The resounding success of the U.S. Republicans (GOP) in last November’s elections puts the party in a good position to change environmental policies, congressional staffers and lobbyists say. Although the 108th Congress, which begins this month, is not likely to repeat the rush to rewrite major environmental laws as the GOP did in 1995, the opportunity to modify rules and programs administratively, or through minor provisions in large budget bills, is a real possibility, observers predict.

Democrats and environmental groups charge that the Bush administration will continue to soften environmental policy with administrative actions and may have more success. Because most of the House and Senate leaders are from the conservative wing of the party, it’s likely that proposals from the administration won’t be blocked in Congress, these groups say. Examples include a proposed rule issued by the Clinton administration to ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks that EPA changed, and the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance requiring more transparency of rulemaking, environmentalists say (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 443A).

Environmentalists and New England governors, in particular, point to EPA’s proposed rule, released in November, to change the controversial New Source Review (NSR) provisions in the Clean Air Act. Electric utilities and business groups have lobbied EPA for years to change the NSR, which requires owners to seek a new permit if a modification to a facility might raise emission levels. EPA’s proposal would allow plant managers to undertake certain “environmentally beneficial” projects with only EPA notification and would change the definition of “routine maintenance, repair and replacement” to allow certain plant adjustments without an EPA review.

“Sadly, there is every reason to believe that this is just the leading edge of an assault on fundamental protections for our air, water, and public health by the Bush administration,” predicts Gregory Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Many business groups dismiss the environmentalists’ concerns. The NSR changes would allow companies to move on projects held on the back burner because of complicated requirements, says Mark Whitenton of the National Association of Manufacturers.

“Around the edges, you might expect to see a softening of things [coming from EPA] compared to what they would have been under [former EPA Administrator] Carol Browner”, adds Quin Shea with the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. “But you’re not going to see anything eliminated, and you’re not going to see anything radical.”

In Congress, the most striking change is the new leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, through which all environmental bills pass. The former chairperson, Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.), held hearings examining GOP proposals and votes on Democratic-sponsored bills.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK.), the incoming chairperson, says he plans “strong oversight to examine how current environmental laws are enforced and implemented”, adding that he’ll work to create “fiscally responsible policies that are based on sound science and cost benefit analysis”. Inhofe has a 0% voting record on environmental issues for the 107th Congress, according to the League of Conservation voters, which keeps tabs on environmental votes.

Changing environmental laws may be still difficult in Congress, however. It still takes 60 votes to do most things in the Senate, and the GOP’s margin of control appears to be 51-49. “Statutory changes [to weaken laws] aren’t likely”, says Ken Colburn, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. “There are still too many moderate Republicans to allow that to happen.”

But the Senate can confirm Bush’s judicial nominees and pass budgets without 60 votes. “More judges who don’t believe that environmental laws are really laws at all will be confirmed. [And] the budget is likely to be even less adequate of a means of protecting the air, water, and land”, predicts Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s political director. —CATHERINE M. COONEY