Economy, Energy, Natural Resources: Policy to People

Trump’s Nomination of Pruitt to EPA Casts Spotlight On States’ Crusade Against Federal ‘Overreach’


Joe Wertz / StateImpact Oklahoma

Donald Trump wants Scott Pruitt to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Oklahoma attorney general is a fierce ally of fossil fuel companies and one of the EPA’s biggest opponents. The nomination draws a sharp line dividing industry and environmentalists that could test the limits of another big fight: state sovereignty.

A Republican president created the EPA. Using words and phrases that, today, might jeopardize his career before it ever left a state GOP primary, Richard Nixon urged Congress to sign off on what he called his “environmental agenda.”

“Each of us across this great land has a stake in maintaining and improving environmental quality,” said Nixon in a 1972 message to Congress. “Clean air and clean water, the wise use of our land, the protection of wildlife and natural beauty, parks for all to enjoy — these are part of the birthright of every American.”

The federal environmental agency was built around a pretty simple idea: Pollution is an enemy that does not stop at state lines. The only way to beat it, Nixon said, was if states joined a “coordinated attack” led by the federal government.

Fossil fuels, federal fights

Today, Republicans accuse the EPA of attacking a lot more than pollution. Leading the charge, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt.

“When the EPA exceeds the constraints placed upon the agency by Congress, the relationship is thrown out of balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely,” Pruitt said in May 2015, testifying against the Clean Power Plan before a Senate subcommittee on the environment.

Oklahoma oil and gas companies applauded the Pruitt nomination. Conservative politicians and commenters are happy, too. Pruitt built his brand fighting what he calls federal “overreach.” Shortly after he was elected as the Oklahoma AG, he created a brand new “federalism unit” devoted to fighting for more states rights — in court.

Pruitt has sued the EPA and joined other lawsuits against it. He’s made it his mission to block rules on mercury and cross-state air pollution and Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan.

The Pruitt pick was roundly admonished by environmental groups.

David Goldston, director of government affairs for the National Resources Defense Council, says the Pruitt nomination is about protecting fossil fuels, not defending states’ rights. He points to Pruitt’s statements denying a scientific consensus on human-linked climate change as evidence of the Oklahoma attorney general’s true motivations.

“Whatever they actually believe, the result is they’re protecting polluters,” Goldston says.

Limited authority

Jody Freeman, the director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law program, says EPA administrators have a lot of influence and authority within the federal agency. Administrators hold the purse strings for EPA programs, and they can decide which new programs to pursue — or not pursue.

If appointed, Pruitt would have wide discretion on the enforcement of federal environmental rules, says Freeman, who has advised the Obama White House on energy and climate change and is on the board at ConocoPhillips.

“If he wants to slow down enforcement or treat the states more gently, be a little more lax, he can certainly try to do that,” she says.

But Freeman says Pruitt can’t simply ignore federal rules. “There are legal procedures that prevent Cabinet heads from doing things with the stroke of a pen,” she says.

Freeman also says, historically, courts have been skeptical when they see dramatic changes to federal regulations. “[Judges] are going to be looking for a record that shows them that it wasn’t just entirely politically motivated and that there is a record to show it’s not arbitrary and capricious.”

Dismantle, defend

Critics worry that Trump nominated Pruitt to dismantle the EPA, which the president-elect said he’d like to do. Pruitt declined an interview request, but in Senate testimony against the Clean Power Plan, he defended the EPA’s existence.

“I’m not one who believes the EPA has no role,” he said. “The agency has played a very important role historically in addressing water and air quality issues that traverse state lines.”

Pruitt supporter Todd Hiett was a Republican Speaker of the Oklahoma House when Pruitt was a state senator. Now a corporation commissioner, Hiett says Pruitt has a track record of building consensus and making deals on complicated environmental issues, like the recently settled water deal between the state, Oklahoma City and the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.

“He’s going to be thorough. He’s going to be fair and he’s going to stay within the confines of the law and. But at the same time he is going to look for practical solutions,” Hiett says.

His predecessor in the Oklahoma AG’s office, Democrat Drew Edmondson, thinks the EPA would be less proactive under Pruitt — but not completely absent.

“There are too many of us who remember what it was like when you couldn’t see a skyline from five miles away because of smog,” Edmondson says. “Nobody wants to return to that time, including Scott Pruitt.”

StateImpact Oklahoma is a partnership among Oklahoma’s public radio stations and relies on contributions from readers and listeners to fulfill its mission of public service to Oklahoma and beyond. Donate online.


  • Gregory Smith

    I live in Warr Acres where the area of a lot is perfect for solar power, but SB 1456 signed into power by Mary Falin, is still a false law, violates federal law and byvall rights should be a reason federal authorities should cut off Oklahoma funding in energy, period!!! It is clear Oklahoma law makers were hubris by getting OG&E lawyers to formulate this bill with the aid of utility owners to unend a thorn in their side from the federal Net Metering laws they hated so much, they were willing to get the state to pass the law, because they knew no GOP followers would debate it, and they didn’t violating the rights of the public and will be a key reason this law will fail and OG&E may even face fines if it is ruled on by the justice department before Obama leaves…it was TOTALLY PARTISAN, left out the consumer AND the PUBLIC … We did not have a choice in what the utilites got passed. That isn’t right, it isn’t fair and it won’t stand up in court. It is time this new GOP group get into this on our side, or they will be out of office before the paint dries on their office windows… it is not maddening, it is as,wrong as drive by shootings, it is wrong as purse snatching or pick pockets, it is as crooked as embezzeling from a bank. It is our rights, it is our state schools that can’t afford teachers because the utility wants to enrich their investors. It has to stop now…

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »