This week, state lawmakers made it more difficult to establish regulations that potentially protect the environment and public health with the passage of House Bill 402. Critics say the measure creates significant roadblocks to addressing air and water pollution.
The new law, known as the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Scrutiny (REINS) Act," requires rules with a projected financial impact of $1 million over five years to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the rulemaking body making the rule. For rules with impacts over $10 million, unanimous approval is required. And if a proposed regulation is expected to cost $20 million or more, it must be ratified — formally approved — by the General Assembly before it can take effect.
Environmental advocates warn that the law, combined with the Trump administration's push to weaken federal environmental protections, could stall urgently needed responses to emerging and growing environmental and public health threats.
"Lawmakers who passed this bill did not have the best interests of North Carolinians at heart," said Mary Maclean Asbill, in a release. Asbill is the director of the Southern Environmental Law Center's North Carolina offices. "This new law marks an awful turning point for families and communities across North Carolina when elected officials in the state legislature ignore serious illnesses and deaths in favor of polluters' profits."
Asbill also pointed to potential economic consequences, arguing that the new law will likely increase the costs to consumers of Duke Energy power, which she argues is a monopoly in North Carolina
Asbill also estimated that the aspect of the law could cost the state, "$23 billion in additional electricity bill payments over the next few decades and all but guaranteeing a more polluted and riskier future."
House Speaker Destin Hall (R-Caldwell) dismissed criticism of the legislation, saying it's intended to ensure transparency and accountability — not to hinder progress.
"What we had in the REINS Act was a situation where if you have a regulation that is extremely expensive, our position is that it's something that [the legislature] needs to take a look at, because ultimately, constitutionally, this body appropriates funds in this state," Hall said.
"It doesn't mean that we're always going to turn down a proposed regulation just because it comes over," he noted. "But I think that often what they're doing in the agencies and regulatory bodies doesn't always come to the attention of this body until it's already implemented and already too late and somebody's suffering from it."
Environmental advocates argue that delays in enacting environmental regulations can cause the public to suffer in other ways — including higher costs and increased health risks.
Costs passed on to consumers
Environmental advocates warn that the added red tape may delay or block rules needed to control harmful industrial chemicals — such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane — both linked to adverse health outcomes, including cancer. They say it could also drive up utility costs in the process.
For example, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority spent nearly $50 million in 2022 to install a system that filters PFAS from drinking water. It's now exploring additional upgrades to better address 1,4-dioxane — a chemical the EPA classifies as a likely human carcinogen. Because no enforceable federal limit exists for 1,4-dioxane, the responsibility for removing it falls to utilities — and ultimately to customers.
That burden comes at a cost. As reported by Port City Daily, the technology needed to better control upstream 1,4-dioxane pollution is expected to cost millions — expenses likely to be passed on to ratepayers.
"If you're allowing 1,4-dioxane in people's water, if you're allowing thousands of different PFAS in drinking water, and you're not allowing the necessary rulemaking that would remove them, then you're not protecting the people of North Carolina. You're not," said Erin Carey, conservation policy director for the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club."You're protecting the polluters."
Critics argue that protecting the public requires weighing both the costs and benefits of regulations — especially those designed to safeguard health and the environment. But under House Bill 402, only financial costs can be considered, not any benefits flowing from the imposition of a new regulation.
Critics of N.C. House Bill 402 warn it could delay or block regulations on harmful industrial chemicals like PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, potentially increasing public health risks and utility costs — as seen in Wilmington, where ratepayers covered the nearly $50 million cost of a PFAS treatment system at CFPUA's Sweeney Water Treatment Plant. "It is expensive to have clean drinking water, to keep things out of our drinking water that would be harmful for us to ingest," said Brooks Rainey, SELC lobbyist to the North Carolina General Assembly. "That costs money, but the reason we're all willing to do it is because the benefit so greatly outweighs the cost. For example, keeping fecal matter out of our drinking water means we don't have cholera outbreaks."
Rainey noted, "If we're only allowed to think about the cost of a rule, every rule is going to look like a burden on industry, and it is a scary road to walk down when the only thing we even think is worth considering is the cost to industry and the health of the people isn't even taken into consideration."
"Everything about that bill is kind of rigged to make it harder to enact or keep on the books important environmental protections," said state Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford), a fierce opponent of the bill.
Where does House Bill 402 leave North Carolinians?
As the cost of living rises, environmental advocates warn that laws like House Bill 402 — which make it harder to implement pollution controls — are forcing public utilities to shoulder the burden of removing hazardous contaminants from drinking water. Without strong "polluter pays" provisions, those costs often end up being passed on to ratepayers.
At the same time, residents are also facing higher insurance premiums and reduced coverage as extreme weather events — including Hurricane Helene, California's wildfires, and Tropical Storm Chantal — strain the insurance industry's capacity.
"North Carolina decision-makers have more than enough information to move forward on strong legislative and regulatory actions around PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, whether that is a "polluter pays" bill like H.B. 569 or surface water quality standards," said Grady O'Brien, water policy manager for the North Carolina Conservation Network.
North Carolina House Bill 569 — which remains under consideration — would require polluters to reimburse public water systems for the cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin, but has not had any legislative action since the House sent the bill to the Senate in early May. Advocates say HB 569 stands in direct contrast to HB 402, which they argue creates unnecessary red tape and stalls meaningful reform.
Another proposal environmentalists are watching closely is Senate Bill 666, the Water Safety Act, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Michael Lee (R–New Hanover) who represents a district that has been heavily affected by PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River basin. If passed, it would direct the Environmental Management Commission to establish regulatory limits on PFAS. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Operations in March and has yet to advance.
"It is an essential function of government: we need to be able to regulate, to make rules — otherwise it becomes the wild, wild West out there," Carey said. "People will start building wherever they want, filling in wetlands wherever they want, discharging chemicals where and when it suits them.
"If there are no regulations, no rules in place, then there is no protection for the environment — and no protection for the people."
This article first appeared on North Carolina Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
