People deserve a say in decisions that affect the air they breathe and their family’s and community’s health. But there are gaps in how states engage the public during permitting for major sources of pollution, with significant differences between states in access to information, agency capacity, and agency policies and practices, according to a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report published today.
Lana Cohen
The new report, Community Access to Clean Air Decisionmaking, examines air permitting procedures and practices among state environmental agencies beyond just minimum legal requirements. Through a combination of research and interviews, UCS completed surveys for 50 state agencies, receiving complete survey responses from 25 states and partial responses from three states.
The analysis focuses on the air permitting process for Title V permits, required for what are often referred to as “major sources” of air pollution. Under the Clean Air Act, Title V requires significant emitters of air pollution — including power plants, refineries, chemical plants and solid waste incinerators — to obtain federal operating permits. State, local, and Tribal agencies administer permits with federal oversight and must provide opportunities for public comment and hearings and respond to significant comments.
While some states have made strides, UCS found meaningful participation is inconsistent.
-
It is unclear whether public input is yielding documented changes in final permits. Of 18 agencies that publicly post responses to comments, only 13 could provide an example where public input changed a final permit. Nine of the 25 agencies that provided complete responses do not publicly post responses to comments.
-
Public notices are difficult to understand and access. UCS reviewed 87 Title V public notices from 35 states. Most public notices do not include plain language and are difficult to read. Eleven received a D or E readability score, 75 received a B or C, and only one received an A. Only six agencies readily provided notices translated into other relevant languages.
-
Information about participation can be hard to find. While at least 42 agencies provide online information about participating in permitting, 16 only explain how to participate—not how public input will shape decisions. Furthermore, information about how to participate is not often provided in a clear, central location on agency websites.
-
Significant gaps in efforts to strengthen participation. Among all states, at least 11 states have laws enhancing public participation in air permitting, 16 have internal guidance for staff on enhancing meaningful engagement, and at least nine use health, economic, and/or pollution burden data in Title V permit review.
-
Agency capacity is limited. Of 28 responding agencies, 20 reported relevant staff training on public participation, but only 16 had at least one full-time employee specifically dedicated to enhancing public participation.
The findings come as the Trump administration has moved to further limit public participation in environmental decisionmaking. EPA has urged states to expedite Title V permit reviews, emphasizing rapid approval over thoughtful consideration of public comments. The administration has also proposed eliminating minimum public notice-and-comment requirements for another type of air permit, New Source Review.
“These federal actions to limit public input make efforts in states to meaningfully enhance participation even more important,” said Darya Minovi, report author and fair access research manager at the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS.
"UCS recommends that states make participation information easier to find and understand, provide multilingual information, publish responses to comments, explain how public input shapes decisions, and evaluate whether engagement efforts are effective. Governors and agency leaders can establish meaningful engagement standards and support dedicated staffing and training, while lawmakers can strengthen participation through legislation, including legislation that supports advisory bodies with members who represent the public interest; community grant programs; and funding for translation, interpretation, accessibility, and outreach.
“When people do not have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect the air they breathe, public health can suffer,” Minovi said.
“State agencies and lawmakers can do more to ensure public participation is more than a procedural requirement. They can create processes where the people who will be affected by these decisions can understand what is happening, have a meaningful opportunity to weigh in, and know whether their input made a difference.”