New CLEAR Act Extends Air Quality Standard Reviews to 10 Years, Prioritizes Economic Feasibility Over Health

The Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform Act, or the CLEAR Act, makes some major changes to how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states manage air quality under the Clean Air Act. The core of this bill is shifting deadlines and priorities, giving states significantly more runway and flexibility—but potentially at the cost of quicker progress on clean air.

Stretching the Timeline on Clean Air

One of the most immediate changes is the schedule for reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Right now, the EPA is required to review these standards, which protect public health, every five years. The CLEAR Act stretches this out to ten years (SEC. 2). For the average person, this means the standards that determine the air quality in your city—the ones that protect against asthma and other respiratory illnesses—will only be updated half as often. If new science emerges showing that current pollution levels are more dangerous than previously thought, the regulatory response is now locked into a much slower cycle.

When "Attainable" Trumps "Protective"

Perhaps the most significant shift is how standards are set. When the EPA determines a level necessary to protect public health, they can now use the "likely attainability" of that standard as a secondary factor when setting the final rule (SEC. 2). This means that if a standard is scientifically determined to be the safest level, but implementing it is deemed too difficult or expensive, the EPA can choose a weaker standard based on what is considered achievable. This also extends to state planning: when states develop plans for areas that fail to meet ozone or particulate matter standards, they must now factor in economic feasibility alongside technological achievability (SEC. 2). For a business owner facing tough new emissions requirements, this might sound like relief. For a parent living near a factory in a nonattainment area, it means the state can now legally argue that cleaning up the air is too expensive, delaying necessary health protections.

More Time, Less Federal Oversight

States get a lot more breathing room under this bill. If the EPA finds a state’s plan for meeting air quality standards is deficient, the state gets at least one year to submit a fix. If they submit a plan, the EPA now has up to three years—instead of the usual two—to finalize its own Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (SEC. 2). This extra year of state control and potential three-year delay on federal intervention means a much longer waiting period for air quality improvements in areas that are already struggling. Furthermore, areas classified as "Extreme Nonattainment" for ozone are now relieved of the requirement to implement specific contingency measures, removing a mandatory safeguard in the most polluted regions (SEC. 2).

The Wildfire Exception: Prescribed Burns and Pollution Spikes

The CLEAR Act updates the definition of an "exceptional event"—a pollution spike that can be excluded from compliance data—to specifically include "action to mitigate wildfire risk," such as prescribed burns (SEC. 3). This is designed to protect states from being penalized for proactive wildfire management. If a state conducts a prescribed burn to prevent a massive, uncontrolled fire later, and that burn temporarily spikes local particulate matter, the state can petition the EPA to ignore that data. While this supports crucial fire prevention efforts, the bill also offers sanctions relief for states that can prove non-attainment is due to pollution from outside the area or from mobile sources they truly can't control (SEC. 3). This creates a way for states to avoid penalties, but they must renew this demonstration every five years, creating a potential bureaucratic hurdle for maintaining relief.

Changing Who Advises the EPA

Finally, the bill changes the composition and mandate of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the independent body that advises the EPA on air quality standards. The bill increases representation from state air pollution control agencies from one person to three, ensuring geographic diversity (SEC. 4). More importantly, it adds a new requirement: before setting or revising a standard, the EPA must ask CASAC to assess and advise on any adverse effects—including social, economic, cost, and energy concerns—that might come from the plans to meet those standards (SEC. 4). This formalizes the inclusion of economic and social costs into the scientific advisory process, which traditionally focused purely on public health science.