EPA Chief Rolls Back Climate, Air and Water Regulations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week announced a slew of actions it plans to take to roll back climate, air and water regulations, many of which were established during the previous administration, and some that precede it. 

In March 12 remarks, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin characterized the shift in approach as an effort to realign with the agency’s “core mission” he described as having been lost under “activist” goals. “The Biden-Harris Administration paired burdensome, legally questionable regulations with unpredictable but punitive enforcement aimed at shutting down American energy and manufacturing and promoting so-called ‘environmental justice,’” he said. 

Various industry and construction groups were quick to praise the announcements—totaling more than 30 separate actions the administration plans to take—but Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, said in a March 14 press call that “Zeldin and the Trump administration are abandoning the EPA mission. Full stop.”  

Rules the agency has stated it plans to reconsider are coal ash cleanup requirements; effluent limitation guidelines for wastewater; the mercury air toxics standard; national ambient air quality standards; the interstate air pollution rule; and, perhaps most significantly, EPA policy stating that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. The “endangerment finding” was established in 2009 to align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling giving the agency authority to regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants. The policy is the underpinning of most current EPA rules related to climate change.

Similar to other federal agencies, EPA also announced it would disband departments regulating diversity, equity and inclusion and environmental justice. 

Guidance on WOTUS

While Zeldin announced numerous planned actions, only one—a joint EPA-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidance memo clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States, often shortened to WOTUS—was actually put into effect. 

The guidance instructs field personnel to require federal permits only for waters with a “continuous surface hydrological connection”—or direct abutment—to larger “navigable” bodies of water. This is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, and clears up continued confusion about wetlands and waters that require federal protection under the Clean Water Act, Zeldin said. 

The memo also states that EPA and the Corps will hold six listening sessions and a 30-day public comment period to gain further public input. 

Larry Liebesman, a senior advisor at environmental permitting consultant Dawson & Associates, said the memo will make it easier for project developers to obtain permits to begin construction. Historically, “determining jurisdiction has been very difficult. It's been expensive. It's caused time delays. There can be very different interpretations of different parts of the country,” Liebeseman, a former attorney at the U.S. Justice Dept., told ENR. “The idea is to provide relief, probably more clarity,” he said, noting, however, that the end result is “you will probably have a lot of wetlands that won't be considered federally regulated, and be more likely regulated at the state and local levels.”

Varied Reaction

Industry groups described the slew of EPA announcements as signs the administration is taking a “common-sense” approach to regulation. 

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement, “Voters sent a clear message in support of affordable, reliable and secure American energy, and the Trump administration is answering the call by moving forward” on many group priorities. 

Zeldin’s statements signaled a welcome reprieve from regulations the American Iron and Steel Institute considers “onerous," said Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO, including the cross-state air pollution rule and particulate matter national ambient air quality standards, which he added “would result in excessive costs and less growth opportunities for steel producers.” 

According to Dempsey, “the past four years have seen EPA impose costly and at times technically unachievable emission limits on steelmakers." He said the group, "on behalf of American steelmakers," is "pleased" that EPA current management is reviewing "many of these burdensome and duplicative regulations, "including several air emissions rules that adversely impact" the U.S industry. 

But environmental groups expressed chagrin and say the administration is on shaky legal ground, and are expecting to win in multiple legal challenges they plan to file.

Earthjustice’s Dillen added that the power and transportation sectors in recent years have demonstrated that emissions can be regulated and controlled without causing harm to companies’ bottom lines. 

The Biden administration sent a “very strong signal” that those sectors would be aggressively regulated under federal law, and that federal procurement would continue to emphasize a transition to clean energy projects. As a result, “states and energy regulators were making their plans, requiring utilities to make their plans.”  

The EPA changes are "a switching of the signal, and that is going to have a really profound impact,” she said.