Why it Matters

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is set to examine the White House's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency on April 29, and the hearing arrives at a moment of sharp disagreement over what the EPA should be doing, funding, and regulating. The budget request will put numbers to a policy direction that has already drawn fire from Democrats on the committee and quiet support from Republicans who want the agency's regulatory reach curtailed. The outcome will shape federal spending on clean water infrastructure, Superfund cleanup, greenhouse gas enforcement, and drinking water safety for millions of Americans.

The divisions inside the committee are already visible. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the ranking member, recently charged that "polluters celebrate 'consequential' Trump EPA" and that the consequences are "dirtier water and air and rapidly worsening economic dangers." Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), meanwhile, joined a legal brief to rescind the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, arguing that "the EPA has no congressional authorization to enforce these overreaching regulations."

Those two positions frame the fault line the FY2027 budget request will land on.

The Policy Stakes

Water infrastructure funding is among the most concrete flashpoints. The administration's budget will determine appropriations levels for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, programs that municipalities depend on to finance wastewater treatment upgrades, lead pipe replacement, and PFAS remediation. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently flagged that the EPA had slowed approvals of loan applications, halting "hundreds of critical water infrastructure projects," and separately called on the EPA to "take direct action to mitigate the climate risks on Superfund sites across the state and country."

Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) raised a related concern, noting that the Interior Department is "green-lighting BP's even riskier, even deeper Kaskida offshore oil project" sixteen years after the Deepwater Horizon spill, pointing to a broader pattern of loosened environmental oversight that Democrats plan to press at the hearing.

On the Republican side, the emphasis has been less on funding levels and more on regulatory structure. Sen. Lummis has argued that the current permitting system is "costing America trillions" and that fixing it "isn't a choice between the environment and the economy."

Who Is Lobbying

The industries with the most at stake in the EPA's budget have been active on Capitol Hill. Lobbying disclosures filed over the past year show a broad cross-section of organizations pressing on the same issues the committee will examine.

On water infrastructure, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago filed a First Quarter 2026 disclosure reporting $40,000 in lobbying, specifically in support of federal funding for the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund in the FY2027 appropriations process. The American Water Works Association reported $50,000 in the fourth quarter 2025 lobbying on drinking water revolving funds and legislation targeting lead contamination and PFAS liability. Brita Products Co. reported $110,000 in first quarter 2026 lobbying focused on lead contamination in drinking water and related appropriations.

On the energy and regulatory side, American Electric Power Co. Inc. reported $50,000 in first quarter 2026 lobbying on EPA greenhouse gas regulations under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as well as FY2027 appropriations for the coal combustion residuals program. Southern Co. and Duke Energy Corp. each reported $60,000 in first quarter 2026 lobbying on EPA regulations, clean air legislation, and energy policy broadly.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. reported $420,000 in the second quarter 2025 lobbying covering permitting reform under the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act. The Partnership to Address Global Emissions Inc. reported $450,000 in first quarter 2026 lobbying on methane emissions reductions, LNG exports, and permitting reform legislation.

PAC Contributions to Committee Members

Several of those lobbying organizations also have political action committees that have contributed to members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Duke Energy Corporation PAC contributed $5,500 to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), a committee member, and $3,500 to Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), also a committee member, during the 2024 campaign cycle. The Southern Company Employees PAC contributed $5,000 to Sen. Cramer during the same period. The Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company PAC contributed $2,000 to Sen. Cramer as well.

The Committee and the Hearing

Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) will preside over the April 29 hearing, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Whitehouse serves as ranking member. The full committee includes 19 members spanning a wide ideological range, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the left to Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) on the right.

No witnesses have been announced. The hearing is listed as a general hearing on the president's proposed budget request for the EPA for fiscal year 2027.

The congressional hearing on environmental protection comes as the administration has moved to roll back a range of EPA regulations, and as Congress works through a broader reconciliation and appropriations process that will determine federal agency funding levels for the coming fiscal year. How the committee receives the EPA's budget request will signal how much appetite exists in the Senate to push back on, or ratify, the administration's environmental agenda.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.