CIBO 2025 Policy & Regulatory – Priority Areas of Focus

CIBO closely monitors and engages in environmental and energy-related policies that affect the operations of CIBO’s membership, including laws and regulations on energy efficiency and sustainable energy utilization; as well as Federal air, water, waste and natural resources requirements; alternative fuels technologies; carbon management and plant operations (such as power house maintenance and technologies).

Each year, CIBO identifies and maintains focus on key energy and environmental regulatory, legislative and other policy issues that have a significant present or future impact on the operations of our members.  Many regulations identified have an impact at the facility level.  CIBO’s membership includes large manufacturing companies, universities, as well as consulting firms (with industrial and institutional clients), as well as supplier firms.

Below is our current list of priority areas of focus.

Energy Supply and Demand.

As an organization, CIBO is dedicated to ensuring that industrial, commercial and institutional energy remains reliable, sustainable, safe and cost-effective. Our focus is on the unique needs of industrial energy producers and users and advocating for a diverse portfolio of energy resources.  We specifically call for policymakers to remain mindful of both electrical and thermal energy requirements of industrial and other institutional operations.  Thermal energy forms, including CHP – combined heat and power, steam, hot water and refrigeration – are fundamental to a wide array of manufacturing processes.

To meet fast-growing energy demands, the U.S. must expand baseload power generation capabilities.  In particular, the reliability of the U.S. electrical grid is in peril in the years ahead, including the expectation of major power shortages in many regions of this country – where demand is rising rapidly to meet the needs of new AI data centers and with renewable sources being overly or unwisely relied upon to substantially displace nuclear, coal and gas in the near term.   This is especially true for entities that rely on thermal energy to either perform a process or thermally heat facilities.

In addition to remaining dedicated over the long term in an “all of the above” approach to producing and providing proven and effective sources of energy, U.S. policymakers, including Congress and the federal regulatory agencies, need to finally address needed reforms. This includes grid and gas infrastructure, legislative amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act, and other actions to accelerate infrastructure development, support combined heat and power entities and initiatives and provide creative solutions to energy security.  CIBO members use many sources of power to run their industrial and institutional plant operations, also including current advances in alternative fuels and waste fuels.

Energy, Sustainability and Related Programs.

CIBO members closely monitor and engage, from a technical perspective, in developments regarding de-carbonization, energy management, and resource efficiency.  As government policies and regulations advance over the long term in this area, CIBO members – manufacturers, universities, consulting firms, suppliers and other organizations – are responding to emerging regulatory initiatives and stakeholder expectations, including developing their own de-carbonization and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.  CIBO should prioritize keeping a close focus on an array of developments, including short- and longer-term government/regulatory actions, industry standards, as well as state and local initiatives.  This includes key areas where we maintain our focus:

• Management systems – designed to improve processes tied to energy, environmental and de-carbonization performance. This includes ISO 50001, which is a fundamental tool directed at improving energy performance, efficiency and organizational sustainability metrics.  Organizations engaged in ISO 50001 also work to integrate operational changes with their business practices, with sustainability metrics directed at energy efficiency improvements, as well as external communications directed at stakeholders, customers, shareholders, etc.
• Government regulations and policies – directed at renewable energy. At present, we see wild shifts from the federal government, including some technologies of great interest to CIBO members, including the IRA tax incentives directed at hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear energy.  S. DOE grants and other program funding directed at energy efficiency and de-carbonization have significant support from U.S. business sectors.  The Energy Star program, a public-private partnership, is a successful initiative which has a strong track record of success, which CIBO supports.  There are a number other U.S. and international policies and regulations to stay on top of, including for example: the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD); U.S. and state-level building performance standards; and federal regulatory developments (like policies on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and the SEC’s climate risk and disclosure regulations, among others).

Power House Operations Challenges.

CIBO remains dedicated to focusing on technical and other challenges and developments tied to energy operations – which are key to industrial and institutional facilities and plants that CIBO members manage.  A few of the issues that many CIBO members face are:

• Implementation and modernization of control systems and technology including automation and potential applications of AI
• Cybersecurity as plants rely more on sophisticated control systems
• Aging equipment and other utilities infrastructure.
• Deciding when to extend the life of existing equipment and undertake major retrofit or to make a complete replacement given uncertainty of future environmental requirements.
• Finding skilled labor to maintain aging equipment.
• Dwindling base of knowledgeable U.S. manufacturers able to supply parts for existing equipment as well as manufacturing replacement equipment.
• Shrinking base of coal suppliers and natural gas pipe line capacity restrictions.
• Difficultly finding experienced operations personnel.
• Uncertainty about what energy supplies will be available in future, regulations surrounding their use, cost to implement newer combustions technologies as well as the cost of the fuel itself.
• Volatility in fuel prices, especially with natural gas.
• Extended lead times on systems, equipment and other materials
• The continued ability to make useful energy from existing alternative fuels and waste.

