John Curtis (R-UT)
Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Held at the desk.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Awaiting House
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act of 2026. It changes how air quality monitoring handles prescribed fires under the Clean Air Act. The bill includes prescribed fires in the definition of exceptional events. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise regulations to reduce the burden and cost for States to make exceptional event demonstrations. It also establishes a Smoke Ready Communities Program to provide competitive grants for addressing wildfire smoke hazards in community and school buildings. Finally, it sets rules for State petitions and timelines for EPA approval.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill improves air quality management and smoke hazard mitigation through new grant programs and regulatory clarity.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill facilitates prescribed fire as a tool for managing wildland fuels and reducing wildfire magnitude.
- Scored +4
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill specifically includes cultural burning activities determined by Indian tribes in its definition of prescribed fire.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduced Regulatory Burdens for States: Under Section 2(a)(2), amending Section 319(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator must revise regulations to reduce the cost and burden for States to demonstrate an exceptional event. This is positive because it helps local governments save resources when dealing with air quality rules related to prescribed fires.
-
Clearer Rules for Prescribed Fires: Under Section 2(a)(1), amending Section 319(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, prescribed fires and cultural burning activities by an Indian tribe are explicitly included in the definition of exceptional events. This is positive because it gives clear legal recognition to controlled burns used for land management and tribal traditions.
-
Automatic Approval Timelines for State Petitions: Under Section 2(a)(3), amending Section 319(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Clean Air Act, a State petition will be deemed approved if the Administrator does not act on it within one year. This is positive because it holds federal officials accountable and prevents state requests from sitting indefinitely.
-
Grants for Safer Community Buildings: Under Section 3(a), the Administrator may award competitive grants for assessing, preventing, controlling, or abating wildfire smoke hazards in community buildings, including school buildings. This is positive because it helps protect people, especially children, from dangerous smoke.
-
Cost-Share Waivers for Economically Distressed Communities: Under Section 3(c)(2), the Administrator may waive the normal cost-share requirement if a facility is located in an economically distressed community. This is positive because it ensures poorer areas are not left behind due to a lack of local matching funds.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limitations on Grant Distribution: Under Section 3(d), not more than 25 percent of the available grant money may be awarded to recipients in any single State during each fiscal year. This might be considered negative because it restricts funding even if one State has a much higher need for wildfire smoke protection in its schools and community buildings than others.
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill improves air quality management and smoke hazard mitigation through new grant programs and regulatory clarity. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill facilitates prescribed fire as a tool for managing wildland fuels and reducing wildfire magnitude. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The bill provides competitive grants to mitigate wildfire smoke hazards in community buildings.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill specifically includes cultural burning activities determined by Indian tribes in its definition of prescribed fire. Would children be better off under this? — Grants can be used to mitigate smoke hazards in school buildings. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill allows cost-share waivers for grants in economically distressed communities. Would students be better off under this? — The bill provides resources to improve smoke safety in school buildings.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill reduces the administrative burden and cost for States to demonstrate exceptional air quality events.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill allows grants for smoke hazard abatement in school buildings.
The version one chamber actually passed
What changed from Reported to Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 10/5/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 9/29/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5148-5150; text: CR S5149-5150)
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5148-5150; text: CR S5149-5150)
- 9/16/2026
- Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Capito without amendment. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 620.
- 9/15/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/21/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
John BoozmanRepublican · Arkansas
Shelley CapitoRepublican · West Virginia
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California