Legislative Update: Zeldin Launches Broad Rollback of Climate and Emissions Rules Affecting Manufacturers

Zeldin Launches Broad Rollback of Climate and Emissions Rules Affecting Manufacturers

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a comprehensive deregulatory campaign targeting industrial emissions standards and broader air quality rules. Announced on March 12, 2025, the agency unveiled 31 regulatory rollback actions, with EPA Administrator Zeldin describing it as the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history.” The effort is part of the Trump administration’s broader agenda to reduce what Zeldin termed “trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and hidden taxes.”

The deregulatory measures span multiple sectors and are expected to have significant implications for manufacturers, particularly those regulated under the Clean Air Act. Among the rules now under reconsideration are electric vehicle standards, emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; the Risk Management Program Rule, which governs safety protocols at facilities handling toxic and flammable substances; and the Technology Transition Rule, which limits hydrofluorocarbon usage. The EPA is also targeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter (PM2.5) and several National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

In an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, Zeldin asserted that the deregulatory push would lower costs for American households and businesses, while revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and energy production. Among the most consequential changes is the proposed rollback of the 2009 endangerment finding, a legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding, enacted during the Obama administration under the Clean Air Act, underpins numerous climate-related regulations, including emissions standards for vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Zeldin argued that the measures would restore “energy dominance” and drive economic resurgence, though all proposed changes will undergo formal rulemaking processes, including public comment periods.

In addition, the agency intends to terminate the Good Neighbor Plan, a policy requiring 23 states to mitigate interstate air pollution from industrial and power plant sources. The sweeping regulatory rollback is expected to reduce compliance costs and expand industrial activity.

Industry Pushes for TSCA Overhaul as Lawmakers Explore Bipartisan Path Forward

House and Senate committees are currently drafting proposed reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in response to longstanding industry concerns that the 2016 overhaul of the law significantly slowed the review of new chemicals and imposed strict regulations on select existing substances. Industry groups, reinvigorated by the outcome of the 2024 elections and the Republican control of Congress and the White House, are advocating for revisions ahead of the 2026 reauthorization of EPA’s TSCA user fee authority.

Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have acknowledged the need for reform, though there is no consensus yet on the scope of changes. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) is also working on a discussion draft, with sources indicating that the Senate is aiming for a bipartisan bill. However, the current polarized political environment may challenge reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

Industry groups, including the TSCA Improvement Coalition led by former EPA official David Fischer, are actively lobbying lawmakers, emphasizing a “measured, thoughtful approach.” Additional coalitions, including newly formed groups representing downstream companies and trade associations, are mobilizing to influence the legislative process.

Stakeholders broadly agree that EPA’s new chemicals program under TSCA needs reform but differ on priorities. Some sectors emphasize the need to limit the use of Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), which they argue create burdens and deter the adoption of safer alternatives. In contrast, others focus on expediting the lengthy review process, citing concerns over delays caused by the current two-step consent order and SNUR process. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) advocates for a strict 90-day review deadline. However, other industry representatives argue that this timeline is unrealistic, suggesting a 180-day review period or a tiered approach based on chemical complexity to improve efficiency without overburdening the EPA.

The debate also continues over whether TSCA reform should involve narrow, targeted fixes or a broader legislative overhaul. While ACC and some stakeholders prefer limited amendments to avoid reopening the statute too extensively, others, including David Fischer’s coalition, see an opportunity to adjust additional TSCA sections.  Nonetheless, many industry voices caution against sweeping revisions, emphasizing the limited window for reform before the EPA’s user fee authority expires in 2026.

Zeldin Announces Redefinition of WOTUS to End Regulatory Uncertainty

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would revise its definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) to align more closely with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision. The ruling narrowed the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, excluding certain wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to federally protected waters. Zeldin emphasized that the forthcoming rulemaking aims to eliminate regulatory uncertainty and prevent continued shifts in interpretation across administrations.

The new approach moves away from the previously used “significant nexus” test, which allowed for broader regulatory authority over wetlands and other water bodies not directly connected by surface water, based on their potential chemical or biological impact on other waters. This test had been expanded under the Obama administration, rolled back under President Donald Trump, and then reinstated by the Biden administration before being superseded by the Sackett decision.

Zeldin’s announcement drew strong support from agricultural stakeholders and Republican lawmakers, who argued that previous interpretations had imposed excessive regulatory burdens on landowners and farmers and prior rules caused ”regulatory whiplash.” The revised rule is intended to provide clearer and more durable standards consistent with the Court’s guidance.

EPA Moves to Overhaul Biden-Era TSCA Rule, Citing Need for Comprehensive Reassessment

The EPA has formally announced plans to overhaul the Biden-era Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule, signaling a substantial shift in how chemical risk evaluations will be conducted. In a March 10 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, EPA requested the court to remand the 2024 rule without vacating it, stating that the agency intends to reconsider the framework “in its entirety” through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

According to Nancy Beck, newly appointed principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the agency will reevaluate key elements of the current rule, including the use of a single chemical-wide risk determination (as opposed to a use-by-use assessment), treatment of personal protective equipment (PPE) in exposure analysis, and the inclusion of overburdened communities as potentially exposed subpopulations. The revisions could lead to broader changes across multiple Biden-era chemical-specific risk management rules built on the same framework.

While the agency maintains it will continue applying the current rule until changes are finalized—estimated to take 9 to 14 months—it argued that the remand would facilitate the development of a revised, more industry-aligned policy. The request is supported by industry stakeholders but opposed by labor and environmental groups, who view the proposed rollback as weakening public health protections. TheThe agency asserts that remand will promote regulatory clarity and judicial efficiency, allowing EPA to align TSCA implementation with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.

Senate Panel Advances EPA Nominees

The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee advanced two key nominations for leadership roles at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), amid significant controversy and against the backdrop of the agency’s intent to rescind multiple environmental regulations. The committee voted 10-9 along party lines to approve the nominations of David Fotouhi for deputy administrator and Aaron Szabo to lead the Office of Air and Radiation. Both individuals previously held senior roles during the first Trump administration, and their post-government legal work representing EPA-regulated clients prompted pointed questions during their confirmation hearings. Each nominee has committed to a one-year recusal from matters involving former clients, as outlined in their ethics agreements.

Congress Passes FY25 Spending Bill to Avert Shutdown, Sets Stage for Upcoming Tax and Debt

President Donald Trump signed into law a six-month funding bill on March 15, 2025, narrowly averting a partial government shutdown. The bill, which maintains government operations through September 30, passed the Senate 54–46 just hours before the funding deadline. While most Democrats opposed the bill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) initially broke with his caucus to support advancing the legislation, citing the risk of a government shutdown empowering President Trump and his advisor Elon Musk to slash federal programs and workforce under emergency authorities unilaterally.

The stopgap bill, developed by Republican leaders in coordination with the White House, modestly increases defense spending while cutting non-defense discretionary funding by $13 billion. Democrats criticized the bill’s structure, arguing it grants the Trump administration broad discretion over federal spending.  Despite the Democratic opposition, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and the White House successfully won over a handful of GOP handouts and passed the bill on a mostly party-line 217-213 vote, with only one Democrat–Jared Golden of Maine–voting to support the measure.

Schumer’s decision to allow the bill to proceed sparked a significant backlash from House Democrats. Members of the House Democratic leadership, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), vocally opposed the bill, calling it fiscally irresponsible and urging Senate colleagues to pursue a short-term continuing resolution instead. Despite the discontent, Schumer maintained that preventing a shutdown was the lesser of two evils.

Looking ahead, congressional Republicans plan to pursue an ambitious agenda that includes extending Trump-era tax cuts, increasing border security funding, and reducing discretionary spending. Simultaneously, Congress faces a looming deadline to raise the debt ceiling, with estimates suggesting that Republican-led proposals could increase the federal debt by up to $11 trillion.

GOP Weighs Future of IRA Tax Credits

The House Ways and Means Committee has initiated internal negotiations on a multi-trillion-dollar Republican tax package, beginning with a full repeal of the IRA and working backward to assess which elements warrant preservation. That strategy, however, has encountered resistance from 21 House Republicans who recently sent a letter to Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) opposing significant rollbacks to IRA tax credits. Many of these lawmakers represent districts that have experienced substantial investment and job creation tied to IRA-supported clean energy and industrial projects.

The internal debate underscores a broader political balancing act: Republican lawmakers must navigate between alignment with Trump’s agenda and the economic realities in their districts, where constituents could face job losses and stalled investment if key credits are rescinded. In contrast, Senate Republicans have generally taken a more measured approach, signaling a preference for a stable and pragmatic energy policy that supports innovation, affordability, and reliability.

Behind closed doors, Republican legislators are reportedly assessing each credit individually, weighing factors such as political support within the conference, alignment with Trump’s priorities, fiscal impact, and contributions to domestic manufacturing and supply chain resilience. While subsidies for wind energy and electric vehicles remain most vulnerable to cuts, technology-neutral clean electricity production and investment tax credits appear more likely to survive. These provisions support many emerging technologies—including advanced nuclear and geothermal energy—that many Republicans view as critical to strengthening energy reliability and fostering economic growth. Nonetheless, the design of the IRA’s technology-neutral credits presents challenges for selective repeal, as removing individual provisions could create market distortions and hamper innovation.

Bipartisan Bill Directs EPA to Launch Recycling Access Initiative

The Senate EPW Committee has unanimously advanced legislation (S. 351) that would require the EPA to establish a recycling infrastructure and accessibility pilot program to expand access to recycling in underserved communities. The EPA Administrator would be required to launch a competitive grant pilot program, prioritizing communities with limited recycling infrastructure—specifically, those with no more than one materials recovery facility within a 75-mile radius.

The measure, approved by voice vote with bipartisan support, would also direct the EPA to collect data from state and local governments on recycling and composting capacity and infrastructure to help inform future improvements. Additionally, the EPA must develop a metric to assess how much recyclable material in municipal or commercial waste is excluded from the circular economy.

Lawmakers emphasized the importance of maintaining legislative consensus, with all proposed amendments ultimately withdrawn to preserve bipartisan cooperation.