Federal Environmental Regulatory Issues.

EPA has announced an ambitious agenda of regulatory reforms. CIBO has identified the following as key programs and regulations currently impacting many CIBO members. CIBO should closely monitor these items and develop (as necessary and appropriate) an engagement strategy:

• Boiler MACT and MACT RTR Issues: EPA has several issues before it under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program that are of interest to CIBO members: setting standards for existing sources that it wrongly considered “new”; cleaning up part of a 2022 rule that changed the options for demonstrating compliance with HCl, CO, Hg, and PM; and reconsidering CO surrogacy issues in that 2022 rule. In additional EPA is currently working through multiple MACT program Risk and Technology Review rules (RTRs), and there are a number of important legal issues (“LEAN gap-filling,” the requirement that fills gaps of unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the D.C. Circuit’s LEAN decision) around that process that could impact a future RTR for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers.
• PFAS: The regulation of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, is a dynamic area with both the federal and state governments considering regulatory solutions under a wide array of authorities and approaches. For example, EPA is developing its PFAS approach regarding drinking standards under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Standards; disposal of PFAS materials; regulating the manufacturing of PFAS as toxic substances under Toxic Substances Control Act; the use of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to possibly regulate PFAS as hazardous substances; and furthering the science/understanding of toxicology of PFAS.
• Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS: In recent years, EPA has tightened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for both ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Both rules have or are expected to result in more geographic areas being classified as nonattainment, requiring them to implement stricter emission controls and impacting permitting for new projects. EPA has already announced that it will reconsider the 2024 PM 2.5 NAAQS (9 μg/m³), and it may review the 2015 ozone NAAQS (70 ppb) as part of effort to “end” the current ozone Good Neighbor Rule. Additionally, EPA is facing several implementation issues with these NAAQS – like PM 2.5 ambient monitoring and working with states to reconsider the exceptional events rulemaking. Congress is also considering legislative reforms to long-running NAAQS and permitting challenges.
• EPA Good Neighbor FIP and State SIPs: As part of the prior administration’s approach to implementing the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, EPA denied multiple State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and issued a multistate Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that set stringent NOx emission standards for non-EGUs including industrial boilers at many manufacturing facilities (such as iron and steel mills, chemical plants, and pulp, paper and paperboard mills). Although the Supreme Court stayed the standards (and therefore delayed the need to install expensive controls on many sources by May 1, 2026), further developments in this area could provide more durable relief. EPA has committed to reconsidering the GNR and may revisit the inclusion of industrial sources in the rule, the scope of states included in the rule, and the degree of emission reductions needed from each state. States are also likely to take regulatory actions to ensure EPA can approve their SIPs.
• EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule: EPA has developed a proposed rule to reconsider some or all of the GHG Reporting Rule. When the proposal becomes public (perhaps in August or September 2025), the extent of the proposed repeal will be known. But EPA may be planning to repeal the entire program because it exceeds the agency’s authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. While this would reduce industry’s reporting burdens, EPA must consider the benefits to industry of having a single, well-developed and respected methodology for quantifying GHG emissions.
• EPA Stationary Turbine Rules: The Biden EPA proposed New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) Subpart KKKKa for new, reconstructed, and modified turbines. If finalized, the rule would set limits for NOx so strict that SCR is required to meet them and would make a raft of other problematic changes. EPA, under new leadership, will finalize the rule in late 2025 and is expected to resolve at least some concerns and raise the NOx limit. Meanwhile, there may be regulatory developments for turbines under the MACT program. The prior administration granted ENGOs’ reconsideration petitions to conduct LEAN gap-filling for MACT Subpart YYYY. If it does this, it will have to figure out whether and how industry can reduce trace metal HAPs (likely at great expense and difficulty). To avoid this, industry is working on a petition to ask EPA to “delist” the source category.
• EPA Budget Issues (Particularly Categorial Grants/Other Funding that Support State and Local-Level Programs): EPA’s 2026 budget proposal would slash categorical grants and other funds that support state environmental agencies. For example, categorical grants for state and local air quality management would total only $16.3 million—a decrease of 93.75% from 2025. According to the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, “[s]tates carry out 90 percent of the nation’s federal environmental programs, and all fifty states serve as primary implementers and enforcers of most CAA standards.” This is by design: the Clean Air Act and our nation’s other major environmental statutes rely on a system of cooperative federalism whereby Congress establishes national policy and priorities in statute, EPA sets national minimum regulations, and state implement these regulations through federal approval or delegation. Reducing funding to such minimal levels creates enormous resource challenges for state regulators, which will then impact permitting and other critical functions.