The FENCES Act (H.R. 6409) proposes changes to the Clean Air Act, allowing U.S. states to avoid penalties for failing to meet air quality standards if the failure is due to emissions beyond their control, such as those from wildfires or foreign sources. This means that areas struggling with severe pollution won't face sanctions or fees if they can prove that external factors are to blame. States must provide evidence every five years to maintain their exemption. The bill also prevents areas from being classified as nonattainment areas under new air quality standards if they can show that foreign emissions are responsible for their non-compliance.
Supporters of the FENCES Act argue that it provides a fair approach for states that are unfairly penalized for air quality issues beyond their control. Proponents highlight that the bill acknowledges the impact of international and natural emissions, which can significantly affect local air quality, and offers a practical solution by allowing states to focus on manageable sources of pollution without facing undue penalties.
Critics of the FENCES Act express concern that it might lead to a relaxation of efforts to improve air quality, as states could use the exemptions as a loophole to avoid making necessary environmental improvements. Some environmental advocates worry that the bill could undermine the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act by allowing states to shift blame rather than address local pollution sources, potentially leading to poorer air quality overall.
After a thorough analysis of the H.R. 6409: FENCES Act and the campaign finance data of its sponsor, August Pfluger, no direct conflicts of interest were detected. The top donor industries for Pfluger are Retired, Securities & Investment, and Government, none of which directly overlap with the subject matter of the bill. Furthermore, the lobbying activity in the bill's policy area does not involve any of the sponsor's top donor industries. The absence of overlapping industries and the lack of direct financial ties between the sponsor's donors and the bill's subject matter significantly reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.
Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.
| Client | Lobbying Firm | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| HANWHA Q CELLS AMERICA INC. | BALLARD PARTNERS | $50,000 |
| AON SERVICE CORPORATION | FS VECTOR LLC | $50,000 |
| CHANGENT (FKA NURSE-FAMILY PARTNERSHIP COLORADO) | CHANGENT (FKA NURSE-FAMILY PARTNERSHIP COLORADO) | $43,000 |
| GIMME SEAWEED | BALLARD PARTNERS | $40,000 |
| ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORP. | VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES | $30,000 |
| AVA LABS, INC. | FS VECTOR LLC | $30,000 |
| JRC INTEGRATED SYSTEMS INC. | VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES | $30,000 |
| COALITION OF HUD HOUSING COUNSELING INTERMEDIARIES | DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC | $20,000 |
| EO SOLUTIONS LLC | PORTER GROUP, LLC | $20,000 |
| EUCLID MORTGAGE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC | FS VECTOR LLC | $20,000 |
| THE CREATIVE COALITION | DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC | $10,000 |
| VALLEY FUND CORPORATION | VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES | $10,000 |
| CITY OF ANN ARBOR | DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC | $10,000 |
| FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. | BOLD STRATEGIES, LLC | $10,000 |
| SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY WEST | BOLD STRATEGIES, LLC | $10,000 |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026
Top industries funding August Pfluger, ranked by total contributions.
Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)