Following Trump’s lead, some GOP states seek to limit environmental regulations

Republican-Led Efforts to Limit State Environmental Regulations Gain Momentum

Alabama lawmakers have approved controversial legislation that would significantly restrict the state’s ability to set environmental regulations exceeding federal standards. The measure, passed Tuesday by the Alabama Legislature, represents a growing trend among Republican-controlled states to limit environmental oversight at the state level.

The Alabama bill prevents state agencies from establishing restrictions on pollutants and hazardous substances that go beyond federal limits. In areas where no federal standard exists, the state could only adopt new rules if officials can demonstrate a “direct causal link” between exposure to harmful emissions and “manifest bodily harm” to humans.

Supporters frame the measure as essential for economic development and business competitiveness. Republican Senator Donnie Chesteen, the bill’s sponsor, described it as “pro-business” legislation during a legislative committee meeting earlier this month.

“If we’re going to be able to compete with states in the Southeast to attract and bring some of these businesses in, then we need to have these standards adopted so that it’s clearly defined what our companies are working with,” Chesteen said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various business groups endorsed the legislation, while supporters argued it aligns with former President Donald Trump’s deregulatory agenda.

Environmental advocates warn the bill could severely hamper the state’s ability to protect public health. Sarah Stokes, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, called it an “impossible hurdle” for establishing state regulations, noting that the bill specifically states an “increased risk of disease” is not sufficient to demonstrate harm to humans.

“It’s a blank check to businesses. We’re basically sacrificing human health for businesses,” Stokes said. “That doesn’t seem like the best calculation for our citizens.”

The legislation also prohibits agencies from using the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, which evaluates health hazards of environmental chemicals, as the default basis for water quality standards. This system has faced criticism from chemical industry lobbyists who characterize it as burdensome and scientifically flawed.

Cara Horowitz, an environmental law professor and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, explained the far-reaching implications: “Alabama could not rely, for example, on studies showing a correlation between pollution exposure and an increased risk of disease.”

The Alabama measure is part of a growing movement across Republican-controlled states. Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed an executive order last year preventing the state from enacting environmental rules stricter than federal standards unless specifically authorized by state law or the governor. Tennessee lawmakers passed similar legislation requiring more stringent regulations to be based on links to “manifest bodily harm in humans,” and Utah has introduced comparable legislation.

According to Stokes, the Alabama bill goes further than Tennessee’s law and was introduced after advocacy groups persuaded the Alabama Environmental Management Commission to consider updating state standards for arsenic, cyanide and 11 other toxic pollutants.

Democrats in the Alabama Legislature strongly opposed the measure. Representative Chris England argued the bill turns Alabama residents into “test subjects” and creates “a petri dish for businesses to do as they will until they kill people.” Representative Neil Rafferty criticized the legislation for “defining sound science just to gut our ability to use it to drive science-based and data-driven policy.”

After two hours of debate, Republican lawmakers voted to end discussion and force a vote. The state House of Representatives approved the bill 88-34, sending it to Republican Governor Kay Ivey’s desk for final approval.

Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the impact on regulating PFAS chemicals, often called “forever chemicals,” which have contaminated large areas across the Southern United States. These persistent substances, found in everything from non-stick cookware to firefighting foam, have been linked to various health problems including cancer and developmental issues.

The legislative push to limit state environmental authority coincides with the Biden administration’s efforts to reverse Trump-era rollbacks of environmental protections related to power plants, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions.