Latest news with #EnvironmentalProtectionagency
USA Today
11-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump administration proposes to slash emission limits on power plants
Trump administration proposes to slash emission limits on power plants Show Caption Hide Caption What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans? Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday two major proposals that would repeal greenhouse gas emissions regulations and weaken mercury pollution standards for fossil-fuel power plants, part of the Trump administration's effort to revive coal. The proposals include the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards and a separate one to roll back Biden-era limits on mercury and soot from the country's dirtiest coal plants. Greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, while mercury toxins can cause brain impairment. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, joined at the press conference by several Republican lawmakers and Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, justified the moves by citing the country's ambition for energy dominance and the rising power demand from artificial intelligence data centers. 'Data centers that support AI alone will eat up 10% of U.S. energy supply within 10 years,' Zeldin said. 'Right now, it's about 3 to 4% of total U.S. electricity demand.' He also said that the administration is removing these Obama- and Biden-era rules to relieve fossil-fuel power plants from regulatory burdens, directly attacking the central piece of the Biden administration's climate policy, including stricter pollution limits on mercury and particulate matter pollution. A public comment period will follow the proposed repeals, after which the EPA will revise and finalize the rule. However, legal challenges could complicate that process. Critics of the Trump administration's energy policy say they're concerned because it doesn't factor in the health impacts on local communities, which are often low-income families who live closer to the power plants. This move also comes at a time when decades-long progress to clean up air is facing a threat from frequent, raging wildfires blanketing cities and towns in smoke. 'Rolling back this lifesaving update would be a grave mistake that would expose people to toxic pollution proven to harm brain development, trigger asthma attacks, and cause cancer and premature death,' American Lung Association President and CEO Harold Wimmer said in a statement. EPA data shows that power plants are the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after vehicle exhaust. Power plants released nearly 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The agency did not release a complete count of all emissions for 2023. But 2022 data show the electric power sector made up a quarter of all U.S. emissions that year. 'Any government that was acting in good faith to meet the challenge of climate change would look to reductions from power plants as a first step,' Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules, told USA TODAY over email. 'But this administration is not a good faith actor and is certainly not acting to protect Americans,' Goffman said. USA TODAY previously reported that President Donald Trump granted exemptions to over 60 power plants that delayed when they would have to meet the more stringent Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by two years. Under the proposals made on June 11, the plants would never have to comply with the Biden-updated pollution limits. Zeldin pointed out that the limits on mercury pollution in effect since 2012 would remain. Emissions from power plants have been declining over the past decade, thanks in part to EPA regulations. But experts say the administration's move could put that progress at risk. During Trump's inauguration, the president declared a national energy emergency and later in April signed an executive order to boost the coal industry amid increased demand for electricity for artificial intelligence data centers. The revival efforts are happening as fossil fuels, particularly coal, are being phased out due to the decreasing costs of renewables and their ability to reduce harmful emissions. Search the coal plant closest to you below. Includes facilities beyond the ones exempted from the EPA rule. A recent report from the International Energy Agency projected that 'electricity demand from data centers worldwide is set to more than double by 2030.' Artificial intelligence will be the most significant driver, the report said. In May, the Department of Energy ordered two fossil-fuel plants to continue operating through the summer despite their earlier plans to shut down last month. J.H. Campbell, a coal-fired plant in Michigan, was expected to retire in May. Eddystone Generating Station in Pennsylvania was planning to shut down its gas units in May. The Department of Energy's orders require the operators to keep them running for 90 days to 'minimizing the risk of generation shortfall.' Earlier this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a report that the country's electricity prices in 2024 were already cheaper and less volatile than before. The proposed repeal of greenhouse gas limits and updated Mercury and Air Toxics Standard would save power generators $1.2 billion and $120 million per year, respectively, in regulatory costs, according to the EPA. 'American families will pay the cost of these rollbacks in higher health care bills from emergency room visits, missed workdays and missed school days,' said Michelle Roos, executive director of Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA staff. 'The only people who benefit from these rollbacks are the biggest emitters of toxic pollution who don't want to install cleaner technologies,' Roos said.
