Clean Air Act 'Tweaks' Could Mean More Pollution: New Bill Limits EPA Oversight

The "New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act" sounds harmless, but it's actually a significant rewrite of parts of the Clean Air Act. This bill, introduced by H. Griffith, changes the rules for when power plants and factories need to upgrade their pollution controls. Instead of focusing on hourly pollution limits, it shifts the focus to annual emissions. This seemingly small change could have a big impact on air quality. It is important to note that Rep. Griffith has received significant funding from Electric Utilities and Oil & Gas industries. This bill could directly benefit those industries.

What Counts as a 'Modification' Anymore?

Under current law, if a facility makes a "modification" that increases pollution, it often triggers a "New Source Review" – meaning they might have to install the best available pollution control technology. This bill narrows the definition of "modification." Now, a change only counts as a modification if it increases the maximum hourly emission rate compared to the highest rate in the past 10 years (SEC. 2). Even then, there are exceptions. Changes that supposedly improve "efficiency," "reliability," or "safety" are exempt, even if they pump out more pollution per hour (SEC. 2). The EPA can still step in if a change is deemed to "negatively impact human health or the environment," but the overall effect is to limit when stricter controls kick in.

Real-World Rollout: The Annual vs. Hourly Game

Imagine a factory that currently operates 12 hours a day, emitting a certain amount of pollution per hour. Under this bill, they could make changes that increase their hourly emissions, but as long as they don't operate for significantly more hours over the entire year, they might avoid stricter pollution controls. Think of it like this: you can blast your music louder, as long as you don't do it for too many hours each day. This is especially relevant in areas that already fail to meet air quality standards (nonattainment areas). The bill specifically excludes changes that don't significantly increase annual emissions from triggering stricter requirements in these areas (SEC. 4). This is a potential loophole that could allow facilities to increase their pollution output, just not all year round.

Loopholes and Challenges

Here's where things get tricky. The bill uses terms like "reliability" and "safety" as reasons to exempt changes from stricter controls (SEC. 2). These terms could be interpreted very broadly. A facility could argue that almost any change improves "reliability" in some way, even if it also increases pollution. The focus on annual emissions also creates a potential loophole. A factory could theoretically increase its hourly pollution significantly, as long as it reduces operating hours at other times to keep the annual total down. This could lead to short-term spikes in pollution that harm local air quality, even if the yearly average stays the same. Finally, the bill states that anything that wasn't considered a modification before this Act won't be considered one now (SEC. 5). This could create confusion and legal challenges about what exactly is covered.

The Bottom Line

This bill essentially makes it harder to regulate pollution from existing power plants and factories. While it might offer some businesses more flexibility, it does so by potentially sacrificing air quality and reducing the EPA's ability to enforce clean air standards. The shift from hourly to annual emissions focus, combined with broad exemptions, creates loopholes that could be exploited to increase pollution without triggering stricter controls.