Blog

There are many reasons why Senate Republicans’ recent decision to defy the parliamentarian and repeal California’s Clean Air Act waivers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was objectionable. But one objection that hasn’t received enough – any? – attention is how legislative gimmicks like the CRA contribute to the broader problem of congressional dysfunction.

Never before in our lifetimes has the rule of law felt so tenuous. These are not normal times for a research and advocacy organization dedicated to “harnessing the power of law and public policy to create a responsive government, healthy environment and just society.” Many of the policy ideas that we have championed — for example, worker safety protections, a fair regulatory system, climate actions that address equity concerns — have been adopted in some form. And today, these policies, as well as the democratic institutions which enforce them, are under threat.

President Donald Trump has taken some dramatic steps in the name of improving use of NEPA, the statute governing environmental reviews of projects. The goal is to speed up the permitting process and make it more efficient. The reality is that his efforts will create chaos and uncertainty, with the likely effect of slowing things down.

Since our last update (April 28), we have seen some important developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. In the past week, we have seen legislators take up new resolutions for a vote, address the controversial issue of the California Clean Air Act waivers, and send new resolutions to the president to be signed into law. Things seem to be accelerating in Congress (and especially in the Senate), as legislators are approaching the CRA cutoff date.

In April, the Trump administration published an executive order (EO) boosting the coal industry in hopes of a grand revival for an energy source that has been in stark decline since more cost-effective sources, including gas and renewables, drove it from its peak nearly two decades ago. Included in this order was a two-year exemption to a rule that would have required some of the country’s most polluting power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants that harm our health.

It’s a tribute to the significance of state climate policies that President Donald Trump devoted an entire executive order to excoriating them as “fundamentally irreconcilable” with his own, fossil fuel-promoting energy policy. Yet, despite all the drama in DC, state governments have continued to make quiet progress in their efforts to expand clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. These states are focused on tangible steps forward, not on capturing online clicks, so their efforts may escape notice. But the cumulative effect of these month-by-month, smaller-scale initiatives is significant.

As North Carolinians continue to grapple with rolling blackouts, rising energy bills, and recovery from a once-in-a-generation hurricane event, another pending environmental catastrophe is developing in our backyards. On Monday, May 5, the North Carolina Utilities Commission will hold a public hearing to gather feedback on Duke Energy’s plans to build a second new methane gas power plant near its existing coal plant on Hyco Lake in Person County as part of the state’s decarbonization plan.

On April 8, the Trump administration issued the “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach” executive order (EO), another in a blitz of orders and declarations focused on the energy sector. As with the other energy-related EOs, it contains numerous references to advancing so-called “energy dominance” — which is largely and ideologically focused on fossil fuel industries — despite the United States already being “dominant” in this sector.

In the midst of countless federal deregulatory actions, it’s easy to lose track of what’s happening to undermine states’ climate regulations and laws. Here in North Carolina, we are facing the cascading consequences of federal deregulation layered on top of threats to our state’s carbon plan law.