The United States has angered climate campaigners  as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a wave of deregulation which includes the end to the monitoring of vehicle emissions.

The move was announced by the EPA’s administrator Lee Zeldin, in the White House saying the action will save the US taxpayers  over $1.3 trillion.

He added it would eliminate “both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.

“The action also eliminates all off-cycle credits, including for the almost universally hated start-stop feature. EPA’s historic move restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks.”

“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,”  Zeldin added. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream. As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers. As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”

It added: “The final rule will save Americans over $1.3 trillion by removing the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions, and reporting obligations that exist solely to support the vehicle GHG regulatory regime. Americans will have certainty, flexibility and regulatory relief, allowing companies to plan appropriately, and empowering American families.”

In finalising this rule, the EPA said it had carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the text of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in light of subsequent legal developments and court decisions. The agency concluded that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilised, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations.

“EPA firmly believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat ‘air pollution’ that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress,”  it added. “Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be.”

Climate activists have condemned the move.

Tim Donaghy, Greenpeace USA Research Director, said: “The laws of physics do not care about Donald Trump. They do not care about his constant lies and they do not care about his insincere report full of cherry-picked data. Burning more fossil fuels will absolutely put Americans in greater danger – that is irrefutable. With today’s announcement, Trump’s EPA has utterly betrayed its mission to ‘protect human health and the environment.

“Make no mistake, while this move may pad the pockets of Big Oil executives, it leaves the rest of us to pay the price. It will make us all sicker, increase our energy bills, deepen our dependence on risky and expensive fuels, slow the transition to a healthier economy, and push the planet to ever higher temperatures.

“In the meantime, it falls to people, cities and states to pick up the slack. With the abdication of federal regulators, there is no longer any reason to shield fossil corporations from the consequences of their actions. The time has come to ensure that Big Oil polluters pay in full for the damages they have caused, and the decades of delay and deception they fostered.

“Hope is not lost. We call on Congress to respond to this betrayal by passing climate legislation that is even stronger than what Trump is trying to destroy. We demand a bill that protects workers and communities while it shifts our economy away from dirty energy towards one that protects and restores the health of the planet, our common home.”

Analysts said the move will have financial ramifications for US businesses and households.

Tara Irwin, senior ESG analyst, Hargreaves Lansdown explained: “Beyond the immediate policy shift of revoking the 2009 ‘endangerment finding’, the decision signals a decisive change in the federal government’s approach to climate risk – moving from rhetorical challenge to substantive regulatory rollback. For businesses, this introduces a fresh layer of policy uncertainty, while for households it may shape everything from environmental standards to longer-term public health outcomes.

“American households are already experiencing the effects of a warming climate, not only physically but financially. In California, some homeowners are finding property insurance either prohibitively expensive or unavailable due to wildfire risk. In Florida, premiums have surged as insurers reprice hurricane risk. Elsewhere, lower agricultural yields are contributing to food price pressures, while higher temperatures increase demand for air conditioning, adding to household energy bills. Health-related costs, from worsening asthma linked to air pollution to rising cases of heatstroke and cardiovascular strain during extreme heat events, are also climbing.

“Officials in California have confirmed they intend to challenge the policy shift through the courts, with other organisations signalling similar action. With midterm elections on the horizon, the political calculus is far from settled. If voters perceive tangible economic and health consequences, the durability of the policy could yet become a matter of electoral strategy as much as environmental debate.”