EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s recent announcement of 31 historic actions the Agency plans to undertake “in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history” sent shockwaves throughout regulated industry, environmental groups, state and local regulatory agencies, and other concerned stakeholders across the nation.
Although the Agency’s announcement labels these actions as historic, they’re similar to actions taken by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during President Donald Trump’s first term of office. Pruitt’s deregulatory efforts were repeatedly foiled in courts across the nation, as ruling after ruling struck down those actions due to violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a statute that provides terms for agencies to write and revise regulations.
The APA requires agencies to publish proposed and final rules while allowing for public feedback during the process.
“One of the signature and most important features of the process is that the agency has to make clear what it intends or proposes to do and why,” says Nikki Reisch, director of climate and energy at the Center for International Environmental Law, according to TIME magazine. “It can’t just disregard these and steamroll ahead with what it intended, without explaining how it has considered and addressed those comments and why it is or isn’t taking them into account.”
The APA process requires agencies to provide scientific evidence for proposed regulations and deregulatory actions.
“Among the most significant changes the agency has proposed is a reconsideration of a 2009 finding (the endangerment finding) that determined greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pose a threat to public health—a finding that laid the foundation for much of the work the EPA has been able to do in the last 15 years,” TIME says.
“They have to [prove] the previous determination, that [GHG] emissions cause climate change and endanger public health and welfare, was wrong or was not based on sufficient scientific evidence. And there’s no basis for that. The science is quite clear, and the consensus is global,” says Michael Burger, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
These attempts at deregulation will certainly be challenged in court, “and, given the scientific evidence against the agency’s proposals, courts are not likely to rule in the administration’s favor,” adds TIME.
Other actions by the current administration are plans to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).
“ORD provides critical research on air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and climate change—work that informs federal regulations and disaster response,” notes North Carolina TV station WRAL News.
“Chris Frey, who led ORD from 2022 to 2024, says eliminating the office would cripple the agency’s ability to make science-based decisions,” the WRAL article says. “‘ORD is the scientific foundation for EPA’s work,’ Frey said. ‘Without it, the agency won’t have the independent, credible science it needs to develop defensible regulations.’”
These job cuts will likely “stall some of the revamps the Trump administration is trying to implement,” warns manufacturing news site Manufacturing Dive.
“[If] the Trump administration wants to repeal or weaken that regulation, it’s got to justify why it’s changing the rules of the game,” said Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University, in the Manufacturing Dive article. “Unless it’s got strong scientific evidence that counteracts or contradicts the science behind the existing regulation, there’s a good chance a court could conclude that it was arbitrary of an agency like EPA to ignore existing science and nevertheless repeal or weaken regulation.”
Regulatory and deregulatory actions take years to implement. The current atmosphere is one of uncertainty, so it’s recommended that impacted industry monitor proposed actions and “gather all the technical support data to submit when the commenting periods for the reconsidered rules open,” said Nicole Waxman, an attorney at environmental law firm Beveridge & Diamond. “Companies can also watch for lawsuits pertaining to the actions and if there are opportunities to intervene.
“‘I think keeping an eye on those legal challenges and opportunities to intervene in those legal challenges is going to be really key over the next several years, because you certainly want to be able to tell the court you know how this impacts your company and your company’s operations,’ Waxman said.”
Environment, health, and safety (EHS) professionals are advised to base long-term EHS strategies on larger trends and potential liabilities rather than considering uncertain and shifting individual regulatory actions.