The Trump administration has proposed to cut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual budget by 25 percent, from $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion. This would reduce EPA's staff by 25 percent, cut grants to states -- including some air and water programs -- by 30 percent, and eliminate several programs including those dealing with climate change. Although Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the proposal, "dead on arrival," the budget proposal gives an idea of the drastic shift in priorities of this administration.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to confirm Ryan Zinke to be the next Secretary of Interior. As secretary, Zinke will have to balance conservation with resource extraction. He describes himself as a "conservative conservationist." Zinke is expected to support federal control of public lands, and has outlined three main priorities: 1) addressing National Park Service's estimated $12.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog; 2) increasing employee morale; and 3) emphasizing that tribal "sovereignty needs to mean something." In his confirmation hearing, Zinke voiced tentative support for climate science, saying the "climate is changing, man is an influence. I think where there's debate is where that influence is and what can we do about it."

The Senate has also voted to confirm Rick Perry to be the next Secretary of Energy. As a presidential candidate, Perry vowed to eliminate the department, but during his confirmation hearing, Perry said he now supports its mission after being briefed on the many vital functions of the Department of Energy. The Department plays some role in energy policy, but largely is focused on maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal and network of 17 national laboratories.

Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the Waters of the United States rule. Also known as the Clean Water Rule, this technical regulation clarifies the federal government's authority to regulate pollution in smaller streams and wetlands feeding into larger bodies of water. The rule has been fiercely opposed by farmers, housing developers, and energy companies. While an executive order cannot repeal a regulation, the Trump administration is moving quickly to start a review process that paves the way for the eventual revision or repeal of this rule. The review process requires a public notice and comment period, where organizations and private citizens can voice their concerns.

Next week, Trump is expected to sign an executive order on domestic energy development. The executive order will have several provisions to expand domestic energy production on federal lands, which includes overturning a 2015 moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands, and starting the process to revise or repeal carbon dioxide regulations on existing power plants (i.e., Clean Power Plan). The Clean Power Plan is projected to reduce power sector emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. A new analysis found that repealing the rule would have significant implications in 2030. Repeal would increase emissions by more than 500 million metric tons, cost the U.S. economy $100 billion, and worsening air quality would lead to more than 40,000 premature deaths.

Moreover, EPA has started to undo climate change regulations implemented during the Obama administration. On Thursday, the agency withdrew a requirement that oil and gas companies provide information on methane emitted from their operations to assist in the development of standards to decrease those emissions. Methane is the second biggest driver of climate change: it has a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide, but remains in the atmosphere for a shorter amount of time (about a decade versus the hundreds of years for carbon dioxide). The information collected from the rule would have helped determined whether or not to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas wells. Scott Pruitt said he would like to assess whether the information is needed. Separately, Congress is moving to nullify the Department of Interior regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands. The Senate is expected to vote on nullifying the rule as early next week.

Also last week, Scott Pruitt was shown to have lied to Congress about using a private email server during his confirmation hearing. Records released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request revealed Scott Pruitt did indeed use a private email account for state business. This directly contradicts what Pruitt said during his confirmation hearing, when he stated that he only used his official email address and his government-issued phone to conduct state business.

In EPA personnel news, Scott Pruitt has picked Ryan Jackson as his Chief of Staff. Jackson has previously worked as a longtime aide to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), and worked on the team that guided Pruitt through his Senate confirmation process. Scott Pruitt is reportedly picking Samantha Dravis to head EPA's Office of Policy, which is the "primary policy arm" of the agency. Dravis has aided in fights against the EPA in senior roles at the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and its affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund. Pruitt's picks are seen as establishing an anti-regulatory regime within EPA.

What You Can Do

  • Call your Senators to oppose the use of the Congressional Review Act to roll back DOI's methane regulations.
  • Call your Member of Congress to express your concerns about Trump's EPA budget cuts.

Suggested Questions for your Member of Congress (MOC):

  • Questions for all MOCs
    • Nearly half of EPA's budget goes to state and local grants. These grants pay for the cleanup of pollution like brownfields and abandoned industrial sites. What will you do to protect these grants?
    • Is it acceptable for nominees to lie to Congress? What should happen to those who do?
  • Questions to ask MOCs who may be interested in eliminating/undermining EPA
    • I understand that you want to eliminate the EPA and let the states control environmental rules. If you eliminate the federal EPA and leave environmental regulation to individual states, how will those state agencies be funded and who would control pollution that goes from one state to the other (for example, pollution that goes downwind or downstream)?

- Energy and Environment Policy Working Group, RISE Stronger

Have comments or something to add? Contact the RISE Energy & Environment Policy Working Group at [email protected]