Clean energy advocates are gearing up to make the EPA Act a national law, arguing that the agency’s power is now much broader than it was before it was passed.
As the EPA begins a major rulemaking process on the Clean Power Plan, activists are gearing their sights on the agency to create a national regulatory scheme that would give it the power to regulate the use of chemical-laced water, toxic chemicals, or other chemicals.
This is an opportunity for EPA to take a hard look at the science behind the agency and to make sure that its actions don’t put people at risk,” said Michael Brune, senior vice president for regulatory affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Some groups are even pushing for a similar proposal to be included in the next administration. “
EPA has a long history of protecting people’s health and the environment, and the bill is a real opportunity to make that history happen,” Brune said.
Some groups are even pushing for a similar proposal to be included in the next administration.
One of the biggest issues facing the EPA is that the bill does not address the chemical industry’s claim that the law gives it sweeping authority over chemical substances.
Instead, the bill would only provide the agency with broad powers that are meant to apply to all kinds of substances.
But there are still significant differences between the current law and the legislation.
Under the bill, the EPA would have the power over the use and disposal of substances like arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead.
It would also be able to regulate how those substances are used and to establish rules for the sale and use of those substances.
But the law would not extend that authority to the use or disposal of chemicals that are used for scientific or research purposes.
It also would not apply to substances that have been linked to cancer, birth defects, birth deformities, and birth defects in animals.
In addition, the law is far more restrictive than the EPA currently is, including the requirement that a chemical’s toxicological content be documented by a third-party source, as opposed to the current requirement that it must be in the public domain.
Additionally, the legislation would not provide any authority to require the EPA to monitor the safety of chemicals or other substances used for research or industrial purposes, including for the purposes of the law’s requirement that chemicals be in a “safe harbor” where they would be considered safe.
And while the bill specifies that the department could establish “special rules” for chemicals, Brune says that the language would give the agency broad powers to regulate substances that are not regulated under existing law.
If Congress passes the bill and President Donald Trump signs it into law, it would be a significant change for the EPA, since the agency has generally relied on the authority granted by the Clean Air Act, which has allowed the agency flexibility to regulate toxic substances.
The EPA has been under pressure from environmental groups to crack down on the chemical industries, arguing in recent years that the chemical companies’ lobbying and political power has helped stifle the agency from taking strong action to protect people’s public health and safety.
During the administration of former President Barack Obama, the agency sought to restrict chemical use in the name of public health, and its staff has been critical of the industry’s political influence in Washington.
Many environmental groups have also complained that the Clean Energy Act does not fully protect the environment or the environment’s health.
While some of those complaints are valid, the groups are still fighting to keep the agency open, arguing the agency needs to act.
Brennan Linsley, a senior staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which advocates for the environment and clean energy, said the legislation is long overdue.
“[EPA] is the first agency in history to create rules for this kind of regulation and they need to have the authority to regulate this kind and it needs to be in full compliance with the law,” he said.