EPA Rollback: A New Era of Deregulation

The federal government is moving well outside of standard processes to grant powerful corporations exemptions from potentially life-saving emissions regulations. This move, coupled with the large and fast-moving buildout of new petrochemical production facilities across the US (and globally), is further threatening communities’ right to breathe clean air and live in a healthy environment. A close look at publicly available information on the corporations receiving these expanded permissions to pollute reveals the overlap between existing sources of pollution and new ones: several of the companies seeking permits from local governments to increase local pollution burdens are the same ones receiving federal exemptions from pollution regulations. This comes after they’ve invested millions of dollars — not in keeping local environments clean and healthy, but in lobbying.

Gutting Hard-Won Protections

In April 2024, EPA finalized a regulation (the “HON Rule”) under the Clean Air Act that would dramatically improve air quality in communities near chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimated that these new requirements would reduce  by nearly 80 percent the emissions of ethylene oxide and chloroprene — two extremely carcinogenic chemicals — from facilities covered by the rule. All together, the emissions restrictions, air monitoring, improved efficiencies of flares, and removals of exemptions for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions included in this one rule would “reduce the number of people who have elevated air toxics-related cancer risk by 96% in those communities” near covered facilities.

But this March, the Trump EPA issued an open call for exemption applications from facilities regulated under this rule and eight others promulgated under a part of the Clean Air Act. These exemptions were offered based on a never-before-used provision of the law that allows the president to suspend hazardous air pollutant regulations if he “determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so.” These exemptions may last for up to two years and can be renewed for additional periods of up to two years. (Clean Air Act § 112(i)(4))

On July 17, the White House released a proclamation announcing the granting of such exemptions for facilities regulated under the HON Rule, invoking claims of both unavailable technology and national security. The proclamation issues exemptions for 52 facilities owned by 25 different companies — approximately a quarter of the 207 facilities covered by the rule across the country.

These exemptions may be challenged, as this is a novel and sweeping use of a narrow exemption authority outside the bounds of any established process or practice.  In fact, a nationwide coalition of more than a dozen environmental and community organizations filed a lawsuit challenging exemptions issued in June under one of the other eight rules named in the March open call.

Doubling Down on Dirty Industry

New and expansion projects planned as part of a significant nationwide petrochemicals buildout threaten to compound the harm of this deregulatory action. If allowed to stand, these exemptions will apply to existing facilities and perpetuate the polluting harm of those facilities in those communities. However, the petrochemical industry is also seeking to build dozens of new projects, often in these same burdened communities, and sometimes within the fenceline of now-exempt existing facilities. Ten of the companies that received exemptions are pursuing 25 new or expansion projects for making petrochemicals. Of these companies, five — BASF, Formosa Plastics, Chevron Phillips, Shell, and Westlake — are pursuing expansions at the same facilities that just received exemptions from the HON Rule.^[1]

Following The Money: Profits Over People

The companies that obtained exemptions to the HON rule have paid millions for lobbying. The 10 companies that obtained exemptions and are planning to expand disclosed spending $11.5 million lobbying lawmakers already in 2025, while they spent $19.9 million in 2024. Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), of which eight of the 10 companies are members, has already spent $8.6 million on lobbying in 2025 on top of $22.3 million in 2024. The chemical industry has already disclosed spending another $41 million on lobbying in 2025, according to data from OpenSecrets.

The companies receiving exemptions and their employees have also donated $3.6 million to election funds in the 2024 election cycle, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.^[2] Westlake alone donated $500,000 to the Republican Senate leadership fund via a PAC. By contrast, EPA estimated this rule would cost the industry more than $190 million per year (see Table 6).

The millions spent lobbying by the chemical industry may have saved these companies some money in the short term. But their facilities’ neighbors will certainly bear the financial and physical impacts of these additional emissions, as fenceline communities’ rights to health and safety are sacrificed for corporate profits and shareholder dividends.

Individual facilities, both receiving exemptions and planning new expansions:

• BASF Corporation Geismar Facility (LA)
• Chevron Phillips Chemical Sweeny Old Ocean Facilities/Sweeny Refinery (TX)
• Formosa Plastics Corporation Point Comfort Plant (TX)
• Shell Geismar Chemical Plant (LA)
• Westlake Lake Charles South Plant (LA)

See the table below for an itemized list of facilities by companies, both receiving exemptions and planning new facilities or expansions. Companies receiving exemptions via the July 17 proclamation but not publicly known to be planning new facilities or expansion projects are not listed here.

Note: Companies receiving an exemption and seeking expansion on any one facility are shaded, and the individual facilities where that applies are bolded. Existing exempted facility names appear as they do on the proclamation.

End Notes: 

^[1] The ChevronPhillips Chemical petrochemicals project is technically a different facility, but it is directly adjacent to and connected to the refinery receiving the exemption.

^[2] “Westlake Corp,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/westlake-corp/recipients?id=D000031017;  “BASF SE,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/basf-se/recipients?id=D000043117; “Dow Inc.,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025; https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/dow-inc/recipients?id=D000000188; “Phillips 66,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025; https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/phillips-66/recipients?id=D000019668;  “Formosa Plastics,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025; https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/formosa-plastics/summary?id=D000074918;  “Saudi Aramco,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025; https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/saudi-aramco/recipients?id=D000068728 ; “Shell plc,” OpenSecrets, Accessed July 31, 2025; https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/shell-plc/recipients?id=D000042525; All donations were made during the 2024 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission. Figures for the current election cycle are based on data released on February 06, 2025 and compiled by OpenSecrets.