We've written extensively about these environmental rollbacks and have provided public testimony blasting EPA has a clear duty under the Clean Air Act: protect public health and the environment. GASP has challenged delays and rollbacks involving regional polluters, including the Conemaugh, Keystone EPA data show the scale. GASP urges EPA to reject these rollbacks, maintain strong federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions

regulatory rollbacks and demand accountability in their wake. We are witnessing a dangerous trend: The systematic rollback of crucial environmental protections by For those already struggling with chronic conditions, these rollbacks are not just concerning; they are Because who bears the brunt of these rollbacks? It is our frontline neighbors. These rollbacks will only exacerbate that injustice. So, what can we do?

The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) strongly condemns the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA “The EPA’s duty to the American people is to protect the environment, not rewrite air quality rules to That’s why GASP has continuously tracked and fought against systemic delays and rollbacks surrounding The mission of the EPA under the Clean Air Act is clear: to protect human health and the environment. Editor's Note: Here is the full EPA announcement for those who would like to take a deeper dive.

Last June, we blogged about EPA’s proposal to repeal revisions to the National Emission Standards for ’s an update, which should not come as a surprise: on Feb. 24, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA coal-fired EGUs , on the same bases that were proposed when we last blogged about this, specifically:   EPA EPA based this repeal on a finding that the cost-effectiveness value for the 2024 limit was not in line stack testing and continuous parametric monitoring in addition to continuous emission monitors; and EPA

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this month published a final rule that revises the New as determined by EPA.    Because when EPA promulgated Subpart KKKKa it stated that it would not attempt to monetize any claimed EPA failure to do so in this instance appeared to be a break from long-standing practice that endangers On the other hand, EPA claimed that its decision not to include health benefits in its impact analysis

Here’s what’s going on: Just before the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, the EPA   proposed a “EPA estimated that the 2023 regulations would result in a cumulative reduction in emissions of HFCs “Should the recently-proposed changes become effective, EPA estimates that the regulations would result EPA is accepting comments on its proposed revisions to the Hydrofluorocarbon Technology Transitions Rule EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0001 .

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved the sticks on regulating ethylene oxide pollution yet EPA on March 17 published a proposed rule and reconsideration of its April 5, 2024 Final Rule that revised EPA does itself no favors by flip-flopping every several years.”   Further, EPA is accepting comments on the proposed revisions through May 1.  EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.

Another day, another environmental regulatory rollback announced by Trump’s EPA: The agency last week But wait there’s more (spoiler - it’s all bad news): EPA is also extending the groundwater monitoring This past spring, EPA committed to taking swift action on coal ash , including state permit program reviews “We've seen this abandonment of duty far too many times, and it forces us to ask: Is EPA leadership even EPA will accept comments on the companion proposal for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register

Over the last few weeks, we have blogged about myriad (bad) decisions by Trump’s EPA leaders to delay us, promise it won’t be painful: Subpart OOOOb is a New Source Performance Standard promulgated by EPA Section 111(b) authorizes EPA to establish performance standards for a category of new facilities that Section 111(d) a uthorizes EPA to require that the states submit plans to EPA to regulate existing facilities "EPA's failure to address the Climate Crisis has hit a sad new low."

EPA .   In Massachusetts v. Thus, EPA’s revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a reminder that what EPA can do on its own The fact that EPA calls the rationales “separate and independent” means that EPA believes that each rationale EPA .  Second , EPA determined that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act did not clearly authorize EPA to