USA Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump delayed pollution limits on the nation's dirtiest coal plants. Is one near you?
Trump delayed pollution limits on the nation's dirtiest coal plants. Is one near you? The Trump administration says cheaper energy is the goal. Show Caption Hide Caption What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans? Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution. Before leaving her East Texas home, Paulette Goree checks her air monitor. If the hue is green on the connected phone app, she steps outside to tend to her backyard garden where she grows tomatoes, squash and peppers. If it is red, she stays inside. Over the years, she has watched respiratory illnesses strike her family one by one. Her sister died from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Her father battled a lung disease. Her husband has it now. Goree has asthma herself. Goree, 72, lives in Beckville, a town of fewer than 800 people, just miles from the Martin Lake coal plant, a 2.4-gigawatt facility that has loomed over the region since the late 1970s. 'We all know how harmful the Martin Lake pollution can be,' Goree told USA TODAY, sitting inside her mustard-colored house. 'The majority of the people in our little community suffer with some kind of respiratory ailment.' Luminant Generation Company, which owns the facility, did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding Goree's account and steps taken by it to reduce emissions. Last year, the EPA said the surrounding counties, Rusk and Panola, had failed to meet air quality standards, blaming Martin Lake as the major source. Luminant disagreed, calling the EPA's finding 'unsupported.' The agency stood by its analysis, reaffirming that not enough steps were taken to clean up the surrounding areas. But new federal actions could stall or even erase efforts to reduce air pollution. In April, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation that delays a key pollution rule, related to mercury and fine particles, for 68 power plants by two years, pushing the deadline to 2029. The Environmental Protection Agency has also proposed repealing those updated standards entirely, meaning plants may never have to meet them at all. The rules, updated by the Joe Biden administration last year, would have required continuous monitoring and tighter pollution limits, especially for plants that burn lignite coal, a particularly dirty form of fuel. Operators decried the rule as too costly. Governors from several states sued. A USA TODAY review of federal data found that many of the 60-plus power plants benefiting from the exemption are among the nation's worst polluters, including six that rank within the nation's top 10 largest greenhouse gas emitters from 2023, the latest available year. Many of these companies have also paid hundreds of millions in environmental fines and settlements in recent decades. Several pollutants from coal plants have dropped in the past decade, which experts attribute largely to the EPA's 2012 standards for these pollutants. Even then, coal plants continue to emit large amounts of mercury, fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides – all of which can be harmful to public health. According to a USA TODAY analysis, these 68 power plants emitted 8% of total mercury emissions, a disproportionate figure considering these plants only formed less than a percent of the 14,000 facilities that reported emissions in 2020, the latest available year on EPA's National Emissions Inventory. Luminant Generation-owned Martin Lake in East Texas, where Goree lives, is one of the facilities on the exemption list. The plant is among the nation's top sulfur dioxide emitters and the sixth largest for nitrogen oxides, according to 2024's EPA Clean Air Markets Program Data. It was also among the largest mercury emitters in 2020, according to the National Emissions Inventory data. Each time she sees the plant's three smokestacks in the distance, she finds herself thinking about the air her community is breathing, Goree said. Goree remembers her town through images of crickets singing and fireflies lighting up the night sky. She has always loved being outside, tending to her garden, or spending time near Martin Lake, a 5,000-acre body of water known for its bass and catfish. These days, though, fewer people fish there, she said. Fewer still picnic or hike in the nearby park, she added. 'I just want to live out my retirement years in peace and quiet with clean air to breathe and fresh water to enjoy the outdoor life,' she said, emphasizing that public health should be central to climate policy. 'That's my biggest concern. It's something they can do to help the community, and they're just not doing it,' Goree said. Farther south in Fort Bend County, longtime resident Haley Schulz spent years working in the oil and gas industry until motherhood and a deep dive into environmental research transformed her into an environmental rights advocate. She discovered she lives just 15 miles from W.A. Parish, the largest coal plant in Texas. Then things from her past started to make sense: her classmates always carrying inhalers, her own relentless cough that once sent her to the emergency room. 