The Endangerment Finding Repeal & What It Means For States

This is a joint blog post between Jon Binder, Executive Director of the Model Climate Laws Initiative (MCLI), and Dylan McDowell, CEO of NCEL.

Overview

A landmark federal decision has redefined the national climate landscape, shifting the future of greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation directly into the hands of U.S. states.

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the final rescission of its 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The Endangerment Finding had served as the legal foundation for federal regulations to reduce the GHG emissions that cause climate change.

The repeal is among the most significant climate-related regulatory rollbacks of the second Trump Administration. But while EPA erased its own authority to regulate GHGs, its decision has not taken away states’ authority to act. States may still advance policies to reduce GHG emissions and address the changing climate.

• Endangerment Finding Background: In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case that greenhouse gases (GHGs) qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This led to the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which concluded — based on extensive scientific evidence — that GHGs from motor vehicles contribute to climate change and threaten public health. The finding has since served as the legal basis for federal climate regulation. The EPA’s February 2026 rescission reverses this precedent, shifting away from the initial 2025 repeal proposal that questioned aspects of climate science to instead argue that the agency lacks the statutory authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA.

What it Means for States: Federal Withdrawal and the Shift to State Authority

Despite sweeping federal implications, the Administration’s Endangerment Finding repeal does not limit states’ ability to regulate GHGs in many cases. Rather, it creates a regulatory vacuum that further affirms state-level authority as the primary driver for climate policy.

By EPA’s own account, it no longer has the authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA. While the repeal is focused on transportation emissions, EPA’s rationale would also erase its authority to regulate GHGs from stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities. It would take an act of Congress — unlikely in the current political context — or a new presidential administration to change this.

However, EPA’s decision did not take away any state authority to address climate change. States still retain their own authorities to protect their own environment and to regulate in-state activities that produce GHG emissions. Except for vehicle emission standards, states are generally not preempted from adopting air pollution standards more stringent than federal requirements.

What it Means for States: New Frontiers for State Climate Action

Given the federal retreat — and unchanged scientific consensus — state-level climate action remains a crucial lever for progress. States have been advancing strong policies in recent years and have multiple opportunities for continued action, even within certain federal constraints. NCEL and the Model Climate Laws Initiative held a webinar in December that summarized state legal authority and highlighted these state-based policy opportunities across transportation, buildings, power, and other sectors.

In addition to placing greater responsibility on statehouses, some observers also suggest that EPA’s repeal could expand state authority. Many state climate policies, including recently enacted climate change superfund laws in New York and Vermont, have been challenged on preemption grounds. Similarly, many lawsuits against polluters have been dismissed due to EPA’s regulatory authority under the CAA. With EPA no longer regulating GHGs, states may face reduced legal vulnerability to these claims.

State Climate Action in 2026

In the face of shifting federal priorities, states across the country are reinforcing their own climate frameworks and advancing innovative rules for transportation and industrial emissions.

• Indirect Source Rules: With vehicle emissions standards facing rollbacks, more states are looking to enact indirect source rules (ISRs) to regulate transportation emissions around highly trafficked areas like warehouses. Unlike state regulations that set clean air standards for vehicles, ISRs do not require federal approval from the EPA. Air quality management districts in California have already enacted this type of rule, and states including California (AB-1777), New York (S1180B/A03575), New Jersey (A3409/S2285 & S2339), and Illinois (HB5600/SB3732) are considering legislation this year. 
• Emission Oversight: As federal GHG regulations are rolled back, more states are taking action to strengthen GHG oversight within state borders. For example, New Jersey has introduced bills to authorize the regulation of GHGs by mandating strict GHG emission limits in facility operating permits (S628) and to require the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to monitor and report on indirect GHGs and short-lived pollutants based on the global warming potential of GHG emissions from significant in-state sources (S1662). 

To help improve pollution oversight and climate funding, states are also looking to increase climate accountability frameworks. 

• Cap-and-Invest: With California and Washington leading the way on cap-and-invest programs, Virginia has legislation (HB 397/SB 802) moving this year to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — a regional program that caps carbon emissions from power plants, puts a price on pollution, and reinvests revenue into energy efficiency and climate resiliency programs. Maryland has also introduced legislation (SB0590) that would study an economy-wide cap-and-invest program for the state.

For a broader look at state climate policy opportunities by sector, check out NCEL’s and MCLI’s recent webinar recap.

What Comes Next

A cascade of lawsuits is likely in response to the rescission of the Endangerment Finding, with the issue likely headed to the Supreme Court. Regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits, states can continue to act to confront the climate crisis. With increased rollbacks of federal regulation, state leadership is more important than ever for healthy communities and a stable climate.

To learn more about this topic and where your state can go from here, visit NCEL’s Issue Pages and the Model Climate Laws Initiative’s website, or get in touch with an NCEL staff member. 

About NCEL

Created by and for state legislators, the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that organizes over 1,300 environmentally-committed state legislators from all 50 states and both parties. NCEL provides venues and opportunities for lawmakers to share ideas and collaborate on environmental issues.

About MCLI

A joint project of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and Environmental Advocates NY, the Model Climate Laws Initiative advances state-level climate policy nationwide by providing draft legislation, legal analysis, implementation support, and other legal tools to lawmakers, advocates, and other stakeholders.