How the Clean Air Act Impacts Building Necessary Infrastructure and Onshoring American Innovation

Environment

2025-06-11

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The meeting focused on proposed changes to modernize the Clean Air Act, specifically concerning the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NACs), and two draft legislative proposals. The discussion highlighted a fundamental disagreement between prioritizing economic growth and protecting public health [ 00:20:24-00:20:36 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:26:01-00:26:01 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Themes

Modernizing the Clean Air Act and NACs

Republicans argued that the Clean Air Act, last amended significantly in 1990, needs modernization to reflect current realities and prevent stifling industrial activity [ 00:20:24-00:20:36 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Proposals included lengthening the NACs review cycle from five to ten years and allowing the EPA to consider economic feasibility and attainability when setting standards [ 00:24:33-00:24:45 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Speakers like Dr. Boylan supported extending the review cycle to allow the EPA adequate time and provide stability for states . Democrats countered that these proposals are "tired ideas" that would compromise air quality for polluters' profits and that the Clean Air Act is still effective and necessary [ 00:26:01-00:26:31 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Walke warned that a ten-year review cycle would delay health standard updates to 12-15 years, undermining continuous scientific advancement [ 01:04:13 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Impact of NACs on Economic Development and Permitting Gridlock

Several speakers expressed concern that new, stricter PM 2.5 standards could lead to "permitting gridlock" by making it difficult for new industrial plants, semiconductor facilities, and data centers to get permits, thus jeopardizing U.S. competitiveness [ 00:21:32-00:21:57 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Whiteman presented a map indicating widespread non-attainment or limited "headroom" for new projects under proposed rules . Mr. Noe highlighted that even attainment areas face gridlock due to standards being too close to background levels . Conversely, Mr. Walke dismissed "permitting gridlock" as a euphemism for weakening health standards, arguing that the system has provisions for implementation challenges, such as exceptional events, and that the Clean Air Act has historically supported economic growth [ 01:47:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. He also argued that weakening standards would shift the pollution burden to existing facilities and communities .

Health vs. Economic Costs in Standard Setting

A central point of contention was whether economic costs and attainability should be considered when setting health-based air quality standards [ 00:24:45-00:24:45 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:26:01 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Mr. Walke emphasized that current law requires standards to be based solely on medical science to protect public health, especially vulnerable populations, without considering company profits . He cited a Supreme Court decision upholding this principle . Proponents of the draft bills argued that ignoring economic feasibility leads to "unreasonable regulatory burdens" and can paralyze nationally important industries [ 00:22:54-00:22:54 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. They suggested a balance is needed to protect both the environment and the economy .

Role and Structure of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

Dr. Boylan advocated for increasing state regulatory agency representation on CASAC to provide a more practical understanding of NACS implementation, balancing academic research . Mr. Walke countered that CASAC's role is focused on the protectiveness of health standards based on medical expertise, not implementation or geographical diversity, and changing its composition could undermine its integrity .

Exceptional Events (Wildfires, Prescribed Burns)

The discussion addressed how natural events like wildfires and controlled burns (prescribed fires) affect air quality and attainment status [ 00:24:54-00:24:54 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Speakers supporting the bills argued for clearer legislative recognition of prescribed fires as exceptional events to prevent states from being penalized . Mr. Walke stated that current regulations already define exceptional events to include prescribed fires, suggesting the issue is with implementation rather than a need for new legislation .

