The federal administration is in the midst of a rapidly launched, blunt-force effort to hack back spending and staffing at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s an alarmingly clumsy approach for an agency that regulates and remediates pollution, including fossil fuel emissions, inadequately treated sewage and “forever chemicals,” such as those released in the Red Hill fuel tank storage catastrophe. In Hawaii, the EPA has helped fund replacement of diesel-spewing municipal buses with zero-emission (electric) models, prevented the release of sewage or contaminants into Hawaii’s waters and funded myriad projects to address air, soil and water pollution.
Gutting the agency weakens Hawaii’s ability to fortify itself against environmental threats. That in turn threatens the state’s collective health — and also our overall economic well-being.
In February, President Donald Trump said the EPA aimed to eliminate 65% of the agency’s workforce, adding, “We’re going to speed up the process, too.”
In keeping with Trump’s plan to favor the use of oil, gas and coal, the EPA has sought to claw back $20 billion in grants to fund clean energy and transportation projects from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. That misguided move would kill Hawaii programs that create jobs and leverage private investment in clean-air and pollution-reducing projects.
Among the targets: a $62.45 million award to finance solar and solar-battery systems, administered by the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. “Climate and Economic Justice” screenings applied to these awards have been a particular target of the federal administration.
The EPA has been a significant actor and ally to the state in addressing the Red Hill catastrophe, with its releases of jet fuel into the city and military’s water supplies. In December, the agency backed residents in fining the Navy for failing to meet with a Red Hill community board and violating a 2023 federal agreement. This kind of EPA “muscle” on behalf of the islands is unlikely to be as robustly exerted under the current administration, which announced Wednesday that it would reduce protections for polluted waters and repeal emissions limits on cars.
Legal challenges are underway over EPA funding clawbacks and terminations, which may protect monies already allotted and some Biden-era initiatives. However, with the significant shift of power in Washington, expect an end to “green” spending and regulation in the near future.
Still, there are environmental remedies and safeguards, based on state law, and these will take on higher importance as federal avenues and spending are ripped back.
On Jan. 13, the U.S. Supreme Court left intact a 2020 lawsuit by Honolulu’s city administration and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS) against several major oil companies, based on state law. Oil companies have been pressing to have all state cases related to fossil fuels and climate change preempted by federal law — and this could still happen — but for now, claims based on the principle of injury based on “failure to warn and deceptive promotion” can go forward.
Further, Hawaii’s concept of the “public trust” is a valuable principle for protecting the environment. In 2024, a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling stated that agencies have a duty to protect public resources, such as water. And the Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation case, settled by the state last year, binds Hawaii to act in the public trust by addressing climate change and fossil fuel pollution.
Without backing by the federal government, however, these standards are fragile. States are largely required to meet federal EPA standards at minimum, and when federal standards drop, the floor for state standards also falls. A worrisome example can be found in what many environmentalists call “The Clean Water Case of the Century”: a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court verdict holding that pollution from Lahaina’s wastewater treatment plant flowing into the ground, then the ocean, violates the Clean Water Act — an argument Maui County opposed. Should the act itself be modified to take this kind of dumping out of EPA purview, pollution like this won’t be monitored by the feds.
That leaves active scrutiny by the people of Hawaii as the backup plan. Ernie Lau, BWS chief, addressed this issue in an interview on Hawaii Public Radio last week, saying, “We need to continue to push forward with that effort. If not at the federal level, at the state and city level. … We have to deal with things like climate change, so we need to be more self-reliant, resilient.”
Despite islanders’ best intentions, however, transformative projects such as equipping low-income communities with solar power or replacing pollution-spewing city vehicles with electric models may not be possible. That’s a loss that will hit Hawaii hard, both environmentally and economically.
Out of self-interest, the state must continue to advocate for strong federal programs assisting with a transition to clean energy and barring pollution that damages our islands — and persist in opposing federal shifts enabling this harm.
