Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any states enacted temporary moratoria or regulatory frameworks instead of outright bans on geoengineering?
Executive summary
As of the 2025–mid‑2025 wave of state bills, most U.S. state actions described in available reporting are bans or prohibitions on geoengineering rather than temporary moratoria or explicit state regulatory frameworks; Florida enacted a statutory ban in 2025 and many other states proposed similar bans [1] [2]. Federal authorities like EPA/NOAA still rely on older reporting statutes (WMRA) and have not enacted a new, unified federal regulatory regime for solar geoengineering as of the sources’ dates [3].
1. The recent state surge: bans dominate the headlines
Legislative activity in 2025 shows a broad pattern of states introducing bills to prohibit atmospheric geoengineering — cloud seeding, solar radiation modification, and related techniques — with reporting focused on outright bans or prohibition-style statutes rather than temporary moratoria or new permitting frameworks. Florida’s 2025 law is highlighted as a “landmark geoengineering ban,” and reporting cites many other states filing bills modeled on prohibitions [1] [2]. Commentaries and trackers counted dozens of states considering bans during the spring 2025 session [4] [5].
2. But not every state bill is identical — some narrow scope or defer to existing law
While many bills are framed as bans, text and reporting show variation: some proposals explicitly target solar radiation management (SRM) while excluding “traditional” weather modification (cloud seeding); Montana’s draft law was described as integrating with existing environmental regulation rather than a blanket ban; and Arizona’s legislation focused on a long list of techniques [1] [6] [7]. EPA’s overview notes examples where state chambers passed narrow SRM bans while leaving cloud‑seeding programs untouched — indicating that a subset of state actions are narrower regulatory choices instead of universal prohibitions [7].
3. Temporary moratoria and regulatory frameworks: the available reporting is sparse
Available sources do not identify many clear examples of states enacting explicit temporary moratoria (time‑limited bans) or deliberate, new regulatory frameworks that authorize controlled research or permitting regimes in place of bans. Most cited activity in 2025 emphasizes prohibition bills, penalties, or repeal of prior weather‑modification statutes; EPA’s aggregation similarly frames state activity as bans or narrower prohibitions, and it notes that Montana’s bill “integrates with existing environmental regulations” but does not describe a novel permitting regime taking the place of a ban [1] [3] [7]. Therefore, explicit state‑level moratoria or positive regulatory frameworks appear limited or not widely reported in the provided sources.
4. Federal baseline: reporting requirements, not a new regulatory regime
At the federal level, Congress had not passed a law solely for solar geoengineering; instead, federal authorities rely on statutes such as the Weather Modification Reporting Act (WMRA) of 1972, which requires advance reporting for weather modification activities and has been interpreted to cover SRM-type activities in NOAA’s reporting rules (15 CFR Part 908.3) [3]. EPA’s materials also indicate uncertainty about whether new federal authorities are needed or which agency should lead regulation, and note ongoing federal research planning rather than an operational deployment or permitting system [3].
5. Competing perspectives in the coverage
Reporting presents two competing rationales: proponents of bans argue precaution — that untested, large‑scale interventions risk health and environmental harm and should be restrained by statute [4] [2]. Opponents of blanket prohibitions — including some scientists and policy analysts — warn that prohibitions could inadvertently block legitimate, small‑scale research needed to assess risks and benefits, and that more nuanced governance (permitting, disclosure, public participation) might better balance risks and knowledge needs [8] [7]. The EPA summary explicitly notes distinctions in bills that either ban SRM exclusively or otherwise keep cloud‑seeding legal, indicating policy trade‑offs states are making [7].
6. What’s missing or uncertain in the current reporting
Available sources do not provide comprehensive lists of any state that has adopted a formal temporary moratorium (time‑limited pause) or a dedicated regulatory framework that explicitly replaces a ban with a controlled permitting/research regime; trackers and news pieces largely catalog prohibition bills and differing scopes [9] [5]. The federal picture is likewise one of reporting and research coordination rather than new, comprehensive federal rules authorizing or supervising SRM experiments [3].
7. What to watch next
Monitor: [10] the final text and implementing regulations for recent state statutes (Florida’s law and Montana/Arizona drafts) to see whether they include regulatory rulemaking timelines, exceptions for research, or delegated permitting to state environmental agencies [1] [7]; [11] EPA/NOAA announcements on agency roles or new federal rulemaking, because federal reporting requirements and one‑off permits (e.g., under ocean discharge laws) remain relevant to how outdoor experiments might be conducted [3]. Also watch policy analyses advocating governance alternatives — such as the Brookings principles favoring governance before deployment — which appear in the literature as alternatives to outright bans [8].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided sources; if you want a broader, up‑to‑date inventory of enacted statutes, moratoria language, or state regulatory rules after mid‑2025, I can search additional reporting and the states’ statutory texts.