Water Resources Technical Assistance Review Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/3427

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Water Resources Technical Assistance Review Act

HR. 3427, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$71,970 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 470-472 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 3427 Analysis**

As a visionary leader in the private sector, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my interests and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Water Resources Technical Assistance Review Act (HR 3427) aims to scrutinize the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) technical assistance programs related to clean water infrastructure. The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and duplication of these programs, with a focus on supporting economically distressed communities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill mandates a comprehensive review by the Comptroller General within one year, covering various aspects of the EPA's technical assistance initiatives. This includes:

1. A description of all covered technical assistance available to states, tribes, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. 2. An analysis of duplication among multiple programs. 3. Evaluations of community capacity building, coordination with other federal agencies, and support for alternative technologies.

The review's findings and recommendations will inform the EPA's plan for compliance, which must be submitted within 90 days and annually thereafter for five years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill primarily affects:

1. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2. States, tribes, local governments, and non-governmental organizations receiving technical assistance 3. Economically distressed communities eligible for clean water infrastructure programs

As a billionaire investor, I'm more interested in the potential implications for my portfolio companies operating in the water infrastructure space.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a wealth creation perspective, this bill could lead to:

1. **Increased scrutiny of government programs**: A thorough review might uncover inefficiencies and duplication, potentially leading to reduced funding or consolidation of programs. 2. **New business opportunities**: The focus on alternative technologies and cost-effective solutions could create openings for innovative companies to provide services and products that support water infrastructure development. 3. **Regulatory clarity**: The bill's emphasis on evaluating the EPA's technical assistance initiatives might lead to more transparent and predictable regulatory frameworks, benefiting businesses operating in this space.

However, as a self-serving billionaire, I must acknowledge that excessive government oversight can stifle innovation and hinder profit growth. A more efficient approach would be to privatize these programs, allowing market forces to drive progress and wealth creation.

In conclusion, HR 3427 represents a minor perturbation in the grand scheme of my business interests. While it may lead to some adjustments in the water infrastructure landscape, its overall impact on my wealth and influence will likely be negligible.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,970

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,700

Committees

Individuals

$66,270

No PAC contributions found

POLITICAL EDUCATION PATTERNS LOCAL 18 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

1 transaction

$5,000

ELITE MOVING & TRANSPORT LLC

1 transaction

$700

No committee contributions found

ATIKIAN, SETRAK

2 transactions

$6,600

SAFARYAN, TIGRAN

2 transactions

$6,600

WOESTE, BILL

1 transaction

$3,435

SIMS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,435

MELKUMIAN, VIOLETTA

1 transaction

$3,300

SAFARYAN, ERNA

1 transaction

$3,300

SAFARYAN, SERGEY

1 transaction

$3,300

HOUSER, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

TAYLOR, CHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

GARRISON, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

KUBICKI, JERI JOSH

1 transaction

$3,300

SAULS, JAMES E. JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

ERNST, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

MANUKYAN, KRISTINA

1 transaction

$3,300

TEKULVE, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

BARRETT, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BYRNE, KERRY

1 transaction

$3,300

EDENFIELD, DAWN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2]

ID: F000481

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Apr 29, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 24, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,300

May 24, 2024

MALDI MA

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$2,000

Apr 6, 2024

HILLWOOD LIQUORS LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

SIP & SMOKE LLC

OrganizationMOBILE, AL

$1,000

Feb 14, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Feb 28, 2024

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 15, 2024

MAA PETROLEUM LLC

OrganizationIRVINGTON, AL

$500

Feb 14, 2024

MOWA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationMOUNT VERNON, AL

$500

Apr 6, 2024

Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4]

ID: G000602

Top Contributors

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jul 18, 2023

RALLYE MOTORS

OrganizationROSLYN, NY

$6,000

Jun 5, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$1,000

Aug 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

FAIVUS, HARRY E

SELF-EMPLOYED • OPHTHALMOLOGIST

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Nov 1, 2024

STONE, JAMES M

PLYMOUTH ROCK COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$5,000

Oct 16, 2024

HELFER, RICKI

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$4,000

Sep 10, 2024

ANDEER, KYLE

APPLE INC • ATTORNEY

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Mar 27, 2024

BINDER, CHARLES

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 21, 2024

BURNSTEIN, CLIFFORD

Q PRIME • MANAGER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 29 nodes and 35 connections

Total contributions: $35

Top Donors - Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(7) mentions alternative and cost-effective technologies for treatment works, which could lead to new construction or engineering projects related to water infrastructure.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares Project 2025's emphasis on reviewing EPA programs to improve efficiency, eliminate duplication, and increase accountability, though it focuses on technical assistance for clean water infrastructure rather than advisory bodies, science activities, or hiring reforms."

