A substantive clarification of the Clean Air Act's permitting requirements. v2 adds specific definitions for what constitutes "construction" for the purposes of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting, focusing on physical construction of emissions units. This narrows the scope of activities that trigger these stringent review processes.
New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to streamline environmental permitting for industrial facilities by reducing the types of operational changes that trigger stringent New Source Review requirements under the Clean Air Act.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to redefine "modification" and "construction" for stationary sources, primarily under the New Source Review (NSR) program. It narrows the scope of activities that trigger NSR permitting requirements by focusing on increases in maximum hourly emission rates, explicitly excluding certain pollution control, efficiency, safety, and reliability projects, and clarifying what constitutes "physical construction" of an emissions unit for both Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current NSR program is overly broad and burdensome, discouraging investments in projects that would improve efficiency, safety, reliability, or even reduce pollution. They contend that clarifying these definitions will reduce regulatory uncertainty, foster economic growth, and allow facilities to modernize without triggering lengthy and costly permitting processes, ultimately leading to a more efficient and safer industrial sector.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill weakens critical environmental protections by creating loopholes that allow industrial facilities to increase actual emissions without undergoing proper review. They might contend that focusing solely on maximum hourly emission rates ignores potential increases in annual emissions from increased operational hours or production, and that loosening these definitions could lead to worse air quality and adverse health impacts in communities near industrial sources.
The bill is concise, but its impact relies on understanding complex Clean Air Act provisions, requiring more than a casual read.
Section 2, amending Section 111(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
Redefining "Modification" based on Maximum Hourly Emission Rate
This provision clarifies that a "modification" (which triggers New Source Review) only occurs if a change at a stationary source increases the maximum hourly emission rate of an air pollutant, compared to any hour in the preceding 10 years. It also explicitly excludes changes designed to reduce emissions per unit of production, or to restore, maintain, or improve reliability or safety, unless the Administrator determines such a change would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in EPA's interpretation, preventing routine maintenance, efficiency upgrades, and safety improvements from being erroneously classified as "modifications" that trigger costly and time-consuming NSR permitting. They believe it will encourage modernization and reduce emissions per unit of production.
Critics contend
Critics contend that focusing solely on maximum hourly emission rates ignores increases in annual emissions that can result from increased operating hours or production capacity, even if the hourly rate doesn't change. They argue this creates a loophole that could allow facilities to significantly increase pollution without proper environmental review.
Tradeoffs
The tension is between streamlining industrial operations and environmental protection. Proponents prioritize operational flexibility and efficiency, while opponents prioritize comprehensive environmental review to prevent increased pollution.
Section 3, amending Section 165 and 169(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act.
Defining "Construction" for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
This section specifies that "construction" for PSD requirements applies only to physical construction of discrete parts of an "emissions unit" at a major facility. It explicitly states that other costly, permanent, or site-altering physical activities that accommodate an installation to an emissions unit do not, by themselves, constitute "construction." It also clarifies that a "modification" for PSD purposes does not include changes that do not result in a significant emissions increase, or a significant net emissions increase, in annual actual emissions.
Section 4, amending Section 171(4) and 172(c)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
Defining "Modifications" and "Construction" for Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
This section aligns the definition of "modifications" and "modified" for nonattainment areas with the general definition in Section 111(a)(4), but explicitly excludes changes that do not result in a significant emissions increase or significant net emissions increase in annual actual emissions. It also clarifies that "construction" requiring a permit in nonattainment areas involves physical construction of discrete parts of an "emissions unit," similar to the PSD definition, excluding other physical on-site activities.
Section 5
Preservation of Existing Non-Modification Status
This section states that nothing in the Act or its amendments should be interpreted to treat any change as a "modification" if it would not have been treated as such under the Clean Air Act before the enactment date. This aims to ensure that the bill only narrows, not broadens, the scope of what constitutes a modification.
States that nothing in the Act or its amendments shall be construed to treat any change as a modification for purposes of any provision of the Clean Air Act if such change would not have been so treated as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 5
Why it matters:While common, this clause serves to explicitly limit the scope of the bill's changes, ensuring they are only deregulatory and not inadvertently expanding regulatory triggers. This can be seen as a safeguard for industry against unintended regulatory consequences.
Case for: Supporters would argue it prevents unintended regulatory expansion and provides legal certainty that the bill's purpose is solely to narrow the definition of "modification."
Case against: Critics might argue it's a subtle way to reinforce a deregulatory stance, potentially limiting future EPA flexibility in interpreting "modification" even if new environmental concerns arise.
Estimated impact: Ensures the bill's impact is strictly to reduce, not increase, the scope of activities considered "modifications" under the Clean Air Act.