MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Some Republican lawmakers are seeking to limit the state’s ability to enact environmental regulations, a move that comes as President Donald Trump’s administration pushes to roll back environmental regulations on power plants, water and greenhouse gases.
The Alabama Legislature on Tuesday approved legislation backed by business groups that would prevent state agencies from setting limits on pollutants and hazardous substances beyond those set by the federal government. In areas where there are no federal standards, states can adopt new rules only if there is a “direct causal relationship” between exposure to harmful emissions and “obvious physical harm” to humans.
Supporters said the Alabama measure would be based on “sound science” and prevent regulatory overreach. Environmental groups say it would weaken the state’s ability to deal with environmental or health risks, including a group of chemicals known as PFAS, or Forever Chemicals, that have contaminated large swaths of the South.
Sarah Stokes, senior staff attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the bill creates “impossible barriers” to state regulation because it states that “increased disease risk” is not enough to prove harm to humans.
“It’s a blank check for business. We’re basically sacrificing human health for business,” Stokes said. “That doesn’t seem like the best calculation for our citizens.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business groups support the legislation, with the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Donnie Chesteen, telling a legislative committee this month that his bill is “pro-business” legislation.
“If we’re going to be able to compete with Southeastern states to attract and bring in some of these businesses, then we need to adopt these standards so that we clearly define what our companies are working with,” Chestin said. Supporters also argue the bill follows Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
“This does not eliminate the use of sound science and legitimate science,” Republican Rep. Troy Stubbs said during the debate. “Its role is to protect the state of Alabama and the people of Alabama from runaway government burdens and regulations that could lead to significant increases in the cost of living.”
Stubbs questioned that would weaken existing rules and said current state regulations would remain unchanged. However, environmental lawyer Stokes said she was concerned that companies might challenge existing rules on this basis.
The measure is the latest effort to limit state-level environmental regulations. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun signed an executive order last year saying Indiana cannot enact new environmental regulations that are more stringent than federal regulations unless state law or the governor deems it necessary. Tennessee lawmakers last year passed legislation requiring that any regulations more stringent than federal regulations be based on “obvious physical harm to a human being.”
Stokes said the Alabama proposal goes further than Tennessee’s law. A similar bill has been proposed in Utah.
Stokes said the Alabama legislation came after advocacy groups convinced the Alabama Environmental Management Commission to consider updating state standards for arsenic and cyanide, along with 11 other toxic pollutants.
Kara Horowitz, an environmental law professor at the UCLA School of Law and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the legislation would prevent state agencies from “independently deciding how much to protect public health from water pollution, air pollution and toxic substances.”
“Alabama can only adopt its own pollution standards if its justification relies on a very specific kind of science,” Horowitz wrote in an email. “For example, Alabama cannot rely on studies showing a correlation between pollution exposure and increased risk of disease.”
The bill also prohibits agencies from using the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, which describes the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment, as the default basis for water quality standards. A chemical industry lobby group criticized the system as being too cumbersome and scientifically flawed.
Democrats in the Alabama Legislature fought the bill for two hours until Republican lawmakers voted to end debate and force a vote.
Democratic Rep. Chris England said the bill turns Alabama residents into testing subjects. “We are a petri dish that allows corporations to do whatever they want until they kill someone,” England said.
Rep. Neil Rafferty, a fellow Democrat, said the bill “defines sound science only to undermine our ability to use it to advance science-based and data-driven policy.”
The state House of Representatives voted 88-34 to pass the bill, which now goes to Republican Gov. Kay Ivey. Her office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.