Changes to New Source Review Program Would Mean Higher Costs, Health Risks

(Washington, D.C) An Environmental Defense Fund expert joined dozens of other Americans at an EPA hearing today to oppose a policy change that could increase costs and health risks for people across the country. 

EPA has proposed changing part of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program to allow construction to begin on new, large sources of industrial pollution without Congressionally required protections for people nearby. 

“Congress ensured that decisions about the location and construction of new industrial sources of pollution are made only after consideration of air quality and environmental impacts and with input from the affected community,” said EDF Senior Attorney Surbhi Sarang in her testimony today. “EPA’s proposal to allow owners and operators to begin construction before a New Source Review permit is issued — and before there has been any consideration of impacts to local air quality, alternatives, or control technologies — unlawfully undermines this intent.” 

The Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program requires a permit for any construction, operation, or modification of major sources of industrial pollution. The permits are not issued without first examining the impact on local air quality, and in areas of nonattainment with EPA’s health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards without first considering potential alternative sites and determining whether the benefits of the facility outweigh the environmental and social costs of its location, construction, or modification. EPA’s New Source Review program also requires that communities be notified and allowed to comment before a permit is issued. 

The Trump EPA is now claiming that weakening New Source Review is necessary to allow for economic growth, but Sarang’s testimony includes evidence of robust economic growth for more than 40 years while the program has been in place and protecting American communities. EPA’s proposal also singles out Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure and power generation to support data centers as beneficiaries of this policy change, which Sarang discusses in her testimony. 

“Contrary to EPA’s assertions, this policy will in fact stymie — not support — the development of affordable power for American families,” says Sarang. “Reducing review of new fossil fuel power plants to support data centers and AI increases the risk of saddling American families with higher healthcare costs and energy bills and reduces transparency for which the American public is overwhelmingly asking … EPA’s proposal is contrary to the text and purpose of the Clean Air Act and would result in financial and health costs for communities across the country. EDF strongly opposes the proposal and urges EPA to withdraw it.” 

Read Sarang’s full testimony here.