5 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in PUBLIC LAWcompared with ENROLLED BILL

Technical corrections only. v5 updates the document from an enrolled joint resolution (v4) to Public Law 119-2, incorporating the approval date and legislative history. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the resolution itself.

H.J.Res. 35119th CongressIntroduced Feb 4, 2025

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions".

Became Public LawEnvironmental ProtectionMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Committees: Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action: Mar 14, 2025

Bottom line

Congress has used its authority under the Congressional Review Act to block an EPA rule imposing a waste emissions charge on the petroleum and natural gas industry.

What it actually does

This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a final rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The disapproved rule, titled "Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions," would have established a charge on methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas facilities. By disapproving it, Congress prevents the rule from taking effect, effectively eliminating the federal waste emissions charge.

Proponents argue

Supporters of the resolution argue that the EPA rule would impose significant financial burdens on the petroleum and natural gas industry, leading to increased energy costs for consumers, reduced domestic energy production, and potential job losses. They contend that the rule is an overreach of regulatory authority and that market-based solutions or voluntary industry efforts are more appropriate for addressing emissions.

Opponents contend

Opponents of the resolution (and proponents of the EPA rule) argue that the waste emissions charge is a crucial tool for incentivizing the reduction of potent methane emissions, which contribute significantly to climate change. They assert that the charge would encourage technological innovation and responsible industry practices, ultimately leading to cleaner air and a more sustainable energy sector, while the disapproval undermines climate action.

The resolution is extremely short and direct, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its immediate effect.

Section 1

Disapproval of EPA Waste Emissions Charge Rule

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule concerning a waste emissions charge for petroleum and natural gas systems. By doing so, it legally nullifies the rule, preventing it from having any legal force or effect. This means the charge on methane emissions and the associated compliance procedures outlined in the EPA rule will not be implemented, removing a federal financial incentive for reducing methane leaks.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupPetroleum and Natural Gas IndustryImpactAvoidance of new regulatory compliance costs and emissions charges.MechanismDirect nullification of the EPA rule by Congress.ScaleIndustry-wide, affecting all facilities that would have been subject to the charge.

GroupConsumers of natural gas and petroleum productsImpactPotential avoidance of increased energy costs that might have been passed on by industry.MechanismPrevention of industry costs that could be passed through.ScaleBroad, affecting energy prices.

GroupEnvironmental Advocates and Climate Change InitiativesImpactSetback for efforts to reduce methane emissions and combat climate change.MechanismRemoval of a key regulatory tool designed to incentivize emissions reductions.ScaleNational and international climate goals.

GroupEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)ImpactLoss of regulatory authority and a specific tool for environmental enforcement.MechanismCongressional override of an agency's rulemaking.ScaleSpecific to methane emissions regulation.

Supporters argue

Proponents of the disapproval argue that the EPA rule was an unnecessary and burdensome regulation that would stifle innovation and economic growth in a critical energy sector. They contend that preventing the charge allows the industry to invest more in production and efficiency without the added cost of a federal tax, ultimately benefiting energy security and affordability.

Critics contend

Opponents of the disapproval argue that nullifying the EPA's waste emissions charge undermines critical efforts to address climate change and public health. They assert that the charge was a market-based incentive to reduce harmful methane leaks, and its removal allows the industry to continue polluting without sufficient accountability, thereby externalizing environmental costs onto the public.

Tradeoffs

The provision navigates the tension between reducing regulatory burdens on industry to potentially foster economic growth and ensuring environmental protection through emissions reductions. It highlights the ongoing debate over the appropriate role of federal regulation versus market mechanisms or voluntary actions in addressing climate-related emissions.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.