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting's tone was largely polarized and confrontational, reflecting deep disagreements on the proposed changes. Republicans expressed frustration over "radical environmentalism" and emphasized the negative economic impact of current regulations, portraying them as hindering innovation and competitiveness . Democrats voiced strong opposition, accusing Republicans of prioritizing "corporate polluters over people" and warning of severe public health consequences from weakened standards . Both sides cited scientific evidence and data to support their positions, leading to disputes over the interpretation and accuracy of presented maps and impact analyses [ 01:47:41-01:48:03 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

Thank you.
Hey.   Well, she talked about it.
D
Dr. James Boylan
We're all regular.  Well, that's it.  We are all regular.
Looks like everybody has taken their seats.  I appreciate that.  And I will call the subcommittee on the environment to order.  Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement.  Today, the subcommittee begins efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act.  The act was last amended in a consequential way in 1990, with Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell being a driving force in that bicameral compromise.  The Clean Air Act has been effective.   According to EPA's 2023 Air Quality Statistics Report, since the Clean Air Act amendments were passed in 1990, there's been a 79% reduction in carbon monoxide, a 92% reduction in sulfur dioxide or SOX, and a 55% reduction in nitrogen dioxide or NOX.  Since 2000, we've seen a 42% reduction in particulate matter 2.5, which are inhalable particles measuring less than 2 1⁄2   The Clean Air Act's National Attainment Air Quality Standards, or NACS standards, setting and permitting programs with each new review.  EPA generally sets new lower, with each new review, EPA generally sets new lower pollution allowances.  And over time, these newer standards have had the tendency to pass the point of diminishing returns.   Accordingly, if you're an industrial plant wanting to build in this country, you may have to wait until another plant goes out of business and you can take over their permit.  This is not a path for economic prosperity.  Additionally, I don't believe that banning new industrial activity in the United States was what the authors of the Clean Air Act were aiming for.  It was a tough compromise bill meant to have each state scrutinize major sources and think about air permit planning, industry concentration,   and air quality in unfavorable geographic settings.
The act was written to get industry to reexamine its operations and control pollution by investing in and implementing innovative technologies.  It worked.  But now we have to examine the law in light of little additional public health gain at the expense of paralyzing nationally important industries.  And that health gain in what I'm talking about is the fact that we continue to lower the amount of pollutants allowed.   We need to begin a modernization effort by examining draft legislative proposals to reform the out-of-date NACS process.  As we heard in our recent full committee hearing, overly restrictive air regulations have curtailed some domestic investment in important semiconductor plants and data centers, which in turn could jeopardize America's ability to be able to compete in the global artificial intelligence race.  One of the draft bills we are discussing today   would improve the processes EPA uses to identify NACs, pollutants, and ceilings, and then for states to implement those new standards.  Under the Clean Air Act's NACs program, the EPA set standards for six criteria pollutants like ground-level ozone and particulate matter.  Historically, the Clean Air Act required the EPA to review NACs standards and, if appropriate, issue new limits at five-year intervals.   The EPA has consistently missed statutory deadlines for both reviewing standards and for providing implementation guidance to the states, which has led to litigation in some cases.  These proposals will enable more reasonable requirements that states can actually implement.  That is why the Clean Air Act and Economic Advancement Reform Act that we are talking about today would lengthen that interval to 10 years and allow the EPA administrator to consider whether it was likely   the standard, whether it was likely the standard can actually be attained.  Additionally, the bill would require the EPA to consider the economic feasibility of these new standards.
The bill would also allow for naturally occurring air pollution events such as wildfires, not to count against NAC's emission averages for a particular state.  The other bill, the Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvements Act,   has to do more specifically with the most recent PM 2.5 rule that really would cripple a lot of industry by reducing the limit from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to nine micrograms per cubic meter of air.  Further, it allows for an easier pre-construction permitting process.   Protecting our environment and our economy do not have to be mutually exclusive goals.  But in order to achieve both, we must rethink how our country classifies pollution levels outside of our control.  The EPA is still in the process of updating various air quality standards.  As that work continues, Congress must ensure states and employers aren't unfairly penalized by impractical or burdensome new rules which could hurt our national security and our economic competitiveness.   I look forward to learning from our expert witnesses who have extensive experience in implementing and complying with NAC standards under the Clean Air Act.  With that, I yield back and now recognize the gentleman from New York for his opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witnesses.  For almost as long as I have served on this committee,

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up