Jon Husted (R-OH)
New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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
The "New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act" seeks to amend sections 111, 169, and 171 of the Clean Air Act. It aims to clarify when a physical change or change in operation method at a stationary source counts as a modification or construction. The bill establishes specific criteria for when an emission rate is considered increased based on a 10-year period. It also excludes certain changes designed for efficiency, safety, or reliability from being classified as modifications. Additionally, it narrows the definition of construction regarding emissions units and major emitting facilities.
Yes
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill provides regulatory relief and easier permitting for stationary industrial sources.
- Scored +1
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill may slightly aid economic growth by streamlining permitting for industrial operations.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill narrows the definition of what constitutes a modification, potentially allowing more emissions-related changes without strict regulatory oversight.
- Scored -2
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
By easing permitting for existing sources, it may make it harder to regulate emissions increases that do not meet the new, narrower criteria.
- Scored -1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reduced environmental oversight could disproportionately impact the health of low-income communities near industrial sites.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Operational Reliability and Safety: Under Section 2, changes designed to "restore, maintain, or improve the reliability of operations at, or the safety of, the source" would not be considered a modification. This could allow stationary sources to improve their safety and reliability without being reclassified.
-
Pollution Reduction Efficiency: Section 2 states that a change is not a modification if it is "designed to reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the source per unit of production." This provides a pathway for projects aimed at reducing pollution per unit of production.
-
Streamlined Construction: Section 3(a) and Section 4(b) clarify that construction requirements apply only to the "physical construction of the discrete parts of an emissions unit." This applies regardless of other on-site activities that "may be costly," "significantly alter the site," or are "permanent in nature."
-
Clarified Emission Increases: Section 2 defines an increase in an air pollutant only if the new maximum hourly emission rate is higher than the rate achieved during any hour in the "10-year period immediately preceding the change."
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Environmental and Health Risks: Section 2 allows certain changes to not be considered modifications even if they increase the maximum achievable hourly emission rate, unless the Administrator determines the increase "would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment."
-
Changes Without Significant Increases: Section 3(b) and Section 4(a) specify that a modification does not include a change that "does not result in a significant emissions increase, or a significant net emissions increase, in annual actual emissions at such facility."
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 narrows the definition of what constitutes a modification, potentially allowing more emissions-related changes without strict regulatory oversight. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By easing permitting for existing sources, it may make it harder to regulate emissions increases that do not meet the new, narrower criteria.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill provides regulatory relief and easier permitting for stationary industrial sources. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Potential increase in environmental risks for communities often located near industrial zones. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Potential increase in environmental risks for communities often located near industrial zones. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced environmental oversight could disproportionately impact the health of low-income communities near industrial sites. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Potential increase in environmental risks for communities often located near industrial zones. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Potential increased pollution exposure for urban populations living near industrial clusters.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill may slightly aid economic growth by streamlining permitting for industrial operations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — It potentially limits the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.
- 8/7/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming