State Environmental Policy

Primacy

states have enforcement authority for federal laws and they vary extensively in that enforcement

Partial Preemption

while state take the lead in implementation, the EPA retains authority to revoke its primacy

Devolution

refers to the shifting of responsibility/authority over policy to a lower level of government

Race to the bottom

Where states compete to attract business and investment by weakening environmental regulations

Why are states hesitant to enforce strong Enviro policy 

1) Economic Competition for Business - states fear strict environmental laws will drive industries and jobs elsewhere

2) Employment concerns - tough regulations risk reducing employment and income

3) short-term political incentives - economic growth is prioritized 

What states tend to Rank toward the Bottom

West VA, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mississippi

Race to the Top

occurs when states use enviro leadership as a competitive advantage and their actions pressure other states to follow

Why States: economic opportunity, public support, federal inaction and court pressure

Examples of Race to the Top States

California, NY, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Colorado 

Legislative Professionalism influence on state enviro policy

• refers to how well-resourced and expert a state legislature is

• Logic: it crafts more complex and proactive environmental policies because lawmakers have policy expertise, study enviro issues, and oversee and enforce regulations

Ideology/partisanship influence on state enviro policy

• the political leanings of a state’s government and population

• Logic: Democratic leaning states pass stronger enviro policies, Republican leaning states often emphasize economic growth and deregulation, polarization = enviro policy is aligned with ideological identity

Enviro and industry groups influence on state enviro policy

• interest groups that mobilize public opinion on Enviro issues

• Logic: Enviro groups push for stronger enviro protections and are publicly engaged while industry groups push for weaker regulations or delays in enforcement

Wealth influence on state enviro policy

• overall economic capacity of a state

• Logic: wealthier states can afford stronger enviro programs and can fund monitoring, enforcement, and renewable infrastructure, residence also have higher enviro awareness

Enviro conditions influence on state enviro policy

• the quality or vulnerability of a state’s natural environment

• logic: states facing severe environmental problems are more likely to take action especially after focusing events (oil spills), states with fewer visible issues may delay action 

Policy Diffusion horizontal

one state adopts a policy and other states follow learning from its example or responding to competitive pressure → spread between states 

• Ex: Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Bottle Deposit laws, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

Policy diffusion Vertical

when policies move between levels of government - either bottom-up state to federal or top-down federal to state → spread between levels of government

• Ex: Clean Water Act, Clean Power Plan, Clean Air Act

How are states trying to address PFAS (forever chemicals)

• Adopting legally enforceable limits for PFAS compounds in drinking water

• Product bans/restrictions

• remediation/cleanup 

• Limits on discharges/industrial release

• legislative activism

Amara’s Law

• adopted in Minnesota in 2023 is state legislation aimed at preventing PFAS pollution by regulating PFAS in products

• requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS destined for sale or distribution

Why was Amara’s Law adopted?

1) public health concerns & local contamination

2) regulatory lag & federal gaps

3) combined multiple policy levers reporting, bans, and limiting nonessential uses