The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially announced the repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, a landmark regulatory determination that established greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This administrative action represents a fundamental shift in the federal government’s legal obligation to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. In response to this decision, the advocacy organization Protect Our Winters (POW) has issued a formal demand for the immediate resignation of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, citing a dereliction of the agency’s core mission to protect the environment and public health.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding serves as a deconstruction of the legal architecture that has supported nearly all federal climate regulations for the past fifteen years. By removing the scientific and legal basis that identifies greenhouse gas pollution as a hazard, the agency effectively curtails its own authority to limit emissions from power plants, vehicles, and industrial sources. Critics and environmental advocates argue that this move prioritizes the operational interests of the fossil fuel industry over the stability of the global climate and the health of American citizens.
The Legal and Historical Context of the Endangerment Finding
To understand the magnitude of the EPA’s recent action, it is necessary to examine the history of the Endangerment Finding. The finding was the direct result of the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court ruled that greenhouse gases fit the definition of "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. The Court mandated that the EPA determine whether these pollutants endangered public health or welfare, or provide a scientific reason why it could not make such a determination.
In 2009, after an exhaustive review of peer-reviewed science, the EPA issued the Endangerment Finding. It concluded that the atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—threatened the well-being of current and future generations. This finding was not merely a symbolic statement; it was the "trigger" that legally required the EPA to take action to reduce these emissions.
For over a decade, this determination has survived multiple legal challenges in federal courts. It provided the statutory basis for the Clean Power Plan, the subsequent Affordable Clean Energy rule, and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles. By repealing this finding, the current administration is attempting to remove the very foundation upon which these regulations are built, potentially shielding the energy and transportation sectors from future carbon-related mandates.
Chronology of Regulatory Rollbacks in Early 2025
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is the culmination of a rapid series of deregulatory actions initiated since January 2025. Following the appointment of Lee Zeldin as Administrator, the EPA has moved at an unprecedented pace to dismantle Obama- and Biden-era environmental protections.
In the first weeks of the new term, the agency signaled a departure from science-based policy-making in favor of "energy dominance" and "regulatory relief." The timeline of these actions reflects a coordinated effort to reshape the federal government’s relationship with the fossil fuel industry:
- January 2025: The EPA begins a formal review of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, citing the need to incorporate "updated economic modeling" and questioning previous scientific consensus.
- February 2025: The agency announces a stay on several pending methane leak regulations for oil and gas infrastructure, arguing that the compliance costs were overly burdensome for small producers.
- Late February 2025: The EPA issues a memorandum de-prioritizing the enforcement of carbon capture requirements for new coal-fired power plants.
- March 2025: The official repeal of the Endangerment Finding is finalized, triggering immediate backlash from environmental groups, tribal nations, and representatives of the outdoor recreation economy.
POW and other stakeholders contend that these actions are not isolated policy shifts but part of a systematic dismantling of clean air and water protections. The organization argues that Administrator Zeldin’s leadership has transformed the EPA from a regulatory watchdog into an active participant in the promotion of fossil fuel interests.
Scientific Indicators: The 2025 Snow Drought
The EPA’s policy shift comes at a moment when the physical manifestations of climate change are becoming increasingly acute, particularly in the American West. Scientific measurements and satellite data from the early months of 2025 indicate a significant and concerning "snow drought."
Across the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades, and the Rocky Mountains, snowpack levels are recorded at historically low levels for this time of year. In several key watersheds, the snow water equivalent (SWE)—the amount of liquid water contained within the snowpack—is trending 30% to 50% below the 30-year average. This phenomenon is largely attributed to unusually high winter temperatures. Rather than traditional winter storms delivering snow, much of the precipitation has fallen as rain, which runs off quickly rather than being stored in mountain reservoirs for the spring and summer months.
