- No clear beneficiaries surfaced yet.
New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
<p><b>New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act</b> </p> <p>This bill modifies terminology for purposes of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).</p> <p>In order for a change to a stationary source to be a <i>modification</i> (a change to a stationary source that increases the air pollutant emissions or results in new pollutants) for purposes of the NSR permitting program, the maximum hourly emission rate achievable by such source must be higher than the maximum hourly rate achievable by such source during any hour in the 10-year period preceding the change.</p> <p>A change at a stationary source is not considered to be a <i>modification</i> under the bill if it is designed to (1) reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted; or (2) restore, maintain, or improve the reliability of operations at, or safety of, the source. However, such changes are not excepted if the EPA determines the increase in the maximum achievable hourly emission rate from such change would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment.</p> <p><i>Construction</i>, in connection with a major emitting facility (a type of stationary source), does not include a change at such a facility that does not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.</p> <p>In relation to major emitting facilities in nonattainment areas, the terms <i>modifications </i>and <i>modified</i> do not include changes at such facilities that do not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.</p>
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
The next hurdle is converting committee movement into a floor coalition.
<p><b>New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act</b> </p> <p>This bill modifies terminology for purposes of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).</p> <p>In order for a change to a stationary source to be a <i>modification</i> (a change to a stationary source that increases the air pollutant emissions or results in new pollutants) for purposes of the NSR permitting program, the maximum hourly emission rate achievable by such source must be higher than the maximum hourly rate achievable by such source during any hour in the 10-year period preceding the change.</p> <p>A change at a stationary source is not considered to be a <i>modification</i> under the bill if it is designed to (1) reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted; or (2) restore, maintain, or improve the reliability of operations at, or safety of, the source.
However, such changes are not excepted if the EPA determines the increase in the maximum achievable hourly emission rate from such change would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment.</p> <p><i>Construction</i>, in connection with a major emitting facility (a type of stationary source), does not include a change at such a facility that does not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.</p> <p>In relation to major emitting facilities in nonattainment areas, the terms <i>modifications </i>and <i>modified</i> do not include changes at such facilities that do not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.</p>
This bill has moved beyond introduction, but committee and floor dynamics still determine whether it can build durable support.
How solid the drafting looks.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- No clear downsides surfaced yet.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
This bill has moved beyond introduction, but committee and floor dynamics still determine whether it can build durable support.
- The next hurdle is converting committee movement into a floor coalition.
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
This bill has moved beyond introduction, but committee and floor dynamics still determine whether it can build durable support.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.