Environmental Health Restoration Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to reverse recent EPA deregulatory actions, restore prior environmental protections, and ensure robust enforcement and science-based policymaking at the agency.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately reinstate all environmental regulations and enforcement programs that were in effect on January 19, 2025, covering areas such as greenhouse gas emissions, methane pollution, mercury, hazardous air pollutants, and vehicle emissions. It prohibits future deregulatory actions without explicit Congressional authorization, strengthens scientific integrity requirements, mandates specific funding levels for enforcement, restores environmental justice programs, and provides for judicial review to ensure compliance.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is necessary to counter recent unlawful deregulatory actions by the EPA that threaten public health, accelerate climate change, and expose communities to toxic pollution, thereby ensuring the agency fulfills its statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act and other critically important environmental laws.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes overly rigid environmental regulations that stifle economic growth, increase energy costs, and limit the EPA's flexibility to adapt to new scientific understanding or economic realities, potentially leading to federal overreach into state affairs and an inefficient regulatory environment.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing for a thorough reading and understanding of its core provisions within a short timeframe, which is appropriate given its significant policy implications.
Section 3(a)
Mandated Reinstatement of Pre-2025 Environmental Regulations
This provision requires the EPA Administrator, within 60 days of the bill's enactment, to fully reinstate all regulations, guidance, and enforcement programs that were active on January 19, 2025. This includes specific 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, PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards, and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is crucial for reversing harmful deregulatory actions, restoring vital environmental safeguards, and protecting public health from dangerous pollutants and climate change impacts, ensuring the EPA fulfills its statutory mandate.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that the immediate reinstatement of these regulations could impose significant economic burdens on industries, increase compliance costs, and potentially hinder economic growth and innovation by forcing rapid, costly changes.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the imperative for environmental protection and public health against potential economic costs and the desire for regulatory flexibility for industries.
Section 3(b)
Restriction on Future Deregulatory Actions
This section 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 aims to prevent future executive actions that might undermine these environmental protections.
Section 4(a)
Reconstitution of Scientific Advisory Bodies
This provision mandates that, within 45 days of enactment, the EPA Administrator must reconstitute and fully staff the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. A key requirement is to ensure that members of these boards are not associated with regulated industries in a financial or advisory role, aiming to enhance the independence and integrity of scientific advice provided to the EPA.
Section 4(c)
Mandated Use of Social Cost of Carbon
This provision requires the EPA Administrator to restore the use of the social cost of carbon in all rulemakings affecting greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, within 60 days, the Administrator must reinstate the 2 percent discount rate and a value for the social cost of carbon at $190 in 2020 dollars per metric ton. This aims to ensure that the economic costs of carbon emissions are fully accounted for in regulatory impact analyses.
Section 5(c)
Increased Funding Authorization for EPA
This section authorizes a significant increase in appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, specifically $10,993,653,000 for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, adjusted annually for inflation. This funding is intended to carry out the EPA's duties and ensure sufficient levels for civil and criminal enforcement of environmental programs, supplementing any other authorized amounts.
Section 6
Restoration and Expansion of Environmental Justice Programs
This section mandates the EPA Administrator to restore and expand environmental justice programs eliminated or defunded after January 19, 2025. It requires prioritizing monitoring, permitting oversight, and enforcement in communities disproportionately burdened by pollution. Furthermore, the Administrator must conduct public health impact assessments for rulemakings affecting air or water quality, incorporate cumulative impacts analysis into regulatory and permitting decisions, and annually publish a report on pollution trends and health disparities.
Section 7
Private Cause of Action for Non-Compliance
This section grants any person adversely affected by the EPA Administrator's failure to comply with this Act the right to bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States. Federal courts are empowered to compel the Administrator to comply with the Act and may award reasonable attorney's fees if the Administrator is found to be non-compliant. This provision establishes a direct legal pathway for citizens to enforce the bill's mandates.
Congressional finding that the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the finding under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and that this repeal threatened the legal foundation for Federal limits on greenhouse gas pollution.
Section 2(4)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include findings to establish the legislative intent and factual basis for the bill. While not an operative provision, it lays the groundwork for the bill's core purpose of reversing specific deregulatory actions.
Case for: Supporters argue that this finding accurately identifies a significant executive action that undermined the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, thereby justifying the bill's mandate to restore those protections and reassert the agency's climate authority.
Case against: Opponents might dispute the premise of the endangerment finding itself or the characterization of its repeal as undermining statutory obligations, arguing that the EPA's actions were a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion based on a different interpretation of scientific or economic data.
Estimated impact: The repeal of the endangerment finding, which this bill seeks to reverse, had a profound impact on the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases across various sectors, affecting climate policy and the legal basis for federal climate action.
This section is a preservation of authority clause, clarifying 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 existing rights to petition the Administrator for non-discretionary action or pursue common law nuisance claims.
Section 8
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clauses to prevent unintended preemption of state authority or existing legal rights, ensuring the bill's scope is clearly defined without abrogating other legal avenues.
Case for: Supporters argue that this clause is essential for ensuring the bill does not inadvertently preempt stronger state environmental laws or limit existing legal avenues for citizens and states to seek environmental protection, thereby preserving a robust multi-layered regulatory framework.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this type of preservation clause, as it generally aims to maintain existing rights and authorities rather than create new burdens or restrictions.
Estimated impact: This clause ensures that the bill establishes a federal floor for environmental protection, allowing states to implement more stringent standards if they choose, and preserves avenues for citizen enforcement and common law remedies, thereby maintaining a broader scope for environmental advocacy and protection.