President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to cut federal climate, air and water regulations during his second term, an agenda that could target rules governing everything from auto emissions to power plant pollution to drinking water standards.
Trump has said that Lee Zeldin, his nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “will ensure fair and rapid deregulatory decisions implemented in a way that unleashes the power of American companies.”
Business groups and many Republican leaders are cheering Trump’s plan to weaken environmental protections, saying it is too strict and hurts the economy. But in states that have focused on combating climate change and pollution, attorneys general and lawmakers are preparing to fight back by filing lawsuits, issuing their own regulations or adding staff to state environmental agencies.
State leaders say they were tested by the first Trump administration when his agencies sought to roll back more than 100 environmental regulations. Many of these rollbacks were thrown out by courts after legal challenges.
“One of the things we learned during Trump 1.0 is that Trump has a tremendous ability to break the law,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in an interview with Stateline. “There is a way to create regulations and a way to change them. If the law is not followed, which was often not the case during the first Trump administration, we will sue, and as in the past, we will win.”
Of the roughly 120 lawsuits California filed against the first Trump administration, 70 were environmental cases, Bonta said. The state won the majority of these cases.
Bonta’s office will be a key player in the effort to stop Trump’s deregulatory agenda. He is asking state lawmakers to boost his agency’s staff and budget as it prepares for a four-year battle with the federal government.
“Trench War”
Environmentalists say they aren’t sure which environmental rules Trump will attack first. The best bet is the EPA’s waivers, which allow California to set its own automobile emissions limits that are more stringent than federal regulations. Many other states, which account for 40% of the light-duty vehicle market, follow California’s standards.
“[California] “We need federal support to reduce transportation emissions that is really focused on our EPA exemptions,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley School of Law. “That’s where we are most vulnerable.”
During his first term, Trump attempted to revoke California’s waivers, an attempt that was met with litigation throughout his term. California leaders say the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to arbitrarily remove its waivers.
After last month’s election, California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom visited Washington, D.C., to urge the Biden administration to quickly approve eight additional exemptions covering heavy-duty vehicles, garden equipment, trains, trucks and other categories.
Meanwhile, 17 red states, led by Ohio, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging California’s authority to exceed federal auto emissions standards. They want the case to be heard by the US Supreme Court. The Trump administration would likely support the effort, and environmental groups fear the conservative-leaning court could jeopardize longstanding exemptions.
Attorneys general in numerous blue states are also preparing to defend a range of other rules issued by the Biden administration.
These could include power plant emissions, methane leaks from oil and gas operations, PFAS contamination in drinking water, water quality on tribal lands, endangered species and permits for infrastructure projects.
Trump will also likely seek to expand oil production on public lands, cut funding for neat energy projects and halt offshore wind leases. In liberal states, officials say these measures would jeopardize their work to combat climate change and protect the environment. Executives on both sides expect a busy four years for the lawyers.
“The idea of Trump-proofing [environmental policy] basically it just means being prepared to go to court,” Elkind said. “It will be a turf war in court.”
State backstops
Some states may again attempt to enact “backstop” state laws if federal protections are lifted. For example, in 2017, California lawmakers considered a bill that would have granted federal protections to all species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. That way, even if Trump’s wildlife officials delist species, they would still be protected under California law.
States will continue to act because the need for cleaner air and water and safer products is there.
– Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States
That measure failed to move forward, but with Trump back in office, lawmakers may have a renewed interest in protecting endangered species at the state level, said Dylan McDowell, executive director of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a collaborative forum for state lawmakers.
“This is an area where states can really focus on strengthening things within their own borders,” McDowell said. “States can look at the existing federal standard and set it as a floor instead of a ceiling.”
If Trump rolls back other rules on issues like water quality, state lawmakers could have similar conversations. States often have the authority to set stricter standards than the federal government, noted Stan Meiburg, executive director of the Andrew Sabin Family Center for Environment and Sustainability at Wake Forest University.
“That becomes the question that states have to ask themselves: Is the protection that we have left behind sufficient to meet the environmental values that we have as a state?” he said. “If not, you need state laws to protect that.”
It’s unclear how Trump will approach some issues, including PFAS, or “forever chemicals” – a class of chemicals used in a variety of consumer products that do not break down naturally and have been shown to boost health risks. Earlier this year, the EPA issued drinking water standards to limit exposure to hazardous chemicals after years of bipartisan work at the state level to address contamination problems. However, some industry groups and drinking water suppliers have rejected the federal regulation.
Regardless of whether Trump’s EPA tries to repeal the rule, environmental advocates expect state lawmakers to continue their work on the issue.
“There is bipartisan support for PFAS protections,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals. “States will continue to act because the need for cleaner air and water and safer products is there.”
Personnel concerns
In addition to repealing specific rules, Trump could cut EPA funding and staff. Some states fear they would not receive critical support for air and water quality monitoring, analysis and enforcement because of an understaffed EPA.
“If there are going to be cuts at the federal level, we have to make them at the state level,” said Massachusetts Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat. “There weren’t enough staff in our state environmental and climate offices anyway. That’s an area I hope to put more focus on.”
In New York, lawmakers sought to enact protections for certain waterways in 2022 after the first Trump administration weakened protections for such waterways. But the effort failed because state regulators said they lacked the capacity to oversee a novel program, said Democratic Assembly member Deborah Glick.
“There are some renovations going on [at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation]and it will require significant improvements,” Glick said. “We tried to fill vacancies.”
Cuts to the EPA could boost the burden on the state agency, she said, a factor that budget writers in the state legislature will have to consider.
