EPA's "electronic mailbox" for Clean Air Act exemptions and the presidential proclamations (2025-2026)

Case

In March 2025 EPA set up an email inbox inviting industries to request presidential exemptions from nine Biden-era air-toxics rules. Over 180 facilities in 38 states and Puerto Rico received two-year exemptions through presidential proclamations. Environmental groups say the use of Clean Air Act section 112(i)(4) is unlawful and have sued, and the White House says the rules required technology that does not exist.

The mailbox (March 2025)
On March 24, 2025, EPA publicly invited regulated industries to request presidential exemptions from hazardous-air-pollutant rules and said it had set up an email address to collect the requests. AP reported the agency had set up an "electronic mailbox," with a request deadline of March 24 in its account; Columbia's Sabin Center tracker gives March 31, 2025, and says EPA had first written to facilities on March 12.
The nine Biden-era rules covered were the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (coal and oil power plants) and the standards for synthetic organic chemical makers (HON), sterilizers, rubber tires, copper, iron and steel, lime, coke ovens and taconite.
The legal basis is section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, which lets the president exempt a stationary source from a hazardous-air-pollutant standard for a renewable two-year term if the required technology is not available and the exemption is in the national-security interest of the United States.
EPA said, "Submitting a request via this email box does not entitle the submitter to an exemption."
Lobbyists for the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers emailed Administrator Lee Zeldin asking for a two-year compliance extension for "all sources subject to the HON Rule," according to the Environmental Defense Fund, which has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the records.

What the emails and proclamations show
ProPublica reported that it obtained more than 3,000 pages of emails from the inbox, and that companies emailed to ask for relief with no rigorous application. It reported that a political appointee with utility and petrochemical industry ties created the inbox and that EPA scientists played no meaningful role.
ProPublica reported that more than 180 facilities in 38 states and Puerto Rico received two-year exemptions, that about 250,000 people live within a mile of them, and that more than 70 had faced EPA enforcement action before.
Examples reported by ProPublica: a Pennsylvania plant burning coal waste (partly for bitcoin mining) was approved within 11 days after citing the "security of the United States"; Citgo refineries in Illinois, Louisiana and Texas with prior violations were approved in July; and nine Sterigenics ethylene-oxide sterilizer plants were approved in July.
NRDC counts seven proclamations across six industries covering 180 facilities, including one-third of coal-fired power plants, one-quarter of chemical manufacturers, nearly half of the commercial sterilization industry, one copper smelter, the entire taconite ore processing industry and the entire coke oven industry. It says this is the first presidential use of section 112(i)(4) in its 55 years.
ProPublica reported that the approvals were issued as presidential proclamations, many with spelling and formatting mistakes.

Responses and litigation
EPA told ProPublica it "played no role in the determinations" and that requests "were forwarded to the White House." The White House said the exemptions were issued because of "crushing Biden-era regulations that required large swaths of our industrial base to adopt technologies that don't exist."
NRDC lists five pending suits filed in 2026 over the exemptions: Air Alliance Houston v. Trump (coal plants, Mar. 17), Greater-Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution v. Trump (coke ovens, Apr. 10), CleanAIRE NC v. Trump (sterilizers, Apr. 10), Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Trump (taconite) and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services v. Trump (July 13). NRDC's page, as read for this entry, does not report any rulings.

Rep. Neguse's questioning
In a video posted on his channel, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) questions a witness who is not identified in the transcript supplied for this entry. He says: "I think your point what you're saying is that you don't believe that the Biden administration the EPA under the Biden administration had the authority to grant the waivers that it did to these states."
Neguse then reads a description of the mailbox: "The EPA has set up an electronic mailbox to allow registered or excuse me regulated companies to request a presidential exemption under the Clean Air Act to a host of Biden era rules," with companies asked "to send an email by Monday seeking permission from President Donald Trump to bypass the new restrictions." It matches the AP report cited in this entry, which he does not name in the portion supplied.
He says the administration is "offering coal fired power plants and other industrial polluters a chance for exemptions for requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury arsenic and benzene."
He then puts the contrast to the witness: it sounds like the position is that EPA under a Democratic administration had no authority to grant a state an exemption to impose higher standards to protect clean air and water, but that the witness is "completely fine with the Trump administration granting exemptions to polluters to avoid the requirements of the Clean Air Act."
The witness replies: "I do not believe that the Trump administration is granting waivers to... I do not." Later the witness says, "I think it is important that we return the discussion to what this CR..." The excerpts supplied do not show the rest of either answer.
The quotes above come from a transcript of the video supplied by The Author, with timestamps of about 0:09, 0:23, 1:17, 2:00 and 2:19. The witness's name, the hearing, and its date are not given in the excerpts.
The Author identifies the witness as Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa., 13th District). The identification is not in the transcript excerpts and was not independently checked here, and the hearing and its date are still unknown.

Perspectives

Official position — White House and EPA (as quoted by ProPublica)
The exemptions respond to "crushing Biden-era regulations that required large swaths of our industrial base to adopt technologies that don't exist." EPA says it played no role in the determinations and forwarded requests to the White House.

Legal view — NRDC, Earthjustice and plaintiff groups
Section 112(i)(4) requires both that the technology is not available and that an exemption serves national security. NRDC says no proclamation gives a meaningful basis for either, that exemptions were applied to whole industries rather than individual sources, and that the process had no notice, scientific review or public comment. Earthjustice's Patrice Simms said Trump is "illegally delaying clean air laws from his desk."

Critic — Vickie Patton, Environmental Defense Fund; Margie Alt, Climate Action Campaign
Patton called it an "invitation to pollute" and said Zeldin "opened a back door" to avoid limits on the most toxic air pollution. Alt said companies could apply for a "gold-plated, 'get-out-of-permitting free' card."

Critic — Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.)
Neguse argues the position he heard from the witness is inconsistent: that a Democratic EPA had no authority to grant states waivers to set higher clean-air and clean-water standards, while the Trump administration is free to grant exemptions to polluters from Clean Air Act requirements for chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and benzene. He titled his video: "No administration has done more damage to our environment in a shorter time than the Trump admin." The witness replied that he did not believe the Trump administration was granting waivers.

Defender — Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.), as identified by The Author
In the exchange with Neguse, the witness said, "I do not believe that the Trump administration is granting waivers to... I do not," and tried to return the discussion to "what this CR..." (cut off in the excerpt supplied). The rest of his reasoning is not shown, so his full position is not recorded here.

Research notes
Open leads: (1) Rep. Joe Neguse's video quotes come from a transcript supplied by The Author; the clip itself could not be opened here. The Author identifies the witness as Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.-13), which was not independently checked. The hearing and its date are unknown, and "this CR" in the witness's answer is unexplained (a Congressional Review Act resolution on state waivers is a guess, not a finding). (2) The mailbox address itself is not given by AP or the Columbia tracker; EPA's own page would be the primary source. (3) Court status of the five suits was not checked beyond NRDC's list. (4) The Minnesota taconite suit appears as Apr. 10 in NRDC's list and Feb. 2, 2026 on the complaint file name; reconcile. (5) EDF's FOIA request for the inbox records was pending as of April 2025.

Note
The White House says the exempted rules required technologies that do not exist, while environmental groups say no proclamation shows a real technology or national-security basis.

Sources
[1] AP (Matthew Daly) via KSAT — EPA offers industrial polluters a way to avoid rules on mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals (https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/2025/03/27/epa-offers-industrial-polluters-a-way-to-avoid-rules-on-mercury-arsenic-and-other-toxic-chemicals/) · 2025-03-27
[2] Columbia Sabin Center climate law tracker — EPA invites regulated industries to apply for exemption from hazardous air pollutant rules (https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/epa-invites-regulated-industries-apply-exemption-hazardous-air-pollutant-rules) · 2025-03-24
[3] ProPublica (Mark Olalde) — Trump let polluters sidestep Clean Air Act rules with just an email (https://www.propublica.org/article/clean-air-act-exemptions-trump-emails) · 2026-05-08
[4] Environmental Defense Fund — petrochemical lobbyists email Zeldin asking to exempt "all sources" (https://www.edf.org/media/petrochemical-lobbyists-email-trump-epa-administrator-zeldin-ask-exempt-all-sources-limits) · 2025-04-04
[5] NRDC — A free pass to polluters: presidential exemptions using the Clean Air Act (https://www.nrdc.org/court-battles/free-pass-polluters-presidential-exemptions-clean-air-act) · 2026-07
[6] Rep. Joe Neguse (YouTube Short) — "No administration has done more damage to our environment in a shorter time than the Trump admin." (https://youtube.com/shorts/A5f790Mwy40)

Connections

Related — California's Clean Air Act waivers: from the 2019 revocation to the 2025 Congressional Review Act resolutions
California's higher-standard waivers were nullified while industry-requested exemptions from air-toxics rules were granted, the contrast Rep. Neguse put to a witness.

Same context — Environmental deregulation under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
The exemptions are one of the tools in the broader EPA rollback under Administrator Zeldin.

Related — EPA staff, research and budget cuts, and DOGE grant cancellations (2025-2026)
ProPublica reported that EPA scientists played no meaningful role in the exemptions; the cuts reduced the agency's staff and research capacity over the same period.

Related — Oil and gas insiders running the energy agencies: Wright, Burgum, and the appointee pipeline
ProPublica reported the inbox was created by a political appointee with utility and petrochemical industry ties.

Same context — Oil, gas and the EPA: a timeline of Trump-era leadership, rollbacks and industry requests (2014-2026)
The 2025 exemption mailbox is an entry in the timeline.

Related — Power plant pollution rules: repeal of the 2024 mercury standards and of most greenhouse-gas standards (2025-2026)
EDF says the MATS repeal followed a two-year exemption granted to some of the dirtiest plants, which that entry covers.