While this year’s Earth Week theme of “our power, our planet” is centered around the renewable energy movement and combating climate change, attention should also be directed to the people tasked with building that future and how to adequately protect those workers who are already feeling the effects of a changing environment. For example, between 2011 and 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded over 33,000 work-related heat injuries and illnesses—a number believed to be significantly undercounted. Intensifying storms and increased incidents of wildfire smoke are similarly impacting workers, particularly those primarily working outdoors. In this sense, climate change can be looked at as an occupational safety issue as much as an environmental one. As environmental regulations consistently become more politically charged, enhanced worker protections continue to develop, showing the importance of this issue across the political spectrum.
Where OSHA’s Power Currently Stands
For decades, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has relied upon the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act) to address safety concerns that do not have specified regulations elsewhere in the Act. While the clause acts as a strong catch-all for OSHA to address safety concerns arising from a changing climate, OSHA’s enforcement is essentially reactive. It does not provide workers with protections specific to their work scenario and does not provide employers with clear thresholds or guidance on what they need to do to ensure they are not cited for a workplace violation in future. OSHA also recently sought to narrow the effects of the General Duty Clause, specifically seeking to exclude from enforcement known hazards inherent from the core nature of a professional activity. As deregulation continues across the federal government, enhanced regulatory uncertainty continues to impact worker protections and those tasked with developing protocols to protect against enforcement.
How OSHA is Addressing a Changing Climate
There are numerous hazards associated with a changing climate. Increased wildfires raise particulate matter levels in the air, leading to enhanced respiratory and cardiovascular concerns for outdoor workers. More powerful and unpredictable storms elevate fall and flooding concerns at outdoor worksites. These arenas would benefit from OSHA protocols that provide certainty for workers and employers. OSHA’s current focus, however, and one that has now reached across two administrations, is a specific standard governing workplace heat exposure. In August 2024, OSHA published its proposed rule on “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings,” the first comprehensive heat standard proposed at the federal level. If finalized, the standard will apply across general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture. Specifically, the standard will establish heat index triggers at 80°F and 90°F that require progressively stronger protections such as water, shade, rest breaks, and illness monitoring. To ensure compliance, employers will need to develop written prevention plans and acclimatization protocols (statistically, over 70% of heat-related deaths occur during a worker’s first few days on the job).
The heat standard rule is not yet final, but it continues to progress. OSHA held a public hearing in 2025, and over 43,000 public comments were filed. While the rule is not yet finalized, employers would be well served to review the proposed rule’s employer obligations as a best practice to address existing heat concerns and avoid enforcement under the General Duty Clause.
Hazards of a Green Economy
The green energy transition has its pronounced benefits, however consideration should also be given to the risks introduced in these arenas. Solar energy introduces fall hazards (rooftop mounting), electrical risks (arc flashes and electrocution hazards from energized solar panels), and exposure hazards (carcinogen exposure in damaged panels). Similar concerns exist for workers installing and maintaining wind turbines, which can rise to hundreds of feet in the air. Battery storage—critical for any renewable energy grid—introduces thermal runaway risks such as fire hazards and toxic substance exposure. The risks are so inherent that the National Fire Protection Association’s 2026 edition of NFPA 855 now requires a Hazard Mitigation Analysis as a default obligation for battery energy storage system installations, whereas it previously only applied to specific scenarios.
Workers at the forefront of the green energy transition encounter hazards that they and current regulations may be ill-equipped to manage safely. It is critical that health and safety regulatory agencies continue to explore these arenas and ensure employees (and employers) have appropriate direction and guidance as they navigate these challenges.
The Impact of Current Federal Posture on Workers
As this summary illustrates, an assertive OSHA has a two-fold benefit of providing workers with enforceable rights and employers with clear compliance benchmarks. Retreating from that position through regulatory delays or deregulatory actions creates compliance uncertainty for employers that may lead to increased compliance costs and a higher risk of enforcement. Such actions also have an enhanced negative impact on the workers typically with the lowest capacity to absorb it, such as hourly employees and those with less economic certainty. Most importantly, a less assertive federal posture does not eliminate a hazard and leads to patchwork state standards that can increase compliance obligations on employers. For example, while OSHA does not have a federal wildfire standard, employers must still comply with state-level standards in California, Oregon and Washington. When done correctly, a robust regulatory posture can benefit everyone in the workstream, ensuring the green energy transition is performed in a manner affording workers adequate protections and employers appropriate guidance to minimize legal risk.