The implications of a depleted snowpack are far-reaching. Mountain snowpack acts as a natural reservoir, providing approximately 75% of the water supply for the western United States. It sustains the agricultural industry in California’s Central Valley, supports hydropower generation that provides carbon-free electricity to millions, and maintains the flow of rivers essential for salmon and other aquatic species. Furthermore, a thin snowpack leads to earlier soil drying, which significantly increases the risk and intensity of the wildfire season.
Economic Implications for the Outdoor State
The outdoor recreation economy, often referred to as the "Outdoor State," represents a significant portion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), outdoor recreation accounts for approximately $1.2 trillion in annual economic output and supports nearly 5 million jobs. This sector includes everything from skiing and snowboarding to fishing, hiking, and mountain biking.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding and the resulting lack of climate action pose an existential threat to this economy. Protect Our Winters highlights that the 181 million Americans who participate in outdoor recreation depend on predictable seasons and healthy ecosystems.
- Ski and Winter Sports Industry: Shorter winters and lack of snow directly impact resort operations. The costs of snowmaking are rising as temperatures increase, and many smaller, community-based ski hills face permanent closure.
- Rural and Gateway Communities: Towns that serve as entry points to national parks and forests rely on seasonal tourism. When snowpack fails or wildfire smoke chokes summer air, these local economies suffer immediate losses in tax revenue and employment.
- Tribal Nations and Agriculture: Tribal nations hold treaty-protected rights to water and natural resources that are being diminished by the changing climate. Similarly, the $50 billion agricultural industry in the West faces increased water volatility, threatening food security and rural livelihoods.
By ignoring the science of the Endangerment Finding, POW argues that the EPA is essentially ignoring the economic reality of a $1.2 trillion industry in favor of protecting the profits of the fossil fuel sector, which is increasingly seen as a direct competitor for land and water resources.
Analysis of the EPA’s Rationale and Official Responses
The EPA, under Administrator Zeldin, has defended the repeal by arguing that the 2009 finding was based on "flawed science" and that it imposed "unconstitutional" limits on executive power. In official statements, the agency has suggested that the private sector is better equipped to innovate solutions for emissions reductions without the "heavy hand of federal regulation."
Supporters of the repeal, including several trade associations representing the oil, gas, and coal industries, have praised the move. They argue that the Endangerment Finding allowed the EPA to bypass Congress and implement sweeping economic changes through administrative fiat. They contend that the repeal will lower energy costs for American consumers and restore "regulatory certainty" to the energy sector.
However, legal experts suggest that the repeal faces a difficult path in the courts. Because the original finding was based on a massive administrative record of scientific evidence, the EPA must now provide an equally robust scientific record to justify the repeal. Merely citing policy preferences is generally insufficient to overturn a science-based determination under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Broader Implications and the Road Ahead
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding is likely to trigger a wave of litigation from state attorneys general, environmental organizations, and tribal governments. States like California, New York, and Washington, which have their own ambitious climate targets, are expected to lead the legal challenge, arguing that the EPA is failing its statutory duty to protect the public.
Beyond the courtroom, the repeal has international implications. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States’ retreat from climate regulation weakens its diplomatic standing and may undermine global efforts such as the Paris Agreement. If the federal government officially denies the endangerment posed by carbon pollution, it loses the moral and political leverage required to encourage other nations to reduce their emissions.
The call for Lee Zeldin’s resignation by Protect Our Winters reflects a growing frustration among stakeholders who see the EPA’s current trajectory as a reversal of decades of environmental progress. For the millions of Americans who rely on the outdoor economy, the issue is not just one of policy, but of survival.
In the coming months, the focus will shift to the federal judiciary, which will ultimately decide if the EPA has the authority to ignore its own scientific findings. Until then, the "snow drought" in the West remains a stark reminder of the gap between the warming physical world and the shifting regulatory landscape in Washington, D.C. The outcome of this struggle will determine the future of American environmental law and the resilience of the nation’s natural and economic resources in an era of rapid climatic change.
