Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The electrified highway that could change the future of trucking (and this polluted San Diego neighborhood)

News Feed
Tuesday, August 13, 2024

This story is the second in a series by Reckon and Next City examining how Black and Brown communities across the U.S. are working to hold corporations accountable for environmental injustices. Read the first story, on a new rail line planned in Africatown, the Alabama neighborhood founded by formerly enslaved people.For decades, San Diego’s port communities like Barrio Logan and National City have been plagued with unhealthy air quality. Residents of communities bordering the 34 miles of coastline encompassed by the Port of San Diego face a barrage of toxic pollutants and other hazardous conditions from industrial shipyards, intersecting neighborhood freeways, and even the U.S. Navy. They believe these hazardous conditions would never be tolerated in San Diego’s more affluent areas.The fight for clean air has been a long, uphill battle for these working-class, historically Mexican-American and immigrant communities. But after years of advocacy by residents and activists, the Port of San Diego has begun to take steps to offset the long history of environmental racism and injustice.In May, the Board of Port Commissioners for the San Diego Unified Port District voted unanimously to double the board’s annual contribution to the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) and help curb emissions by expanding the fund’s scope to include several electrification projects.“For decades, communities living next to the port marine cargo terminals have had the burden of pollution from the operations at these port terminals,” says Kyle Heiskala, Policy Co-Director for the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an environmental justice nonprofit that pressed the board to up its MIIF contribution. “They have not seen a ton of benefits for the local residents living near the port, and instead get a lot of the negative impacts in terms of air pollution.”Disproportionate environmental impactToday, Barrio Logan is one of the most polluted areas of San Diego County and ranks among the top 5% of California’s most polluted areas. The community is more than 85% Hispanic, and more than a quarter of residents live below the poverty line. Both Barrio Logan and neighboring National City rank in the 90th percentile for some of the highest concentrations of diesel particulate matter in all of California. The byproduct of exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment, the pollutant has been deemed carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. According to the EPA, due to their proximity to the port, rail yards, and freeways, residents have an 85% to 95% higher risk of developing cancer than the rest of the U.S.Historically, outcry over the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards created by the Port have been ignored. Some have even blamed residents for living in communities that border the Port and its industries, but Heiskala notes that San Diego’s ‘Portside’ communities predate the Port and its industries.“People need to remember that the neighborhoods and communities were here first. The Port was established in 1962 – these neighborhoods are over a hundred years old,” he said. “All of the industries that we’ve seen grow over the past five decades have been introduced into these communities of color as a result of race-based land use decisions that took neighborhoods and cited them for industry.”In 2023, Barrio Logan moved forward with a new community plan, marking the first update to the neighborhood’s plan in over 40 years and a victory in residents’ long battle to add buffers between the port and neighboring communities. The most consequential update amended the city’s zoning laws banning the creation of mixed commercial/residential zones directly adjacent to residential areas.“We don’t see shipyards in La Jolla for very historically documented reasons,” Heiskala adds, pointing to a mostly-white neighborhood just 15 minutes north of Barrio Logan.Steps forwardIn 2010, the board established the MIIF to address some of these historic inequities and aid communities bordering the Port. The Port will now contribute 4% percent of its gross maritime industrial revenue – an estimated $1.55 million in fiscal year 2025. Previously, a 2% cap had been approved in June 2023.The Port’s increase to the MIIF would contribute to various methods and strategies to offset the impacts of industrial pollution. Over $500,000 has already been spent on equipment like air filters and air monitors for homes and elementary schools adjacent to the port, to help filter indoor air and monitor quality.The MIIF has funded