has always been difficult to understand or appreciate because it’s been so “twisted” and “warped.” Rescinding the weaponized 2009 “Endangerment Finding” is a critical step toward clearing up that confusion.

Gov. Ferguson is wrong. The EPA’s proposal is a step in the right direction toward common sense environmental policy “rooted in real-world conditions.”

State Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, represents the 19th Legislative District in the state Legislature. He also serves as chairman of the Washington state Republican Party.