Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill, titled the Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform Act (CLEAR Act), amends the Clean Air Act to give States more time and flexibility in implementing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Key changes include lengthening the periodic review interval for NAAQS from five to ten years, allowing the EPA Administrator to consider likely attainability as a secondary factor when setting primary standards, and giving States additional time to correct plan deficiencies before the EPA issues Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).
Whether introducing attainability and economic/technological feasibility into NAAQS and SIP considerations appropriately balances health and practicality (liberal strongly opposed; conservative supportive).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory revision of the Clean Air Act that is specific in its textual amendments and reasonably detailed about responsibilities and timelines, but it does not address costs or provide comprehensive procedural standards for several newly created or modified demonstrations and obligations.
The bill, titled the Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform Act (CLEAR Act), amends the Clean Air Act to give States more time and flexibility in implementing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Key changes include lengthening the periodic review interval for NAAQS from five to ten years, allowing the EPA Administrator to consider likely attainability as a secondary factor when setting primary standards, and giving States additional time to correct plan deficiencies before the EPA issues Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).
The bill exempts contingency measures for areas classified as Extreme ozone nonattainment, explicitly treats certain prescribed burns and similar wildfire-mitigation actions as ‘‘actions to mitigate wildfire risk’’ that can qualify as exceptional events, and creates a new statutory provision limiting sanctions/fees for some nonattainment areas when emissions are demonstrably beyond State control.
Judged on content alone, the bill is a coherent deregulatory package that consolidates state flexibility and reduces near‑term federal obligations — attractive to constituencies favoring regulatory relief. However, it alters foundational Clean Air Act mechanics (NAAQS timing, sanction rules, CASAC composition) in ways likely to trigger sustained opposition from environmental and public‑health stakeholders and litigation risk; it lacks clear bipartisan compromise mechanisms, making Senate passage and enactment less likely without further negotiation or modification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory revision of the Clean Air Act that is specific in its textual amendments and reasonably detailed about responsibilities and timelines, but it does not address costs or provide comprehensive procedural standards for several newly created or modified demonstrations and obligations.
Whether introducing attainability and economic/technological feasibility into NAAQS and SIP considerations appropriately balances health and practicality (liberal strongly opposed; conservative supportive).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether introducing attainability and economic/technological feasibility into NAAQS and SIP considerations appropriately balances health and practicality (liberal strongly opposed; conservative supportive).
A mainstream liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view the bill as a deregulatory shift that weakens health-based air quality protections in favor of economic and attainability considerations.
They would be especially concerned about lengthening review cycles, allowing attainability and economic feasibility to influence primary standards, exempting certain Extreme ozone areas from contingency measures, and limiting sanctions for missed attainment dates.
Some provisions—such as recognition of prescribed burns as mitigative actions and the requirement for regional modeling and a public website for exceptional-event petitions—might be seen as constructive, but overall the bill would be viewed skeptically for potentially increasing pollution and harming vulnerable communities.
A centrist/moderate would likely take a mixed, pragmatic view: the bill improves predictability and state–federal coordination but raises legitimate concerns about potential delays in health protections.
They would appreciate clearer timelines for State corrections before FIPs, added state voice on CASAC, and recognition of wildfire mitigation as actionable in exceptional-event determinations.
At the same time, they would want stronger safeguards or clearer metrics to ensure that considering attainability and economic feasibility does not meaningfully erode primary health protections or create regulatory uncertainty.
A mainstream conservative observer would likely view the bill favorably as a needed reform to reduce federal overreach, increase State flexibility, and align air-quality regulation with economic and technical realities.
They would praise longer review intervals to reduce regulatory instability, statutory recognition that attainability and economic/technological feasibility can inform implementation, and limits on federal sanctions where emissions are demonstrably outside State control.
Provisions that treat prescribed fires as actions to mitigate wildfire risk and require greater State representation on CASAC would be seen as constructive.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Judged on content alone, the bill is a coherent deregulatory package that consolidates state flexibility and reduces near‑term federal obligations — attractive to constituencies favoring regulatory relief. However, it alters foundational Clean Air Act mechanics (NAAQS timing, sanction rules, CASAC composition) in ways likely to trigger sustained opposition from environmental and public‑health stakeholders and litigation risk; it lacks clear bipartisan compromise mechanisms, making Senate passage and enactment less likely without further negotiation or modification.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether introducing attainability and economic/technological feasibility into NAAQS and SIP considerations appropriately balances health an…
Judged on content alone, the bill is a coherent deregulatory package that consolidates state flexibility and reduces near‑term federal obli…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory revision of the Clean Air Act that is specific in its textual amendments and reasonably detailed about responsibilities and timelines, but…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.