New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act This bill modifies terminology for purposes of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In order for a change to a stationary source to be a modification (a change to a stationary source that increases the air pollutant emissions or results in new pollutants) for purposes of the NSR permitting program, the maximum hourly emission rate achievable by such source must be higher than the maximum hourly rate achievable by such source during any hour in the 10-year period preceding the change. A change at a stationary source is not considered to be a modification under the bill if it is designed to (1) reduce the amount of any air pollutant emitted; or (2) restore, maintain, or improve the reliability of operations at, or safety of, the source. However, such changes are not excepted if the EPA determines the increase in the maximum achievable hourly emission rate from such change would cause an adverse effect on human health or the environment. Construction, in connection with a major emitting facility (a type of stationary source), does not include a change at such a facility that does not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase. In relation to major emitting facilities in nonattainment areas, the terms modifications and modified do not include changes at such facilities that do not result in a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase.
If passed, HB 165 would change existing allocation mechanisms in the state budget, allowing for more resources to flow into early childhood education. This shift in funding priorities could significantly increase the number of programs available and improve the quality of existing programs by enhancing teacher training and curricular resources. Additionally, this could provide financial relief to families struggling to afford preschool services, thus promoting higher enrollment rates in early educational settings. The long-term implications may include a more educated workforce emerging from these early educational foundations.
House Bill 165 aims to enhance funding for early childhood education programs across the state. By proposing an increase in state budget allocations specifically dedicated to these educational initiatives, the bill seeks to improve access and quality of preschool education for children ages 3-5. Supporters of the bill argue that investing in early childhood education is crucial for long-term cognitive and social development, which can lead to better academic outcomes in later grades. They emphasize the importance of these programs in leveling the playing field for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not have access to quality pre-K education at home.
However, the proposal has generated some contention among various stakeholders. Opponents of the bill express concerns regarding the financial implications of such an increase in funding, raising questions about possible cuts to other critical areas of the state budget, such as higher education or healthcare. Some critics also argue that while the intent behind the bill is noble, the execution could lead to inefficiencies and misallocation of resources. They suggest a more comprehensive approach to educational funding is necessary, rather than solely focusing on early childhood education without addressing broader systemic issues within the education funding framework.