Colorado’s disability community is sounding the alarm over a little-known proposal by the federal government they say could have major implications down the road. 

The Department of Energy has announced plans to roll back a section of the Rehabilitation Act that requires federally funded buildings to follow certain accessibility standards. Passed over a decade before the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act only applies to buildings that receive federal funding. 

If the repeal happens, it would apply to buildings that receive “substantial” funding from the Department of Energy. Colorado, with its large number of energy-efficient buildings, could be significantly affected but the full impact of the repeal is hard to gauge, according to Kelly McCullough, legal director at Disability Law Colorado.

McCullough said the efforts by energy department are part of a broader movement by the Trump administration to eliminate regulations it deems “unnecessary and burdensome.” 

In April, Trump issued an executive order directing the repeal of “unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous” regulations through a review of ten recent Supreme Court decisions.

While she understands that some regulations may be unneeded, McCullough said ensuring buildings are accessible to individuals with disabilities has never been controversial, regardless of who was in the White House, until now.  

“Historically, across both Republican and Democrat administrations, disability rights have been something that’s consistently been supported by both administrations,” she said. 

Despite the public support for increased accessibilities, accessibility standards have been extremely difficult to enforce, and even 35 years after the ADA’s passage, according to McCullough. She said added she still hears of blatant violations across the state. She’s worried that this repeal will send the message that those violations are OK.

“We’ve heard anecdotes of people being told that they no longer have to provide interpreters when they do need to provide interpreters, because of things that they’re hearing from the federal government,” she said. “Instead of trying to push forward, we’re having to try to keep things from rolling back, which is super frustrating and I think it’s truly terrifying for so many people who rely on accessible buildings.”

Even if the scope of the repeals is relatively small, for McCullough and other members of the disability community, it’s more about the message it sends and the potential domino effect it could have for other federal agencies. 

“If places are saying, ‘Hey, this is confusing, we get grants from the Department of Energy, but we also get grants from all these other departments, what do we have to do?’ The other departments might say, ‘Well, we’ll roll those back, too,'” she explained. 

Rolling back certain regulations in the name of clearing red tape may just create further confusion for businesses, McCullough also argued. 

“It seems to be implied by this administration that people are finding these codes burdensome, but I don’t think that is truly the case,” she said. “I think that most places want more black-and-white, clear expectations, and it really is these areas of gray that cause a lot of business owners and a lot of builders to be very concerned about whether they’re in compliance with the law, so I think these gray areas are going to make it tougher for a lot of people.”

McCullough also took issue with how quickly the repeal process has gone. Normally, when the federal government is considering repealing a regulation, there is an open comments period, in which members of the public can voice their opinion on the matter.

The DOE opted to issue the proposal as a “direct final rule,” a designation typically reserved for non-controversial or relatively insignificant regulations, she said.

This expedited approach implements the repeal immediately, unless the agency receives “significant adverse comments” from the public. 

McCullough is certain the disability community has plenty of “adverse comments” but is unsure that most of them will be heard due to its shortened timeline and relative obscurity.

“There wasn’t like a big announcement, and it was done very quickly in a different way than this type of thing normally would be done,” she said. “I think if it was more broadly advertised, there would be significant adverse feedback.”