A Democratic bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Prevent Release Of Toxic Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2026," directs the EPA Administrator to take specific actions regarding certain chemicals. The legislation requires the Administrator to issue a final rule within 180 days to add all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the bill mandates a revision to the list of source categories within 365 days after that final rule is issued. This revision would include major and area sources of these specific substances.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Classifying PFAS as hazardous air pollutants provides stronger regulatory oversight to protect the environment.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Regulating toxic chemical emissions improves long-term consumer safety and public health protection.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Lower-income communities often bear a disproportionate burden of environmental pollution.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Industrial businesses may face increased compliance costs due to new hazardous classifications.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Classification of Chemicals: The bill requires the EPA to add all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (Section 2(a)). This establishes these substances as a recognized class of hazardous air pollutants.
-
Identification of Pollution Sources: The Administrator must revise the list of major and area sources to include those that release these substances (Section 2(b)). This helps in identifying exactly where these chemicals are being released into the air.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly stated in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Lower-income communities often bear a disproportionate burden of environmental pollution. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas are often disproportionately affected by industrial air pollution. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Environmental justice initiatives often target pollution reductions in historically underserved communities. Would children be better off under this? — Reducing exposure to toxic chemicals provides long-term health benefits for developing children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Reductions in air toxins support public health in all minority communities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Environmental protections often benefit immigrant communities residing in high-pollution areas. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Mitigating chemical contamination protects land and water vital to many indigenous communities. Would students be better off under this? — Cleaner environments contribute to healthier school surroundings. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improved air quality is a general public health benefit. Would men be better off under this? — Reduced chemical exposure supports general public health. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improved air quality provides broad public health benefits. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Improved public health outcomes benefit all individuals, including those with chronic conditions. Would retired people be better off under this? — Environmental health protections support aging populations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improved air quality benefits all residential populations regardless of geography. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improved air quality is a general public health benefit. Would women be better off under this? — Reduced chemical exposure has positive implications for reproductive health. Would farmers be better off under this? — Cleaner air and water help maintain soil and crop health. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General public health improvements benefit all socioeconomic strata. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improving air quality contributes to better long-term health outcomes. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reducing environmental hazards can help mitigate chronic health issues in aging populations. Would union members be better off under this? — Industrial workers may benefit from safer working environments through stricter EPA oversight. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Environmental health is a component of overall veteran wellness. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Lowering environmental toxin exposure benefits overall public health for younger generations. Would business owners be better off under this? — Industrial businesses may face increased compliance costs due to new hazardous classifications.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Classifying PFAS as hazardous air pollutants provides stronger regulatory oversight to protect the environment.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Regulating toxic chemical emissions improves long-term consumer safety and public health protection.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the EPA's regulatory authority over PFAS substances via the Clean Air Act.
- 10/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/3/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 7/22/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 1/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/8/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Grace MengDemocrat · New York
Mark PocanDemocrat · Wisconsin
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Hillary ScholtenDemocrat · Michigan
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida