This bill amends Section 173 of the Clean Air Act to give the President authority to waive, in whole or in part, any requirement that an advanced manufacturing facility or critical mineral facility offset increased emissions of any air pollutant when the President determines doing so is in the nation’s security interest. The determination is expressly non‑delegable.
The bill also instructs state permitting authorities to accept alternative offset approaches for new or modified major sources that are semiconductor manufacturers or critical mineral facilities if the source demonstrates it has exhausted reasonable options for offsets. States may impose an alternative measure or collect an emissions fee capped at 1.5 times the recent average cost of local stationary‑source controls, and must use those fees to maximize emissions reductions in the area.
The statute defines "advanced manufacturing facility" narrowly as semiconductor‑related, and ties "critical mineral facility" to the Interior Department’s list.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends Clean Air Act section 173 to create a presidential “national security” waiver that can exempt specified facilities from offsetting increased emissions, and adds a new subsection allowing state permitting authorities to accept alternative offset measures or an emissions fee when offsets are unavailable.
Who It Affects
Owners/operators of new or modified semiconductor manufacturing facilities and facilities extracting or processing Department of the Interior‑designated critical minerals, state air permitting authorities, and markets for emission offsets in nonattainment/major source permitting contexts.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a direct legal path to prioritize rapid siting or expansion of critical supply‑chain facilities over traditional offsetting requirements, centralizes the ultimate waiver decision with the President, and substitutes fee‑based or alternative mitigation approaches that could change local air quality strategies and offset markets.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds two basic capabilities to Section 173 of the Clean Air Act. First, it authorizes the President, on application by a facility owner or operator, to waive offset requirements ‘‘in whole or part’’ for specified facilities where the President finds such a waiver serves national security.
The text makes that national security determination non‑delegable — only the President can make it — and the waiver can apply to any air pollutant. The bill does not set criteria for what qualifies as a national security justification beyond that determination.
Second, the bill directs state permitting authorities to provide an alternative path when a new or modified major source that is a semiconductor facility or critical‑mineral facility cannot obtain conventional offsets. To use the alternative path, the source must show, on an annual basis, that it has used all reasonable means to obtain offsets and that sufficient offsets are not available.
If the state finds those conditions met, the permitting authority must require an alternative measure to offset the uncovered emissions, or may instead assess an emissions fee. The fee is capped at 1.5 times the average cost of stationary‑source control measures adopted in that area over the prior three years, and the state must spend fee proceeds in a way that maximizes emissions reductions locally.The statute defines the relevant covered facilities narrowly: an "advanced manufacturing facility" is a facility whose primary purpose is manufacturing semiconductors or semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and a "critical mineral facility" is one whose primary purpose is extraction, processing, refining, or milling of a mineral on the Interior Department's critical‑mineral list.
Those definitions limit the bill’s reach to targeted segments of supply‑chain infrastructure rather than to broader manufacturing.Practically, the bill simultaneously creates a federal override (the presidential waiver) and a state‑level flexibility mechanism (alternative offsets or a capped fee). It places the initial burden on applicants to demonstrate they tried and failed to secure offsets, then gives states discretion to accept non‑traditional mitigation — but ties fee levels to recent local control costs and requires that fees be used to maximize local reductions.
The text leaves procedural detail—how states calculate the three‑year average cost, how ‘‘reasonable means’’ are judged, and how the President documents a national security determination—to later guidance or implementation steps.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The President may waive, in whole or in part, any Clean Air Act offset requirement for an advanced manufacturing or critical mineral facility if the President determines it is in the national security interest; that determination is non‑delegable.
The waiver authority covers offsets for increases of any air pollutant — it is not limited to particular criteria pollutants.
A facility must demonstrate annually that it used “all reasonable means” to obtain offsets and that sufficient offsets are unavailable before a state can accept alternative mitigation.
If the state accepts a fee in lieu of offsets, the statute caps the fee at no more than 1.5 times the average cost of stationary‑source control measures adopted in that area during the prior three years, and requires the state to use fees to maximize local emissions reductions.
The bill defines “advanced manufacturing facility” to mean facilities whose primary purpose is manufacturing semiconductors or semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and ties “critical mineral facility” to minerals designated by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the "Air Permitting Improvements to Protect National Security Act of 2025." This is a purely formal provision but signals the policy frame — national security — that the rest of the amendments are built around.
Presidential national security waiver for offsets
Adds a new paragraph to subsection (c) authorizing the President, upon application by an owner or operator of a new or modified covered facility, to waive offset requirements under Part D (as codified in Section 173) if the President determines it is in the national security interest. The text specifies the waiver may be partial or complete and makes the national security determination non‑delegable. Practically, this centralizes a high‑stakes environmental tradeoff at the White House rather than leaving it to EPA, regional offices, or states.
State authority to accept alternative offsets or an emissions fee
Creates a new pathway for state permitting authorities to allow alternative or innovative offset measures when a covered major source cannot obtain conventional offsets. The source must show, to the state's satisfaction and on an annual basis, that it used all reasonable means to acquire offsets and that none are available. The permitting authority may impose alternative mitigation conditions or collect an emissions fee in lieu of offsets; the fee is capped at 1.5 times the local three‑year average cost of stationary‑source control measures. The state must use fee proceeds in a way that maximizes local emissions reductions, leaving some discretion but also placing a substantive constraint on fee amounts and intended use.
Definitions of covered facilities
Defines the statute’s targeted categories: an "advanced manufacturing facility" is one primarily engaged in manufacturing semiconductors or semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and a "critical mineral facility" is one whose primary purpose is extraction, processing, refining, or milling of a critical mineral as designated by the Secretary of the Interior. These definitions restrict the bill’s special permitting treatment to narrow, strategically prioritized industries rather than broad categories of industrial activity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Semiconductor manufacturers: The bill narrows a defined category to facilities with semiconductor manufacturing as their primary purpose and creates either a presidential waiver route or state‑level alternatives that reduce the risk that offset availability will block or delay new fabs or expansions.
- Critical mineral extractors and processors: Facilities tied to Interior’s critical‑mineral list gain a statutory pathway to avoid conventional offsets where those offsets are scarce, lowering the upfront environmental permitting barrier to scaling domestic mineral supply chains.
- Project developers and investors in targeted supply chains: Greater predictability of an alternative mitigation path or a potential presidential waiver can shorten development timelines and reduce the cost or uncertainty of securing offsets, improving project economics.
- State permitting authorities seeking local control: States get explicit authority to accept alternative mitigation packages or fees and to determine how fee proceeds are spent, giving them tools to address local priorities rather than being forced into a rigid offset market outcome.
- National security agencies and procurement planners: Faster siting and expansion of domestically located semiconductors and critical mineral processing can align industrial capacity decisions with strategic supply‑chain objectives without being fully blocked by offset shortages.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local communities and public health interests: Allowing waivers or fee‑in‑lieu approaches can mean fewer direct local offsets tied to a particular project’s emissions, potentially worsening local air quality or delaying direct mitigation in the neighborhoods affected.
- Offset providers and local mitigation project developers: If states accept fees or federal waivers more often, demand for traditional offsets could fall, reducing revenue for entities that develop or sell local offset projects.
- State permitting authorities and air agencies: Agencies will face new administrative burdens: evaluating annual "reasonable means" demonstrations, calculating the three‑year average control cost, designing fee programs, and ensuring fee proceeds achieve the statutory ‘‘maximize reductions’’ obligation.
- Federal environmental regulators and legal counsel: EPA and the Justice Department may need to address conflicts between presidential waivers and existing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) or NAAQS obligations, increasing oversight and potential litigation exposure.
- Public budgets and health systems indirectly: If fee levels or fee spending fail to fully mitigate increased emissions, communities could face higher health costs; the bill does not provide federal funding to cover those externalities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to reconcile two legitimate priorities—speeding deployment of strategically important industrial capacity and protecting local air quality—but does so by concentrating discretion in the President and by shifting mitigation choices to state authorities and market substitutes; that trade‑off solves project‑siting bottlenecks while creating uncertainty about whether and how local pollution reductions will be achieved.
The bill raises immediate implementation questions that could undercut its stated intent without careful administrative design. First, the statute gives the President unfettered affirmative authority to waive offsets for any air pollutant on national security grounds but provides no statutory criteria, procedural safeguards, or reporting requirements for how that determination should be reached or documented.
That absence risks politicized or inconsistent decision‑making and will push demand for procedural guidance or litigation to define the contours of ‘‘national security’’ in this context.
Second, the state alternative pathway depends on several undefined or operationally tricky concepts. The bill requires sources to show they used "all reasonable means" to obtain offsets on an annual basis, but it does not define reasonable means or set evidentiary standards.
Similarly, computing the three‑year average cost of stationary‑source controls and applying a 1.5x cap requires baseline data and uniform methodology; differing state calculations could create competitive distortions. The statute also requires states to use fees to "maximize emissions reductions in that area," a good policy goal that nonetheless leaves room for divergent interpretations and administrative discretion.
Finally, tension can arise between a presidential waiver and state or federal obligations to attain and maintain NAAQS; the bill provides no mechanism to reconcile a waiver with a State Implementation Plan that relies on particular offsets to achieve attainment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.