a variety of community programs, notably the FRANC Program, a free electric shuttle system that connects multiple destinations throughout National City.Heiskala says that the board of port commissioners’ commitment is evident in the progress made towards the Maritime Clean Air Strategy goals and the Port has seen immense progress in converting cargo handling equipment to electric. The Port of San Diego now boasts the nation’s first cohort of all-electric cranes and all-electric tug boat, with a goal of zero-emission trucks and cargo handling equipment by 2030.Too little, too late?Not all residents have been impressed with the Port’s progress in meeting its emissions goals. Lydia Young, a community organizer who lives in Logan Heights, believes the Port’s actions are only a fraction of what’s needed to address a long cycle of neglect in San Diego’s portside communities.“The MIIF is a good first step that’s decades too late,” Young says, adding that the $1.55 million contribution is a mere fraction of the Port’s revenue and local impact. The Port of San Diego’s website says it had a “$9.2 billion overall economic impact in San Diego County” in 2019.“At this rate, the MIIF would support the fiscal average of one two-story house a year in San Diego,” Young says. “For an industry that makes billions from our land and labor each year at the risk of our health, this is nowhere near enough.”Dr. Vi Nguyen, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente San Diego and co-founder of San Diego Pediatricians For Clean Air, also believes more must be done to address the needs of children and families in portside communities.“There’s a lot more money being invested in mitigation, but the health effects on these communities span generations, and a couple of million dollars isn’t going to fix everything,” Nguyen says.Most of Dr. Nguyen’s patients and their families live in Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, and National City. And although the cost to reduce emissions at the Port is steep, Dr. Nguyen says it pales in comparison to the long-term costs of failing to do so.“Just in terms of asthma, the downstream cost to us as a healthcare system is astronomical,” Dr. Nguyen says. “Exposure to PM 2.5 during the first and second trimester of pregnancy and in the first years of life skyrockets the chance of developmental delay, lower IQ, anxiety, depression, and psychotic experiences. Having a child with autism or developmental delay is a lifetime of cost to the individual and the families and communities.”Moving toward electrificationIn addition to MIIF allocations, San Diego’s portside communities have received funding for more emissions-reduction projects.Last year, National City received an $8.5 million federal grant to create a plug-in electrification project for idling ships to tap into the city’s power grid to charge from the shore. Advocates foresee that the biggest challenge is likely the transition of the local trucking fleet from diesel to electric trucks. In March, the Port also approved a developer to build and operate a zero-emission truck stop in National City, capable of charging up to 40% of the port’s trucking fleet.But the U.S. trucking industry’s decentralized structure has complicated efforts to convert San Diego’s local trucking fleet. “When the cranes stop operating at the end of the day, it’s off and sits there on the terminal. But these trucks are driving all over the community,” Heiskala explains. Currently, federal rules make it difficult to transition from diesel to electric, and regulations dictating the number of hours a truck driver is allowed to drive before they’re required to break don’t take into account the time it takes to charge electric trucks.“The current board of Port Commissioners as a majority has recognized their responsibility to undoing those historical harms,” Hesikala said. “We have to do it because of climate change, but we also owe it to the generations of people who have been suffering and literally dying from the pollution.”Like the history of San Diego’s portside communities themselves, the path to a zero-emissions port has been complicated. The most recent victory in funding and the commitment to further electrification, however, signal a potential turning point.Though the fight against industrial pollution in San Diego’s portside communities is far from over, for the first time in decades, there is a sense of progress and hope for cleaner air and healthier communities.Roberto Camacho is a Chicano freelance multimedia journalist from San Diego, California. His reporting typically focuses on criminal justice reform, immigration, Chicano/Latino issues, hip-hop culture, and their intersections to social justice. Follow him on Twitter/IG/Threads: @rob_camacho_sd