'It felt like my chest was on fire,' Schulz recalled. 'It felt like I was having a heart attack every single time I had a tickle in my throat.' Doctors diagnosed her with costochondritis from the nonstop cough, she said. While they could not say if pollution was to blame, Schulz said the irritation she feels after visiting parks near the plant speaks volumes. 'That's not nature,' she said after visiting parks near the plant. 'That's the soot.' Search the coal plant closest to you below. Includes facilities beyond the ones exempted from the EPA rule. USA TODAY reached out to NRG Energy, who operates the W.A. Parish plant and three others on the exemption list. The company spokesperson, Ann Duhon, didn't directly comment on Schulz's experience but said that the company does not see any short-term impacts due to the proclamation, which it said it is currently reviewing. 'In recent years, NRG has invested millions of dollars installing environmental technologies at our facilities, which will remain in place regardless of any EPA rollbacks,' the email statement said. About half of the companies or parent companies that operate the exempted power plants have a history of environmental violations, according to a review of data compiled by the nonprofit Good Jobs First. In 2006, the Alabama Power Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, agreed to settle for $200 million with the federal government over alleged violations of the Clean Air Act from its James H. Miller Jr. plant. The same year, East Kentucky Power Cooperative agreed to pay over $600 million for similar violations. Virginia Electric Power Co., a subsidiary of Dominion Energy which has a power plant on the exemption list, has a Clean Air Act settlement totaling $1.2 billion in 2003. More recently, in 2023, Dynegy Midwest Generation reached a settlement for 'disposal of coal ash that allegedly led to groundwater pollution.' After all it could be inevitable Coal operators spread across two dozen states, mostly in Republican-leaning counties, welcomed the move. Scott Brooks, spokesman for Tennessee Valley Authority, which has four of the exempted power plants, told USA TODAY, in an email: 'This exemption will allow TVA to keep running these assets in a cost-effective way and help ensure reliability for our 10 million customers,' adding that their facilities follow the previous and current standards. East Kentucky Power Cooperative Spokesperson Nick Comer said that the updated rules targeting mercury and air toxins would have forced it to turn off a coal-fired unit if just one of the 8000-plus fabric bags get a dime-sized hole. When resources are limited and market power is expensive, Comer said, 'this could lead to tens of millions of dollars in costs for replacement power and market performance penalties.' The Southern Company said in a statement to USA TODAY, 'extending the current deadline will provide additional time needed both to address potential rule changes and further demonstrate compliance to the current requirements.' Coal powered America's industrial revolution, but its role in the country's energy grid has declined significantly over the recent decades, down to just over 15% of electricity in 2024, from about half at the beginning of this century. The shift has been driven not only by policy, but also by economics as cheaper and easier-to-maintain energy sources have emerged. Notably among them is natural gas, while wind and solar have been gradually increasing their contributions. The transition to renewable energy is 'inevitable over the long term', said Julie McNamara, an associate policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 'The Trump administration is attempting to take every measure it can to prop up coal plants, against economics, against public health, against climate,' McNamara said. 'This will provide potentially a little more money in the pockets of the coal plant owners, but it will not provide for the communities that house these coal plants,' she said. According to the latest Energy Information Administration data, hundreds of coal-fired plants have closed over the past decades, leaving only a couple hundred operational, many of which are scheduled for retirement within the next decade. Deregulation: The bigger picture The EPA is proposing broader changes to pollution control standards, including revisiting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. This is how the agency defines what levels are considered unhealthy. The agency also wants to reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program which requires the nation's largest facilities to tally up those emissions every year. Whether or not people breathe clean air isn't entirely up to the EPA. States and local governments play a key role, as they are responsible for writing and enforcing permits. But, experts say, the signals from the top might impact decision-making downstream. 'If the message they're getting from the EPA is all this deregulation or these rollbacks still meet the definition of Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, then what you're telling that audience is, don't do anything,' said Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules. The Trump administration also recently proposed a 55% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget that would bring the staffing back to 1980s levels. 'Even if there were no budget cuts, and the rules remained in place, the administration seems committed to maintain a deregulatory environment, including by not doing enforcement,' Goffman said. When USA TODAY reached out to the EPA for a response, the agency's press office shared an unsigned emailed statement saying that the president may exempt any stationary source on grounds of national security interests or based on the determination that the technology is not available. 'This is an authority that solely rests with the President, not EPA,' the statement said. However, the regulatory agency did not respond directly to the questions sent by USA TODAY and referred to the White House. In an emailed statement, White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers said: 'President Trump's commonsense agenda unleashes American energy to protect our national security, lower the cost of living, and provide necessary electrical demands for emerging technologies such as AI. While the media refuses to acknowledge that American energy is much cleaner than foreign energy, hardworking Americans voted for President Trump to roll back harmful and radical regulations.' In total, the EPA has announced at least half a dozen plans to scrap or scale down rules and programs that have contributed to the progress of cleaning up the air and curbing the impacts of climate change. Ananya Roy, an epidemiologist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the arguments for deregulation are to reduce costs and regulatory burden. 'EPA's mission is supposed to be to protect public health, and in this instance, they won't be,' Roy said.
USA Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
EPA will roll back limits on 4 'forever chemicals.' See if they were found in your water.
EPA will roll back limits on 4 'forever chemicals.' See if they were found in your water. Show Caption Hide Caption What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans? Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans May 14 to rescind drinking water limits it set on four 'forever chemicals' last spring. A USA TODAY analysis of EPA data shows the chemicals have recently been detected in hundreds of water systems serving over 84 million Americans. Most of these detections weren't enough to trigger action under the now-abandoned rule, but dozens of utilities providing water to a total of 4 million Americans reported measurements that would have required them to install advanced filtration or find other sources of water. This group includes water systems covering Fort Worth in Texas and Fresno and Sacramento in California, which each serve over a half-million customers. This tally is an undercount, though, as the EPA data is incomplete. The agency is only halfway through a three-year effort requiring thousands of water systems to test for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. These manmade chemicals don't easily decompose in nature, so they tend to accumulate in human bodies, where they can lead to certain cancers and other serious health complications. The EPA originally adopted its PFAS rule under the Biden administration in April 2024, setting limits on six types of chemicals. Limits on just two of those – PFOS and PFOA – will remain set at 4 parts per trillion, although the EPA now plans to give water systems two more years to comply, setting the deadline in 2031 instead of 2029. 'We will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance,' said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a news release. 'This will support water systems across the country, including small systems in rural communities, as they work to address these contaminants.' Shortly after the rule was approved last spring, trade associations representing water utilities filed suit to challenge it, echoing sentiments many water systems have told USA TODAY. They say the regulation unfairly burdens them and their customers with the expense of filtering out chemicals put there by outside sources, such as airports, military bases and manufacturers. The executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, which is one of the organizations that sued the EPA, applauded the two-year delay. 'States and water systems are struggling with the timeframes to complete the pilot testing, development of construction plans and building the necessary treatment improvements,' said Alan Roberson in a news release. The EPA plans to reconsider limits on these four chemicals and finalize its reworked PFAS rule by next spring. In the meantime, the agency announced a new initiative called 'PFAS OUT' to share resources, tools, funding opportunities and technical assistance with water utilities, particularly those struggling with PFOS or PFOA levels above the agency's limits. Clean water advocates suspected changes were coming for months, since the Trump administration returned to power, but they were still dismayed by the announcement. 'We're just going to have to keep drinking PFAS for another decade,' said Betsy Southerland, a retired official from the EPA's water office. 