Key themes:program reviewduplication eliminationefficiency improvementaccountabilityEPA oversight

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reviewing and improving EPA technical assistance for clean water infrastructure, which shares Project 2025's broader goal of enhancing EPA water program effectiveness and efficiency, though it does not directly address the deregulatory, primacy, or funding survey priorities emphasized in Project 2025."

Key themes:EPA water programsclean water infrastructureprogram efficiencytechnical assistance revieweconomically distressed communities

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reviewing and improving EPA technical assistance programs for clean water infrastructure, while Project 2025 emphasizes reforming EPA science activities, advisory bodies, and regulatory decision-making processes. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address science authorization, advisory committee reform, or risk assessment changes central to the Project 2025 EPA section."

Key themes:EPA reformprogram evaluationgovernment accountability

— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy, — 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 455-457AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 EPA section aim to improve EPA program effectiveness and accountability, but they address different media (water technical assistance vs. air regulatory reforms) and distinct policy levers, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:EPAprogram reviewefficiencyaccountability

— 423 — Environmental Protection Agency regulatory review (before options are selected); causality of health effects; low-dose risk estimation (linear no-threshold analysis); and employment loss analysis. Personnel The majority of the political appointee team must be assembled, vetted, and ready to deploy before Day One. To the extent provided by the Federal Vacan- cies Reform Act,15 appointees in consideration for Senate-confirmed positions (excluding the Administrator) should be prepared to serve as a Deputy or Principal Deputy to get into the agency on Day One while their nomination and affiliated confirmation processes proceeds. In addition to a deputy slated for the Assistant Administrator role, each office will need a political chief of staff, senior advisers designated to run suboffices, and energized assistants. Teams should be balanced with technical knowledge, legal expertise, and political exposure. Ideally, they should also be geographically diverse. Appointee positions should also extend to all the regional offices and specialty labs. OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR) OAR develops national programs, policies, and regulations to control air pollution and radiation exposure. In recent decades, OAR and its statutory respon- sibilities under the Clean Air Act have been reimagined in an attempt to expand the reach of the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has stopped and stricken several actions from OAR under liberal Administrations, citing a lack of requisite legal support. A reformed OAR should focus on EPA’s mission of limiting and minimizing criteria and hazardous air pollutants in partnership with the states. Cross-Cutting Reforms. OAR consists of four suboffices with two located in Washington, D.C.; one in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and one at Research Triangle Park in Raleigh, North Carolina. The following reforms should be implemented across all OAR offices: l Issue a rule to ensure consistent and transparent consideration of costs. l When doing cost-benefit analysis, use appropriate discount rates, focus on the benefits of reducing the pollutant targeted by Congress, identify “co-benefits” separately, and acknowledge the uncertainties involved in quantifying benefits. l Review and revise Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) cost guidance to ensure that calculations are accurate and reflect the actual regulatory burden, including costs of air rules implementation and compliance. — 424 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Obey Congress’s direction in CAA § 32116 to “conduct continuing evaluations” of the employment and plant-closure effects of air regulations. l Ensure that all provisions of CAA § 307(d)17 are observed. Congress placed special constraints on air rules, and that intent should be respected. l To the extent that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)18 remains in place, ensure to the maximum extent possible that grants and funding are provided to state regulatory entities and not to nonprofits. l Remove any regulations or requirements that confer on third parties any authorities that have been provided to EPA, such as the oil and gas supplemental, which created a Super-Emitter Response Program that allows third parties to act as EPA enforcers. Policy-Specific Actions National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) l EPA adopted by regulation a goal of restoring natural visibility by 2064. The statute does not require this, and EPA should consider whether a longer timeline is less disruptive or more realistic. Regional haze rules should be revised to prevent subsequent “planning periods” from being abused to compel the shutdown of disfavored facilities. l Under the Good Neighbor Program/Interstate pollutant transport program, review Biden-era regulations to ensure that they do not “overcontrol” upwind states in violation of the statute as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reverse the program’s 2022 expansion beyond power plants. l Putting guardrails on downwind states is an abuse of the CAA § 126(b)19 petition process. EPA must ensure, in keeping with statutory text, that petitions identify a reasonably discrete “group” of upwind sources alleged to violate the good neighbor provision. l Ensure that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) considers all of the statutorily charged factors (for example, social and economic effects resulting from NAAQS attainment and maintenance strategies). l Ensure that the requirements EPA puts on a state that has achieved attainment status from nonattainment status are limited to those that

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reviewing EPA technical assistance programs for clean water infrastructure, while the Project 2025 EPA section primarily addresses air quality regulations, greenhouse gas reporting, and permitting reforms under the Clean Air Act. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not engage with the air pollution, climate change, or mobile source policies emphasized in Project 2025."

Key themes:EPA program efficiencyregulatory streamlining

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Taylor, David J.

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 East Grant Avenue in Georgetown, Ohio, as the "Ulysses S. Grant Post Office Building".

119/hr/7809

Expanding Appalachia’s Broadband Access Act

119/hr/2474

Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026

119/hr/1958