By Kennedy Maize
In a continuing reversal of long-standing policy, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed giving Wyoming the full authority to regulate dangerous and toxic coal ash disposal ponds and landfills in the Cowboy State.
It’s the second state where EPA has told a state it can oversee how utilities handle coal ash, following a March EPA announcement that it would take “swift action” on giving states sole control over coal ash disposal. Following that announcement, EPA approved North Dakota’s state regulatory plan. It’s no coincidence that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was North Dakota’s governor before President Trump chose him to head DOI.
In meeting with Wyoming officials in Cheyenne, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said, “Today’s approval of Wyoming’s coal combustion residuals program is a win for cooperative federalism. By empowering state experts who know their communities best, we’re advancing smart permitting reform and helping unleash American energy responsibly while giving industry the regulatory certainty needed to invest and create jobs.”
Wyoming has 26 coal ash disposal sites, 18 subject to federal regulation and eight unregulated legacy sites, according to Earthjustice. The EPA proposal has a 60-day comment period.
In the past, EPA oversight of states with large coal ash ponds has been important in protecting the environment. In May 2024, for example, in a long-running dispute with state officials, EPA rejected an Alabama state coal ash regulatory plan, stating that it was “significantly less protective of people and waterways than federal law requires.”
A month later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected two separate, nearly identical coal-fired utility challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s long-running rules on cleaning up coal ash ponds.
On December 22, 2008, a dike at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston coal-fired plant’s ash pond ruptured, spilling some 1.1 billion gallons of coal fly ash slurry into the countryside, covering about 300 acres and damaging multiple homes before contaminating Tennessee River tributaries. It was the largest industrial spill in U.S. history, ultimately causing TVA more than a billion dollars to cleanup. The disputes over damages weren’t settled until 2023.
The EPA last week (Aug. 28) deep-sixed a Biden administration plan to reduce nutrients and other pollutants from wastewater discharges from the meat and poultry industries.
The Biden administration had proposed the new “effluent limitations guidelines” under the Clean Water Act in January 2024. They never went into effect. Among several rule changes, the preferred action by the Biden EPA had an estimated annual cost of $232 million, reducing effluents by around 100 million pounds per year. Zeldin’s decision to drop the Biden EPA plan means rules initially adopted in 1974 will continue in force.
Announcing his action at an event in Sleepy Eye, Minn., Zeldin said, “Today’s decision reflects a commonsense approach that protects America’s meat and poultry processors and the farmers and ranchers they serve  from unnecessary red tape. By rejecting this costly and burdensome rule proposal by the previous administration, the Trump administration is ensuring that small and mid-sized meat and poultry facilities can keep their doors open, continue feeding our communities, and support good-paying jobs across rural America.”
Agriculture interests lobbied hard for a decision to reject the Biden plan. Following Zeldin’s action, American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said, “Farm Bureau appreciates EPA’s reasoned approach to guidelines for meat and poultry processing facilities that protects our natural resources and our stable food supply.” Georgia farmer Duvall raises beef cattle and broiler chickens.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Sept. 2 overturned a lower court decision against EPA that prevented the agency from clawing back funds the Biden administration awarded to non-profit community groups for climate-related programs, the so-called “Green Bank” program. The $20 billion program was an early target by EPA’s Zeldin, who immediately put a hold on the money. In April, a D.C. District Court said EPA was out of line.
In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court reversed the circuit judge. Judges Naomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, ruled against the lower court. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.
The Hill newspaper commented, “Tuesday’s opinion does not decide the ultimate outcome of the case, but it does lift an order that prevented the EPA from taking back the money while the litigation over it plays out.”
On August 29, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a class action suit by 23 environmental and community action groups, led by Appalachian Voices, challenging EPA’s termination of “environmental justice” block grants awarded by the Biden Administration under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The act authorized $2.8 billion for the program.
On Trump’s first day in office, Jan. 20, he issued executive orders calling for elimination of all IRA block grants. As Leon noted, EPA quickly began implementing the orders, prohibiting withdrawal of funds and then terminating the grants. The recipient groups sued in federal district courts in South Carolina and Maryland, charging that EPA’s action violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The community groups won both cases. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on the South Carolina case.
In the meantime, Congress passed Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which included rescinded funding of the block grants. Appalachian Voices brought the broader case in D.C., as a nationwide class action, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center,
Leon rejected the suit, arguing that he has no jurisdiction. He ruled that the under 1887 Tucker Act the Court of Federal Appeals is the proper venue for bringing a claim against the U.S. government, which usually has “sovereign immunity.” The act waives the government’s immunity in ill-defined circumstances.
Two recent Supreme Court decisions –  Department of Education v. California (April 4) and National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (Aug. 21) – interpret the Tucker Act in the light of Trump administration recent broad recissions. The high court rejected both the South Carolina and Maryland district court decisions. In the face of those decision, Leon wrote, perhaps wistfully, “Put simply, I cannot order the Government to reinstate contracts and pay money due on them.”
The Quad Report: to subscribe, for back issues, and a searchable archive.