'By having drinking water standards only for PFOA and PFOS we're dealing with the legacy contamination. … All the current ones they're now using will not have any drinking water standards.' Southerland accused the EPA of providing relief to PFAS manufacturers, which developed the four chemicals whose limits are now rescinded as alternatives to older types of forever chemicals. She said the filtration technique that typically works on the two PFAS that still have limits – known as granular activated carbon – is less effective on the four chemicals whose limits have been nixed. So, more of those chemicals could now legally remain, even in drinking water that's been treated to remove PFOS and PFOA. '(Utilities) might have to do some additional different kind of treatment than granulated activated carbon, and so that's what (the EPA) is giving them full relief from,' Southerland explained. 'This is a public health betrayal, plain and simple,' added Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs for the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. 'The EPA is bowing to industry pressure and leaving millions exposed to toxic PFAS in their tap water.' Her organization has estimated 158 million Americans drink water contaminated with forever chemicals, based on additional state and federal test results that extend beyond the EPA data USA TODAY used in its analysis. Benesh pointed out 2021's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included billions of dollars for removing PFAS from drinking water and that some large manufacturers have paid multibillion-dollar settlements to utilities. She accused the EPA of shifting the burden to the public instead of further strengthening clean water laws or holding polluters accountable. 'Instead of building on this progress, the Trump Administration is threatening to leave Americans to foot the bill for drinking water they can't trust and healthcare they can't afford,' Benesh said.
USA Today
09-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Trump budget targets satellites, 'Energy Star' and sea turtles in climate-related cuts
Trump budget targets satellites, 'Energy Star' and sea turtles in climate-related cuts EPA budget cut by nearly 55%, National Parks by 25% in Trump's proposed spending plan. Show Caption Hide Caption What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans? Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution. Coming up with a final federal budget always involves arm twisting and other negotiating tactics as everyone lobbies for their priorities, so the initial budget proposal released by the White House in early May remains far from final. However, pick any topic related to conservation, environmental protection, climate change or weather and it's not hard to find someone concerned by the cuts the Trump administration is proposing in its quest to shrink the federal budget. In total, President Donald Trump's proposed budget recommends chopping more than $32 billion across agencies charged with monitoring weather, oceans and the atmosphere and protecting natural and historic resources, parks and conservation lands, according to a USA TODAY analysis. The cuts echo an array of actions already taken by federal agencies and the president's Department of Government Efficiency. The Environmental Protection Agency for example, faces a 54.5% proposed cut, taking its budget to a level last seen when Ronald Reagan was president. The proposed cuts in other environmental-related spending range from 15% to 55% across federal agencies. Democrats, former federal scientists and advocacy groups say the cuts will set back the nation's efforts to combat climate change, leave the country's environmental satellite programs lagging other nations and allow increases in pollution and harmful emissions. The White House said its overall budget would 'save taxpayers $163 billion in wasteful spending" among non-military agencies and "provide historic increases for defense and border security.' The president's supporters say such cuts have to happen if the nation is ever going to pay down its debt. Shrinking the federal deficit through budget cuts is crucial, said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think-tank that drafted Project 2025. She was one of its many authors. The president's budget does include "a lot of cuts to offices that look at renewables and social and environmental justice,' she said. 'We have a $36 trillion national debt and we have a $2 trillion deficit. We shouldn't be spending money on these things." "We want to have a fiscally sound budget, just the way households have a fiscally sound budget." Trump could balance the budget by cutting Social Security and Medicare, she said. "But during the campaign, the president said he was not going to cut those programs … He's fulfilling his promises." Activists see a 'striking blow' But a wide range of conservation and environmental advocates argue the president's budget could have devastating impacts for years to come and that there are better ways to cut federal spending. The cuts come on top of months of staff reductions that have seen the workforce in some agencies reduced by as much as 20% or more, according to USA TODAY reports. The budget proposal is "another clear signal of how far this administration is willing to go to demolish the critical infrastructure that supports our cherished public lands and wildlife,' said Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, a nonprofit animal advocacy group. 