Delaying Emissions Standards for Brick Manufacturers & New Home Heating Devices (H.R. 1917)

What is H.R. 1917?

(Updated February 7, 2020)

This bill would delay emissions standards impacting manufacturers of clay structural or ceramic products until judicial reviews of the rule are finalized and no longer subject to further review. It would also delay emissions standards impacting new residential wood and pellet stoves, hydronic heaters, and forced-air furnaces by three years, so they’d now take effect in 2023.

Argument in favor

Emissions rules for clay manufacturers shouldn’t take effect until judicial reviews are complete, and delaying standards for new home heating devices for three years gives those manufacturers more time to adapt.

Argument opposed

Delaying the implementation of an emissions rule for brick manufacturers while a judicial review occurs sets a bad precedent, and courts can already delay such rules. Heating devices manufacturers should’ve already adapted to changes.

Impact

Manufacturers of clay and brick, and home heatings devices; federal agencies; and courts.

Cost of H.R. 1917

The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have a negligible impact on the federal budget.

Additional Info

In-Depth: This bill contains two separate bills that were merged in the Rules Committee — the Relief From New Source Performance Standards Act and the Blocking Regulatory Interference From Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act. The House Energy & Commerce Committee approved the former on a 31-23 vote and the latter on a 32-21 vote.

The lead sponsor of the new source performance standards relief bill, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) wrote:

“Wood stove manufacturers and consumers simply want to safely and effectively heat their homes during cold winters but further regulations on wood and pellet stoves will make this more difficult. This bipartisan bill will provide the time necessary to meet new requirements without penalizing manufacturers as they seek to make improvements for consumers using these stoves.”

Sponsoring Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) wrote of the BRICK Act:

“The majority of U.S. brick plants are small, family-owned operations, often located in small communities that depend on the plant for good-paying jobs… To comply with existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements, these small businesses will be forced to borrow millions of dollars to pay for the required control equipment -- at a time when many of them are already struggling to find the capital for plant modernization projects. It will be extremely difficult for these companies to secure the needed investments to pay for new control equipment that would provide absolutely no return on investment.

House Democrats opposed these bills in committee, writing of the BRICK Act:

“H.R. 1917 sets an extremely bad precedent… Had Congress adopted a policy in the CAA that rulemakings would not be final until all court challenges and lawsuits had been resolved, the U.S. would not have realized the tremendous public health and environmental benefits that our country now enjoys. The CAA does provide judicial remedies. When properly petitioned, the courts already have ample power under federal statutes to stay agency rule in a myriad of instances.”

And they explained their opposition to the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act:

“The industry has been aware of the need to innovate and produce cleaner, more efficient products for at least 15 years. No further delay is necessary. [This bill] punishes innovative manufacturers, undermines consumers’ fuel economy benefits, and jeopardizes public health.”

Media:

• Cosponsoring Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Press Release
  
• Sponsoring Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) Press Release
  
• CBO Cost Estimate