Tennessee House Bill HB0230

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Chaptered: 3/21/25
• Passed: 3/21/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 68, Chapter 201, Part 1, relative to the air pollution control board.

Summary

HB0230 amends Tennessee law governing the state’s air pollution control board. The bill removes the board from one section of the Tennessee Code that lists certain state boards and commissions subject to specific administrative provisions, and adds the air pollution control board to another section that identifies entities created in Title 68. In practical terms, it is a technical conforming change that updates how the board is referenced in state law rather than changing the board’s substantive duties or powers. The measure is tied to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 68, Chapter 201, Part 1, which together govern state boards and the air pollution control board’s statutory creation. Because the bill is framed as a housekeeping amendment, its main effect is to align the code’s organizational references and ensure the board is properly listed in the correct statutory location. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill makes a narrow statutory revision by deleting the air pollution control board from one code provision and adding it to another, thereby updating the state’s list of boards and commissions and the cross-references associated with the board’s creation. It does not appear to alter environmental policy, permitting rules, enforcement authority, or the board’s membership structure; instead, it clarifies the board’s placement within Tennessee’s administrative code and may affect how the board is treated under general state board provisions.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been viewed very favorably and as noncontroversial. It passed the House Government Operations Committee 10-0 and then passed the House on the consent calendar by a 89-0 floor vote, indicating broad bipartisan support and little to no opposition. The absence of committee discussion transcripts also suggests the measure was treated as routine and technical.

Contention

There is no notable recorded contention in the available materials. The bill’s technical nature likely limited debate, and the unanimous committee and floor votes indicate no significant disagreement over the amendment. Any potential concern would have been limited to whether the code reorganization was necessary or whether the board’s statutory placement should be updated, but no opposition is reflected in the vote history or transcripts.