Commodities January 30, 2026

Federal Court Finds DOE Violated Law in Forming Climate Advisory Group, Jeopardizing EPA Rulemaking

Judgment says secret Climate Working Group breached advisory committee rules; plaintiffs seek to undo EPA proposal to rescind endangerment finding

By Hana Yamamoto
Federal Court Finds DOE Violated Law in Forming Climate Advisory Group, Jeopardizing EPA Rulemaking

A U.S. federal court determined that the Department of Energy broke federal law when it assembled a Climate Working Group composed of five climate skeptics, a finding that could imperil the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to repeal the endangerment finding. Environmental groups had sued after the DOE convened the group without public notice, and contend the DOE report informed the EPA’s proposed rule to rescind the legal basis for many climate regulations.

Key Points

  • A federal court found the Department of Energy violated the statute governing federal advisory committees when it formed a Climate Working Group of five climate skeptics.
  • Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists sued after the DOE convened the group without public notice and argued the DOE report was used to inform the EPA’s proposed repeal of the endangerment finding.
  • The EPA’s proposed rule to rescind the endangerment finding is under final review at the White House; plaintiffs have asked the EPA to rescind the forthcoming final rule.

WASHINGTON, Jan 30 - A federal court ruling on Friday concluded that the U.S. Department of Energy violated federal law when it created a Climate Working Group, a development that may put the Environmental Protection Agency’s pending rulemaking in jeopardy.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a judgment finding that the Trump administration’s establishment of the Climate Working Group - which was made up of five individuals identified as climate change skeptics - ran afoul of the law that governs federal advisory committees.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed the lawsuit last year after the working group was convened without public meetings or formal notice, according to the complaint. Those plaintiffs allege the DOE drafted a report that was used to inform the EPA’s proposed rule to rescind the "endangerment finding," which serves as the legal foundation for climate-related regulations.

The DOE’s report was released on July 29, the same day the EPA formally proposed a rule that would eliminate the endangerment finding. The existence of the working group was not publicly disclosed at the time the department published its report, the plaintiffs said.

EDF senior attorney Erin Murphy reacted to the court’s decision, saying: "The federal court’s ruling is absolutely clear - the Trump Administration violated federal law by secretly convening a group tasked with developing a dangerously slanted report to use as the basis for attacking the Endangerment Finding."

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The EPA’s effort to repeal the endangerment finding remains under final review at the White House. The rule was initially expected to be released late last year, according to filings and statements noted in the lawsuit.


Context and next steps

The judgment raises legal and procedural questions about the advisory process used to produce the DOE report and the extent to which that report influenced EPA rulemaking. Plaintiffs have urged the EPA to rescind its forthcoming final rule to repeal the endangerment finding on the basis that the DOE working group’s report improperly informed the agency’s action.

Risks

  • The court ruling could put the EPA’s planned repeal of the endangerment finding at legal risk, creating uncertainty for environmental regulatory policy - impacts could be felt across the energy and regulatory sectors.
  • The lack of public disclosure about the working group and its report raises procedural and transparency questions that may delay or complicate the EPA’s rulemaking timeline - this uncertainty affects stakeholders in energy markets and companies subject to climate regulation.

More from Commodities

Precious Metals Plunge Sends Ripples Through Global Markets Feb 2, 2026 Gold Plunge Intensifies After CME Margin Hikes and Warsh Nomination Spurs Market Reassessment Feb 2, 2026 European Gas Prices Plunge as Forecasts Turn Milder Feb 2, 2026 BCA's MacroQuant Sees Dollar Weakness; Boosts Oil, Copper and Gold Calls Feb 2, 2026 Russian Oil Transit Through Ukraine Falls to Decade Low Amid Pipeline Strikes Feb 2, 2026