'The Trump administration is making a grievous error by slashing programs and staff in the name of efficiency and would be striking a disastrous blow to the agencies charged with conserving imperiled species and habitats." Ranking Democrats in the House and Senate vowed to work against some of the budget reductions. 'Trump's budget ‒ bought and paid for by his fossil fuel megadonors ‒ would be an unmitigated disaster for everyone except the looters and polluters,' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a news release. With the cuts to the EPA budget, the 'most hazardous industries would get to spew cancer-causing pollution and greenhouse gases into our air, exacerbating climate-flation on everything from insurance to groceries.' Here are some examples of key cuts: Department of Interior At the Interior department, which includes the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey, the budget would be cut by almost a third, even though it's slated to take on services now provided by other agencies. The budget would drop from $17 billion to $12 billion next year. National parks advocacy groups were quick to raise concerns about the more than $1 billion cut to the parks budget, a 25% reduction. The budget also included a proposal to shed 'many' of the smaller, less visited 433 parks by handing them over to states to manage, though it did not specify how many or which ones. At the U.S. Geological Survey, $564 million would be eliminated for university grants and programs that focus on "social agendas" such as climate change rather than "achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals," according to the budget document. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's office that oversees protected marine species such as whales and sea turtles would be merged with an office performing similar functions for land and freshwater species at the fish and wildlife service that is slated for a $37 million cut. That concept had been discussed among the agencies for years. The merger is "consistent with the President's efforts to improve performance and reduce the federal bureaucracy, as well as his deregulatory agenda," the White House said. The administration's budget also announced plans to create a new "Federal Wildland Fire Service" in the Interior Department. It would take wildfire mitigation and firefighting responsibilities at the U.S. Forest Service, which has been under the Department of Agriculture for 120 years, and merge with staff with similar responsibilities at four agencies in the Interior Department. Environmental Protection Agency The Environmental Protection Agency's budget would shrink from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion. The cuts would end $1 billion in grant funding to states. Almost $500 million would be eliminating or reducing three grant programs the administration describes as "radical environmental justice work, woke climate research, and skewed, overly-precautionary modeling that influences regulations." Two additions are noted across these environmental areas, $9 million would be added to a budget of more than $100 million for the drinking water program and $27 million to a grant program for Indigenous Tribes to maintain water and wastewater infrastructure, increasing the program's budget several times over. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration A variety of "climate-dominated" research, data and grant programs would be terminated at NOAA, reducing the budget by $1.3 billion. The cuts also include NOAA's climate adaptation partnerships. The proposal would scale back the planned replacement for NOAA's existing geostationary operational environmental satellites. The system provides a host of public data for weather observation and modeling, as well as other kinds of earth, atmospheric and solar data. Plans for its replacement would have added improved imagery and composition, as well as additional instruments for monitoring the atmosphere and ocean. The Trump proposal would also cancel unspecified contracts for what the administration termed "unnecessary climate measurements." Craig McLean, a former chief scientist at NOAA and former assistant administrator for research, is among those dismayed by the efforts to strip back the instrumentation of the planned new satellite system. It "seems to reinforce the naive presumption that satellites should only support the weather mission and ignores the ability of satellite-based sensors to assist our understanding of ocean sciences and changes in the earth and similarly in the atmosphere," he said. Department of Energy Although the so-called "green new deal" was never passed by Congress, the president's budget makes several references to the "Green New Scam" in its proposal to shave money from the Energy department's budget. It proposes cancelling more than $15 billion in funds allocated from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for renewable energy sources. More than $2.5 billion would be cut from the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which oversees the department's "Energy Star" program, and the budget blames