Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026 seeks to reverse recent EPA deregulatory actions, reinforce the agency's statutory obligations to protect public health and the environment, and strengthen scientific integrity and environmental justice initiatives through specific legislative mandates.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the immediate reinstatement of numerous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and programs that were in effect on January 19, 2025, covering areas such as greenhouse gas emissions, methane, mercury, hazardous air pollutants, and vehicle emissions. It prohibits future deregulatory actions on these standards without explicit congressional authorization. The bill also requires the EPA to restore scientific advisory bodies, base decisions on peer-reviewed science, and re-implement the social cost of carbon. Furthermore, it sets minimum funding levels for enforcement, restores environmental justice programs, and establishes a private cause of action for non-compliance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to restore critical environmental protections that have been weakened or dismantled, thereby safeguarding public health and accelerating efforts to combat climate change. They contend it ensures the EPA fulfills its statutory duty to enforce the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, re-establishes science-based policymaking, and prioritizes communities disproportionately affected by pollution. Supporters emphasize that the bill prevents future executive actions from undermining established environmental standards.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill represents federal overreach, imposing burdensome regulations that could stifle economic growth and increase energy costs for businesses and consumers. They may contend that the reinstated regulations are outdated or overly stringent, and that the prohibition on future deregulatory actions limits the flexibility of future administrations to adapt policies to changing economic or technological conditions. Critics could also raise concerns about the specific funding levels and the potential for increased litigation through the private cause of action.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, especially given its significant policy implications.
Section 3(a)
Immediate Reinstatement of Environmental Regulations
This provision requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reinstate, within 60 days of the bill's enactment, a comprehensive list of environmental regulations and enforcement programs that were in effect on January 19, 2025. These include standards for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, methane and volatile organic compounds from oil and gas operations, mercury and air toxics, greenhouse gas reporting, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, and vehicle emissions standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that reinstating these regulations is crucial for public health, as it reduces exposure to harmful pollutants and addresses the urgent threat of climate change. They contend that these standards are scientifically sound and necessary to ensure clean air and water for all communities, fulfilling the EPA's core mission.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that these reinstated regulations impose undue economic burdens on industries, leading to increased operational costs, potential job losses, and higher prices for consumers. They might assert that some standards are overly restrictive or technologically challenging to meet, hindering economic competitiveness and energy independence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances environmental protection and public health benefits against potential economic costs and regulatory burdens on industries. It also highlights the tension between executive flexibility in setting environmental policy and congressional intent to maintain specific regulatory frameworks.
Section 3(b)
Prohibition on Deregulatory Delays
This subsection explicitly prohibits the President, the EPA Administrator, or any other Federal official from delaying, suspending, repealing, weakening, or granting exemptions to any of the regulations reinstated under subsection (a), unless such modification is explicitly authorized by an Act of Congress. This provision aims to prevent future executive actions from undermining the re-established environmental protections.
Section 4
Protection of Scientific Integrity
This section mandates the EPA Administrator to reconstitute and fully staff the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee within 45 days, ensuring members have no financial or advisory ties to regulated industries. It also requires all regulatory decisions to be based on peer-reviewed science and restores the use of the social cost of carbon in all rulemakings affecting greenhouse gas emissions, specifically reinstating a 2 percent discount rate and a value of $190 in 2020 dollars per metric ton.
Section 5
Funding and Enforcement Requirements
This section establishes a minimum enforcement floor, requiring funding and personnel for civil and criminal enforcement at the EPA to remain at sufficient levels to ensure consistent enforcement of the reinstated programs. The Administrator must submit an annual report to Congress detailing inspections, violations, penalties, and corrective actions. Furthermore, it authorizes appropriations of $10,993,653,000 for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, adjusted annually for inflation, to carry out EPA duties and meet the enforcement requirement.
Section 6
Environmental Justice Restoration
This section requires the EPA Administrator to restore and expand environmental justice programs eliminated or defunded after January 19, 2025, within 60 days. It mandates prioritizing monitoring, permitting oversight, and enforcement in communities disproportionately burdened by pollution. The Administrator must also conduct and publish public health impact assessments for rulemakings affecting air or water quality, incorporate cumulative impacts analysis into regulatory and permitting decisions, and annually report on pollution trends and progress in reducing health disparities.
Section 7
Judicial Review and Private Cause of Action
This section grants any person adversely affected by the Administrator's failure to comply with this Act the right to bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court. The court may compel the Administrator to comply with the Act and, if the action results in a finding of non-compliance, may award reasonable attorney's fees.
The bill mandates the reinstatement of specific environmental regulations by referencing their exact citations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), such as 'subpart TTTT of part 60 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations' for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating units.
Section 3(a), multiple subsections
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing existing regulations. It ensures precision and avoids ambiguity by pointing directly to the legal text of the regulations being affected, rather than attempting to summarize complex rules within the bill itself.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this precise referencing is necessary for legal clarity and to avoid any misinterpretation of which specific regulations are being reinstated. It ensures that the full force and effect of the original, detailed rules are restored.
Case against: Critics might argue that while legally precise, this method makes the bill less transparent and accessible to the general public, requiring specialized knowledge or additional research to understand the full implications of the reinstated regulations.
Estimated impact: The impact is the full reinstatement of the detailed regulatory requirements contained within each cited CFR subpart, affecting a wide range of industries and environmental outcomes.
This section clarifies that nothing in the Act limits a State's authority to adopt or enforce environmental standards more protective than Federal law, nor does it limit any person's or State's rights to petition the Administrator for non-discretionary action or pursue nuisance claims under common law.
Section 8
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for a 'savings clause,' designed to prevent unintended preemption of state authority or existing legal rights. It's placed at the end to ensure it applies broadly to the entire Act.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision is crucial for preserving states' rights to innovate and implement stronger environmental protections, and for ensuring that citizens retain their ability to seek redress through existing legal channels, complementing federal action.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such a savings clause, as it generally aims to clarify and preserve existing legal frameworks rather than introduce new controversial policy. Some might argue it's redundant if existing law already provides these rights.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the Act does not inadvertently weaken state environmental leadership or individual legal avenues for environmental protection, thereby maintaining a robust multi-layered approach to environmental governance.