Back to Bills

Congress Rescinds Oil and Gas Emissions Fee

Full Title:
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".

Summary#

This law cancels an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions” (89 Fed. Reg. 91094, Nov. 18, 2024). The joint resolution declares that the EPA rule “shall have no force or effect.” The resolution was signed into law on March 14, 2025.

  • Main change: It nullifies the EPA rule on waste emissions charges and related compliance procedures for petroleum and natural gas systems.
  • Legal effect under the law cited: The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5), which not only cancels the rule but generally prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization.
  • Scope: The text names the specific EPA rule by title and Federal Register citation; it does not modify other EPA rules.
  • Timing: The resolution is enacted, so the named rule no longer has legal effect as of the law’s approval date.

What it means for you#

  • Oil and gas companies / operators: The specific EPA procedures for a waste emissions charge, including the compliance steps, netting rules, and exemptions in that rule, will not apply. This could mean they will not be subject to the charges or procedures that the rule would have imposed.
  • EPA and federal regulators: The agency cannot enforce the cancelled rule. Under the Congressional Review Act, EPA is generally barred from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same unless Congress authorizes it.
  • Customers / consumers: Any direct effects on energy prices, service costs, or consumer bills are not specified in the resolution. This could mean no direct regulatory fee from this specific rule will apply, but the resolution does not state how market prices will change.
  • States and local governments: The resolution does not change state rules. States that planned to rely on or coordinate with the EPA rule may need to adjust their plans.
  • General public: The resolution removes one federal regulatory tool aimed at charging for certain waste emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems. The resolution itself does not create replacement rules or programs.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The resolution text does not include a fiscal note, cost estimate, or savings estimate.
  • It does not state how much revenue the cancelled rule might have raised, or what administrative costs would have followed from implementing it.
  • Any budgetary effects (for example, lost fee revenue, enforcement cost savings, or downstream economic effects) are not provided in the available material.

Proponents' View#

A possible rationale based on the resolution and its sponsors:

  • The bill appears intended to stop the EPA rule from taking effect and to prevent the agency from enforcing the charge and procedures named in the rule.
  • Supporters may argue that cancelling the rule avoids new federal fees or compliance burdens on petroleum and natural gas businesses.
  • Supporters may view the resolution as protecting the regulated industry from a federal charge they oppose or as preserving economic activity in the sector.
  • The resolution follows the Congressional Review Act process, which supporters may see as a lawful way for Congress to reject a federal agency rule.

Opponents' View#

Reasonable concerns or criticisms that follow from what the resolution does and what it does not say:

  • One concern is that cancelling the rule removes a federal tool aimed at charging for certain waste emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems, which could reduce incentives to limit those emissions.
  • The resolution does not explain the expected environmental, public health, or climate effects of blocking the rule.
  • It is unclear how many companies would have been affected, how much revenue the rule would have raised, or how enforcement responsibilities would change; that missing information makes assessing trade-offs difficult.
  • By preventing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization, the resolution could limit EPA’s ability to use this policy approach in the near term, even if future evidence supports it.