After a long battle, San Diego’s Port has doubled its commitment to offset the impacts of industrial pollution in neighboring communities.

This story is the second in a series by Reckon and Next City examining how Black and Brown communities across the U.S. are working to hold corporations accountable for environmental injustices. Read the first story, on a new rail line planned in Africatown, the Alabama neighborhood founded by formerly enslaved people.

For decades, San Diego’s port communities like Barrio Logan and National City have been plagued with unhealthy air quality. Residents of communities bordering the 34 miles of coastline encompassed by the Port of San Diego face a barrage of toxic pollutants and other hazardous conditions from industrial shipyards, intersecting neighborhood freeways, and even the U.S. Navy. They believe these hazardous conditions would never be tolerated in San Diego’s more affluent areas.

The fight for clean air has been a long, uphill battle for these working-class, historically Mexican-American and immigrant communities. But after years of advocacy by residents and activists, the Port of San Diego has begun to take steps to offset the long history of environmental racism and injustice.

In May, the Board of Port Commissioners for the San Diego Unified Port District voted unanimously to double the board’s annual contribution to the Maritime Industrial Impact Fund (MIIF) and help curb emissions by expanding the fund’s scope to include several electrification projects.

“For decades, communities living next to the port marine cargo terminals have had the burden of pollution from the operations at these port terminals,” says Kyle Heiskala, Policy Co-Director for the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an environmental justice nonprofit that pressed the board to up its MIIF contribution. “They have not seen a ton of benefits for the local residents living near the port, and instead get a lot of the negative impacts in terms of air pollution.”

Disproportionate environmental impact

Today, Barrio Logan is one of the most polluted areas of San Diego County and ranks among the top 5% of California’s most polluted areas. The community is more than 85% Hispanic, and more than a quarter of residents live below the poverty line. Both Barrio Logan and neighboring National City rank in the 90th percentile for some of the highest concentrations of diesel particulate matter in all of California. The byproduct of exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment, the pollutant has been deemed carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. According to the EPA, due to their proximity to the port, rail yards, and freeways, residents have an 85% to 95% higher risk of developing cancer than the rest of the U.S.

Historically, outcry over the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards created by the Port have been ignored. Some have even blamed residents for living in communities that border the Port and its industries, but Heiskala notes that San Diego’s ‘Portside’ communities predate the Port and its industries.

“People need to remember that the neighborhoods and communities were here first. The Port was established in 1962 – these neighborhoods are over a hundred years old,” he said. “All of the industries that we’ve seen grow over the past five decades have been introduced into these communities of color as a result of race-based land use decisions that took neighborhoods and cited them for industry.”

In 2023, Barrio Logan moved forward with a new community plan, marking the first update to the neighborhood’s plan in over 40 years and a victory in residents’ long battle to add buffers between the port and neighboring communities. The most consequential update amended the city’s zoning laws banning the creation of mixed commercial/residential zones directly adjacent to residential areas.

“We don’t see shipyards in La Jolla for very historically documented reasons,” Heiskala adds, pointing to a mostly-white neighborhood just 15 minutes north of Barrio Logan.

Steps forward

In 2010, the board established the MIIF to address some of these historic inequities and aid communities bordering the Port. The Port will now contribute 4% percent of its gross maritime industrial revenue – an estimated $1.55 million in fiscal year 2025. Previously, a 2% cap had been approved in June 2023.

The Port’s increase to the MIIF would contribute to various methods and strategies to offset the impacts of industrial pollution. Over $500,000 has already been spent on equipment like air filters and air monitors for homes and elementary schools adjacent to the port, to help filter indoor air and monitor quality.

The MIIF has funded a variety of community programs, notably the FRANC Program, a free electric shuttle system that connects multiple destinations throughout National City.

Heiskala says that the board of port commissioners’ commitment is evident in the progress made towards the Maritime Clean Air Strategy goals and the Port has seen immense progress in converting cargo handling equipment to electric. The Port of San Diego now boasts the nation’s first cohort of all-electric cranes and all-electric tug boat, with a goal of zero-emission trucks and cargo handling equipment by 2030.

Too little, too late?

Not all residents have been impressed with the Port’s progress in meeting its emissions goals. Lydia Young, a community organizer who lives in Logan Heights, believes the Port’s actions are only a fraction of what’s needed to address a long cycle of neglect in San Diego’s portside communities.

“The MIIF is a good first step that’s decades too late,” Young says, adding that the $1.55 million contribution is a mere fraction of the Port’s revenue and local impact. The Port of San Diego’s website says it had a “$9.2 billion overall economic impact in San Diego County” in 2019.

“At this rate, the MIIF would support the fiscal average of one two-story house a year in San Diego,” Young says. “For an industry that makes billions from our land and labor each year at the risk of our health, this is nowhere near enough.”

Dr. Vi Nguyen, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente San Diego and co-founder of San Diego Pediatricians For Clean Air, also believes more must be done to address the needs of children and families in portside communities.

