President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to restrict and roll back environmental regulations on clean air and water. Vermont has a reputation as a state with strong environmental protections — in some cases, even stronger than the federal government. So what could a new Trump presidency mean for those protections?
Vermont Public's Jenn Jarecki spoke with climate and environment reporter Abagael Giles. This interview was produced for the ear. We highly recommend listening to the audio. We’ve also provided a transcript, which has been edited for length and clarity.
Jenn Jarecki: What do we know about Trump’s agenda when it comes to the environment?
Abagael Giles: There’s a lot we don’t know yet.
But we can look at Trump’s record from his last tenure in office. During that time, The New York Times documented the rollback of more than 100 environmental regulations affecting things like water and air quality. We also saw big cuts in funding for curbing climate warming greenhouse gas emissions. Trump has long cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the earth is getting hotter primarily because of humans burning fossil fuels.
But he’s also said he supports clean water and clean air quality.
The president has also talked about shrinking federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, to scale back the influence of the federal government. This is the item that lawyers I talked to said could be the most impactful for Vermont.
Jenn Jarecki: How could that affect Vermont’s ability to enforce environmental regulations?
Abagael Giles: The most important agency in the state for enforcing environmental regulations is Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources.
I spoke with secretary Julie Moore there, and she said right now, federal funding accounts for about a third of ANR’s budget every year.
In particular, ANR’s [primary] enforcement branch — the Department of Environmental Conservation — is very dependent on federal support from the EPA.
So if funding or staffing at the EPA were gutted, it could have a big impact on Vermont’s ability to enforce water and air pollution regulations, and protections for wetlands and other protected ecosystems.
Jenn Jarecki: What are some of the things most susceptible to change?
Abagael Giles: I think it’s helpful here to think about ANR’s work in a couple categories. We have clean air and clean water. We have chemical contaminants and pollution. And we have Vermont’s work to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
ANR Secretary Julie Moore says during the last Trump presidency, there was a striking lack of federal leadership when it came to addressing climate change and environmental issues.
For example, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Accords. That’s the international agreement that Vermont’s own statutory commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the Global Warming Solutions Act, is based on.
If Trump pulls out of the Paris Agreement again, the United States’ ability to address climate change, which is caused largely by humans burning fossil fuels, could really hinge on states upholding those promises. At the same time, less federal funding could make that work more challenging.
Jenn Jarecki: Let's start with clean water. How could say, an EPA with less staffing and less funding impact Vermont?
Abagael Giles: Less staffing at the EPA means less capacity. This could mean slower response times when Vermont has an environmental emergency, like discovering PFAS in Bennington or a toxic spill. It could also mean more tedious wait times for permits for new development or industry.
And if ANR sees funding cuts, Vermont will have to decide whether to pay to staff up or face staffing cuts. That latter scenario might sound beneficial to industries like dairy farming, but experts I talked to say this wouldn’t make regulations go away — it could just mean they aren’t enforced in a way that’s consistent and fair.
Here’s Patrick Parenteau, a lawyer at Vermont Law School who used to work for EPA‘s New England Office:
Pat Parenteau: You know, that’s kind of a fundamental principle of enforcement, is you create a level playing field, and you tell everybody, if you comply, I will make sure that you’re not economically disadvantaged by those who are not complying.
Abagael Giles: Then lastly: Vermont also gets federal funding for clean water projects that don’t involve environmental regulation — things like tracking new invasive species in Lake Champlain.
Scientists at the Lake Champlain Basin Program and University of Vermont say they’re concerned about funding for this kind of work, but they ultimately view it as safer than programs that regulate industry, because it tends to draw bipartisan support.
Jenn Jarecki: It makes me wonder, are there certain kinds of programs that aren't likely to change?
Abagael Giles: Low income home weatherization funding, infrastructure investments, like updating old water treatment systems.
Under the last Trump presidency, there was also strong support for cleaning up Superfund sites as well. Vermont has 14 of those, mostly old mines and industrial sites.
So Julie Moore at ANR thinks this sort of work could be safe.
Jenn Jarecki: Let’s talk carbon emissions. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in recent years — two major investments in cutting emissions, among other things. Trump has talked about pulling some of that money back, could that happen in Vermont?
Abagael Giles: Long story short, it’s hard to say. Vermont as a small state is heavily dependent on federal funding to cut emissions and to enforce environmental regulations.
We’re also staring down some big, expensive investments — updating our drinking water systems to protect against PFAS, or toxic forever chemicals, transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Moore says ANR has received a lot of federal stimulus money for work on climate change and the environment in recent years.
She says her agency has identified some $160 million that hasn’t been drawn down and could get clawed back.
Julie Moore: I don’t think it’s realistic to think that Vermonters can shoulder the full cost of what is needed to transition to lower carbon energy sources or to address contaminants like PFAS.
Abagael Giles: And ANR isn’t the only agency worrying about this. The state is also concerned about an equally historic pot of federal money to help lower income households in the state get electric panel upgrades and weatherize their homes and get access to solar.
Lawyer Patrick Parenteau says so long as Vermont has signed a contract with the federal government for those dollars, they should be safe. But uncontracted funds could get rolled back.
And staff at state agencies are worried there could still be loopholes.
And of course, Jenn, all of this is largely speculation based on the last Trump presidency. So much is still yet to come.
Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.
_
