ARTICLE AD BOX
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan was at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs Tuesday talking with students about climate action.
Regan was administrator under President Biden, who signed legislation encouraging private and public investment in clean energy.
Environmental protections have been deprioritized by President Trump’s administration. This month, Trump canceled more than $7 billion in grants supporting clean energy projects in 16 states.
MPR News host Clay Masters spoke with him today on the U of M campus.
A transcript of their conversation is below, edited for time and clarity.
Former President Biden signed the inflation Reduction Act, which encouraged private and public investment in clean energy. Is any of that still intact under the current administration?
What I can say is, under the previous administration, there were investments made pulling hundreds of billions of dollars in capital off the sideline from the private sector. And the private sector continues to invest in clean energy. They’re investing in clean energy mainly because we need to be globally competitive. These technologies are strengthening our water resources, our electricity grid. There’s a national security angle. It’s about being competitive internationally and, by the way, it is also reducing pollution and really, really saving lives.
We’re almost 30 days into the government shutdown. Is there any EPA left right now?
There are still people at the United States Environmental Protection Agency who are fighting for the American people every day. And it breaks my heart to see that there are furloughs occurring. There are people who want to fight for clean air, clean water — you know, a healthy, prosperous lifestyle for everyone. And the government is not open to pay those individuals.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy — along with a well owners’ association in southern Minnesota and Trout Unlimited — sued the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Agriculture to open up conversations about the way commercial fertilizer and manure application is regulated. Are lawsuits like this the way change takes place now?
I am witnessing all across the country [that] many traditional organizations use nontraditional means to spark conversation. Litigation is a little contentious. FOIA-ing for information is a little contentious. It would be great for everyone just to volunteer to sit down and have these conversations, but these tools exist in our democracy for a reason. And if it’s going to advance the conversation, I think everyone should use all the tools in the toolbox.
I have reported on contentious interactions among the Farm Bureau, farm groups and environmentalists who are concerned about water pollution. How do you make make agriculture conversations happen without it being so contentious?
I had a great relationship with the president of the National Farm Bureau, Zippy Duvall. We talked. What is not reported is the conversations that move the ball forward. What we see a lot in social media and in the news and on TV is the more salacious stuff. I would just love for students here at the University of Minnesota, at Duke University, where I'm a Distinguished Fellow, understand that there are bipartisan conversations happening on all topics behind the scenes, and we need to talk about that more. We have a responsibility to demonstrate that there’s more that unites us than divides us.
Chemicals are reported on a lot here in the state of Minnesota. There’s been some settlements. Any concerns about lack of regulation on PFAS?
Absolutely. You know, it was not long into my first year as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality in North Carolina when we found that DuPont spinoff Chemores had been dumping Gen X, a forever chemical, in our precious Cape Fear River for over 30 years. This is a pervasive problem, and not only does it require stopping the pollution at the source, but we have to clean up this mess.
While I was EPA administrator, it was a top priority to tackle this, to tackle the downstream impacts and make the polluters pay. This is something that is not just pervasive in the United States of America, but all over the world, and we were leading in that category. So I do believe we have a responsibility to protect our citizens. Our citizens should know what’s in their drinking water and should be protected from anything that’s not healthy.
English (US) ·