“There’s a lot more money being invested in mitigation, but the health effects on these communities span generations, and a couple of million dollars isn’t going to fix everything,” Nguyen says.

Most of Dr. Nguyen’s patients and their families live in Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, and National City. And although the cost to reduce emissions at the Port is steep, Dr. Nguyen says it pales in comparison to the long-term costs of failing to do so.

“Just in terms of asthma, the downstream cost to us as a healthcare system is astronomical,” Dr. Nguyen says. “Exposure to PM 2.5 during the first and second trimester of pregnancy and in the first years of life skyrockets the chance of developmental delay, lower IQ, anxiety, depression, and psychotic experiences. Having a child with autism or developmental delay is a lifetime of cost to the individual and the families and communities.”

Moving toward electrification

In addition to MIIF allocations, San Diego’s portside communities have received funding for more emissions-reduction projects.

Last year, National City received an $8.5 million federal grant to create a plug-in electrification project for idling ships to tap into the city’s power grid to charge from the shore. Advocates foresee that the biggest challenge is likely the transition of the local trucking fleet from diesel to electric trucks. In March, the Port also approved a developer to build and operate a zero-emission truck stop in National City, capable of charging up to 40% of the port’s trucking fleet.

But the U.S. trucking industry’s decentralized structure has complicated efforts to convert San Diego’s local trucking fleet. “When the cranes stop operating at the end of the day, it’s off and sits there on the terminal. But these trucks are driving all over the community,” Heiskala explains. Currently, federal rules make it difficult to transition from diesel to electric, and regulations dictating the number of hours a truck driver is allowed to drive before they’re required to break don’t take into account the time it takes to charge electric trucks.

“The current board of Port Commissioners as a majority has recognized their responsibility to undoing those historical harms,” Hesikala said. “We have to do it because of climate change, but we also owe it to the generations of people who have been suffering and literally dying from the pollution.”

Like the history of San Diego’s portside communities themselves, the path to a zero-emissions port has been complicated. The most recent victory in funding and the commitment to further electrification, however, signal a potential turning point.

Though the fight against industrial pollution in San Diego’s portside communities is far from over, for the first time in decades, there is a sense of progress and hope for cleaner air and healthier communities.

Roberto Camacho is a Chicano freelance multimedia journalist from San Diego, California. His reporting typically focuses on criminal justice reform, immigration, Chicano/Latino issues, hip-hop culture, and their intersections to social justice. Follow him on Twitter/IG/Threads: @rob_camacho_sd

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Environmental Agency Denies Petition to Designate Big Hole River as Impaired by Nutrient Pollution