for unpopular regulations on gas stoves and lightbulbs. It also cuts $389 million from the environmental management program that oversees waste cleanup at 14 active clean-up sites. Other proposed spending cuts: ∎ Department of Agriculture: The budget cuts more than $2 billion in environmental-related expenses, such as $754 million for a program that provides technical assistance for property owners who want to conserve and maintain natural resources on their land. The document notes the budget supports the administration's efforts to "improve forest management" and increase domestic timber production. ∎ NASA: The space agency would see a 24.3% cut in its programs related to Earth science and climate change, a reduction from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. It would eliminate $1.1 billion for "low-priority climate monitoring satellites" and would restructure the Landsat Next mission. The mission, proposed for launch in 2030-2031, would have continued the "longest space-based record of Earth's land surface" and expanded the data available for water quality, crop production, critical mineral mapping and ice and snow dynamics, according to federal websites. The budget document states NASA will study "more affordable ways" to maintain Landsat imagery. Dinah Voyles Pulver covers climate change, wildlife and the environment for USA TODAY. Reach her at dpulver@ or @dinahvp on Bluesky or X or dinahvp.77 on Signal.
USA Today
02-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Environmental Protection Agency plans staff cuts in sweeping overhaul
Environmental Protection Agency plans staff cuts in sweeping overhaul Show Caption Hide Caption What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans? Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on May 2 to slash its budget by $300 million in fiscal year 2026, reduce staffing to 1980s levels and dissolve its research and development office as part of a sweeping overhaul of the agency. The reorganization will consolidate several key offices, reflecting plans to cut regulatory red tape and promote more energy development, as laid out in President Donald Trump's executive orders, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video message. "With these organizational improvements, we can assure the American people that we are dedicated to EPA's core mission of protecting human health and the environment," Zeldin said, adding the agency will be better positioned to match Trump's goals to "unleash American energy, revitalize domestic manufacturing, cut costs for families and pursue permitting reform." Critics including the Union of Concerned Scientists said the staff cuts and changes in organization of the EPA would force staff members to follow the political program of the president rather than scientific evidence. Zeldin said EPA staffing will fall to a level last seen when President Ronald Reagan occupied the White House in the 1980s, when the agency was led by an administrator who was critical of it. In 1984, the EPA had just over 11,400 staff members compared to more than 15,100 in 2024. The reorganization follows weeks of speculation about staff cuts and Zeldin announcing the cancellation of billions of dollars of EPA grants. More: Trump EPA moves to undo Biden car and truck emission standards Major changes to the agency's structure include shifting scientific research from the Office of Research and Development to different program offices, such as a new office of applied science that would align research with the politically-appointed administrator's policy priorities. Researchers had warned that dissolving the research unit would undermine scientific independence. The EPA also announced it was dissolving the Office of Science and Technology, which helped develop scientific research and guidelines for water policy. More: President Trump signs order to make showers great again Other changes will include creation of an Office of State Air Partnerships within EPA's Office of Air and Radiation that will work with state permitting agencies to resolve permitting concerns and process state plans to meet federal rules. It will also add 130 positions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to work on reviewing a backlog of over 504 new chemicals and over 12,000 pesticides. The 1,500 research and development staff would need to apply for around 400 of the newly created positions in other offices, employees were told in an all-hands meeting at EPA on Friday. It was not clear what would happen to those employees that do not get new positions. The agency extended the deadline by a week, to May 5, for accepting a deferred resignation for employees. The EPA will also elevate issues of cybersecurity, emergency response, and water reuse and conservation, it said. Advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday said that shuttering the EPA's scientific arm that conducts independent research and folding it into policy offices will turn the EPA into a purely political agency. 'Dismantling this office, along with the administration's plans to reclassify scientists as political very well turn a premier science agency into a political arm of the president,' said Chitra Kumar, managing director of UCS' Climate and Clean Energy Program.
