Environmental lawyers are voicing concerns over two new White House directives aimed at expanding presidential power over federal energy and environmental regulations. They believe these measures may not withstand legal scrutiny and exceed the boundaries of presidential authority.
Andres Restrepo, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, doubts the legality of the recent executive order titled “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” issued on April 9. He argues it fails to adhere to legal standards.
This executive order requires agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to implement regulations with built-in “sunset” provisions. This means regulations will automatically expire in one year unless renewed. This could undermine essential protections under acts like the Endangered Species Act.
The Center for American Progress warns that this could lead to confusion and chaos in managing environmental regulations. Restrepo emphasizes that arbitrary deadlines for regulations, without solid legal grounding, simply aren’t lawful.
Interestingly, some believe this idea mirrors a state law in Idaho that also enacts “sunsetting” rules. However, federal law does not support such measures. Restrepo critiques this approach, stating it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of governmental operations.
Ari Peskoe, who heads the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard, also voices concerns. He suspects the administration is influenced by Elon Musk’s “zero-based budgeting” approach, which requires organizations to justify all expenses annually. This method, while innovative in business, doesn’t translate well to government regulations.
Despite the ambitious claims made by the administration regarding the potential for energy innovation, experts highlight that advancements in energy, like the fracking boom and renewable technologies, happened under existing regulations. Regulations have not stifled progress; they’ve helped shape it.
Another memo, titled “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” references past executive orders and pushes for a review of regulations deemed unlawful based on recent Supreme Court decisions. However, Peskoe stresses that regulations can’t simply be repealed without a formal process involving public input.
The memo suggests that agencies could use a “good cause” exception to bypass standard processes. Yet, courts have limited this exception to urgent situations. Experts like Erik Schlenker-Goodrich warn that this could give the administration unchecked power to eliminate regulations it finds bothersome.
Under this framework, if these proposals are upheld, there could be a dramatic rollback on environmental protections. Restrepo highlighted the risk of losing years of advancements made in public health and welfare.
Reflecting on these changes, Schlenker-Goodrich views them as part of a larger strategy to streamline power back to the presidency, significantly limiting the role of federal agencies. He points out that today’s administration shows an unprecedented approach to governance compared to any previous one.
Looking back, the evolution of environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act has set a foundational standard for public health. Today, experts warn that ignoring these regulations could lead to dire consequences, pulling the nation back to times of severe pollution.
The current discourse around these directives demonstrates a critical intersection of law, environmental science, and public health. The conversation continues as stakeholders navigate the implications of these directives on both policy and the environment.
For further insight into the complexities of regulatory law and environmental protection, check out this EPA overview for an understanding of government roles in environmental governance.
Check out this related article: Breaking News: EPA Cancels Crucial Science Advisory Board Meeting – What It Means for Climate Policy
Source link