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus

Montana’s environmental regulator has denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus, throwing a wrench in environmentalists’ efforts to put the blue-ribbon fishery on a “pollution diet.”Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation contend that excess nutrients are creating regular summertime algal blooms that can stretch for more than a mile, robbing fish and the macroinvertebrate bugs they eat of the oxygen they need to thrive. The groups argue in the petition they sent to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality last month that an impairment designation would direct the agency to identify and work to reduce the river’s pollution sources in an effort to rebalance the river’s aquatic ecosystem.On April 14, about a month after receiving the 32-page petition, DEQ wrote that it “cannot grant” the group’s petition. The agency’s letter doesn’t quibble with the groups’ findings, which were detailed in a five-year data collection effort. Instead, the agency suggested that legislation passed in 2021 has tied its hands. “As a result of Senate Bill 358, passed during the 2021 Legislative Session … DEQ is unable to base nutrient assessment upon the numeric nutrient criteria,” the letter, signed by DEQ Director Sonja Nowakowski, reads. In an April 23 conversation with Montana Free Press, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Executive Director Guy Alsentzer criticized the agency’s decision, arguing that it did not use the best available science and applied “illogical and disingenuous” reasoning in its denial. “EPA already took action and struck down Senate Bill 358 from the 2021 session,” Alsentzer said, referencing federal regulators’ oversight of state laws and rules governing water quality. “Numeric criteria are applicable.”A spokesperson for the EPA confirmed Alsentzer’s assertion, writing in an April 24 email to MTFP that numeric nutrient standards for nitrogen and phosphorus the agency approved a decade ago “remain in effect for Clean Water Act purposes” and will remain so “unless or until the EPA approves the removal of the currently applicable numeric nutrient criteria and approves revised water quality standards.”A DEQ spokesperson did not directly answer MTFP’s questions about what water quality standards DEQ is using to assess Montana waterways and determine whether permittees are complying with state and federal regulations.The agency wrote in an email that no permitted pollution sources under its regulatory oversight are discharging into the Big Hole, suggesting that its enforcement role is limited. The agency also wrote that an impairment designation is not required to implement water quality improvement projects such as creating riparian buffers, improving forest roads, or creating shaded areas. “Watershed partners may begin actively working on nonpoint source pollution reduction projects at any time,” DEQ spokesperson Madison McGeffers wrote to MTFP. “There is nothing standing in the way of starting work on these types of projects to improve water quality. In fact, the Big Hole River Watershed Committee is actively implementing its Watershed Restoration Plan with funds and support from DEQ Nonpoint Source & Wetland Section’s 319 program.”Alsentzer countered that a science-based cleanup plan and greater accountability will benefit the Big Hole regardless of whether nutrients are flowing into the river from a pipe or entering via more diffuse and harder-to-regulate channels.“You can’t get to that if you don’t recognize that you’ve got a problem we need to solve,” he said, adding that an impairment designation “unlocks pass-through funding to the tune of millions of dollars.”Addressing manmade threats to the Big Hole should be a priority for DEQ, given local communities’ economic reliance on a healthy river, he added.“It’s just a real tragic state of affairs when you have a blue-ribbon trout fishery in a very rural county that’s essentially having its livelihood flushed down the drain because we can’t get our agencies to actually implement baseline river protections (and) use science-based standards,” Alsentzer said. “When people try to do the work for the agency and help them, they’re getting told to go pound sand. I think that’s wrong.”Two years ago, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists recorded historically low numbers of brown trout along some stretches of the Big Hole. Anglers and conservationists floated a number of possible contributing factors, ranging from pathogens and drought conditions to angling pressure and unmitigated pollution. Save Wild Trout, a nonprofit formed in 2023 to understand which factors merit further investigation, described the 2023 southwestern Montana fishery “collapse” as a “canary in the coal mine moment.”In response to the 2023 population slump, Gov. Greg Gianforte announced the launch of a multiyear research effort on Jefferson Basin rivers that FWP is coordinating with Montana State University. Narrative Standards For ‘Undesirable Aquatic Life’ DEQ’s letter to Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation leaves open the possibility of a future impairment designation based on narrative water quality standards. After mentioning the 2021 legislation, Nowakowski wrote that the agency reviewed the submitted data “along with other readily available data, in consideration of the state’s established narrative criteria.”The letter goes on to outline the additional material petitioners would need to submit for the agency to evaluate an impairment designation using narrative criteria, which establish that surface waters must be “free from substances” that “create conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life.”In an April 22 letter, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Big Hole River Foundation addressed the petition denial in two parts. First, the groups argued that numeric nutrient standards apply. Second, they resubmitted material — photos, emails, a macroinvertebrate report, and “Aquatic Plant Visual Assessment Forms” — to support an impairment designation under the looser narrative standards. “We encourage DEQ to do the right thing, use all available science to determine the Big Hole River impaired for nutrients, and commit to working with petitioners and other (stakeholders) in addressing the pollution sources undermining this world-class waterway and harming the diverse uses it supports,” the letter says. Alsentzer noted that he has set up a meeting with the EPA to discuss DEQ’s treatment of the petition and its description of applicable water quality standards.The dispute over numeric nutrient standards comes shortly after the Legislature passed another bill seeking to repeal them. Any day now, Gianforte is expected to sign House Bill 664, which bears a striking similarity to 2021’s Senate Bill 358. HB 664 has garnered support from Nowakowski, who described it as a “time travel” bill that will return the state to “individual, site-by-site” regulations in lieu of more broadly applicable numeric standards. This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Supreme Court justices consider reviving industry bid to ax California clean car rule

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that could revive a bid by fuel producers to ax California’s clean car standards. The court was not considering the legality of the standards themselves, which ​​require car companies to sell new vehicles in the state that produce less pollution — including by mandating a significant share of cars sold to be electric or hybrid.  Instead, the Supreme Court was considering whether the fuel industry had the authority to bring the lawsuit at all. A lower court determined that the producers, which include numerous biofuel companies and trade groups representing both them and the makers of gasoline, did not have standing to bring the case. Some of the justices were quiet, so it’s difficult to predict what the ultimate outcome of the case will be. However, others appeared critical of the federal government and California’s arguments that the fuel producers do not have the right to bring a suit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in particular noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself did not initially try to have the case tossed on that basis.  “Isn't that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there's even — even a hint of a question about it,” Kavanaugh said.  The fuel producers argued that while it was technically the auto industry that was being regulated, the market was being “tilted” against them as well by California’s rule, which was also adopted by other states. The EPA and California have argued that the fuel producers are arguing on the basis of outdated facts and a market that has shifted since the rule was first approved by the EPA in 2013.  The EPA needs to grant approval to California to issue such rules. The approval was revoked by the Trump administration and later reinstated in the Biden administration.  If the justices revive the currently dismissed case, lower courts would then have to decide whether to uphold the California rule — though the underlying case could eventually make its way to the high court as well.  Meanwhile, California has since passed subsequent standards that go even further — banning the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. That rule was approved by the Biden administration — though Congress may try to repeal it.

EPA fires or reassigns hundreds of staffers

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice issues, it said Tuesday.Why it matters: The large-scale changes could effectively end much of the EPA's work tackling pollution in historically disadvantaged communities.It's part of the Trump administration's effort to vastly shrink the federal workforce. EPA has around 15,000 employees.Driving the news: EPA notified roughly 280 employees that they will be fired in a "reduction in force." Another 175 who perform "statutory functions" will be reassigned.The employees come from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices."EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency," a spokesperson said.Between the lines: The firings will likely see challenges from congressional Democrats and the employees themselves.EPA had previously put many environmental justice staffers on administrative leave.Administrator Lee Zeldin, during a Monday news conference, defended the agency's broader efforts to cut environmental justice grant programs, arguing the money is ill-spent."The problem is that, in the name of environmental justice, a dollar will get secured and not get spent on remediating that environmental issue," he said.

EPA firing 280 staffers who fought pollution in overburdened neighborhoods

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will fire 280 staffers who worked on tackling pollution in overburdened and underserved communities and will reassign another 175. These staffers worked in an area known as “environmental justice,” which helps communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure, especially minority or low-income communities.  The EPA has framed its efforts to cut these programs — including its previous closure of environmental justice offices — as part of a push to end diversity programming in the government. Supporters of the agency's environmental justice work have pointed out that Black communities face particularly high pollution levels and that the programs also help white Americans, especially if they are poor.  “EPA is taking the next step to terminate the Biden-Harris Administration’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Environmental Justice arms of the agency,” an EPA spokesperson said in a written statement.   “Today, EPA notified diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice employees that EPA will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” the spokesperson said. “The agency also notified certain statutory and mission essential employees that they are being reassigned to other offices through the ‘transfer of function’ procedure also outlined in [the Office of Personnel Management’s] Handbook and federal regulations” The firings will be effective July 31, according to E&E News, which first reported that they were occurring. The news comes as the Trump administration has broadly sought to cut the federal workforce. The administration has previously indicated that it planned to cut 65 percent of the EPA’s overall budget. It’s not clear how much of this will be staff, though according to a plan reviewed by Democrat House staff, the EPA is considering the termination of as many as about 1,100 employees from its scientific research arm.  Meanwhile, as part of their reductions in force, other agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs have fired tens of thousands of staffers. The EPA is smaller than these agencies, with a total of more than 15,000 employees as of January.  Nearly 170 environmental justice staffers were previously placed on paid leave while the agency was “in the process of evaluating new structure and organization.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.