Back to Bills

Congress Moves to Block Oil and Gas Fee

Full Title:
A joint resolution 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 joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to reject an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions.” The resolution says the EPA rule (89 Fed. Reg. 91094; Nov. 18, 2024) would have no force or effect if Congress disapproved it. The sponsors are senators listed on the resolution; the Senate later indefinitely postponed the measure by unanimous consent.

  • Main change: cancels the specified EPA rule and declares it has no force or effect.
  • Procedure used: it invokes chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act), the law that lets Congress disapprove recent federal rules.
  • Targeted rule: the EPA rule concerns a waste emissions charge for petroleum and natural gas systems and rules for compliance, netting, and exemptions.
  • Current status: introduced in the Senate and later indefinitely postponed by unanimous consent.

What it means for you#

  • Oil and gas companies / petroleum and natural gas operators: If the resolution were enacted, the EPA rule that would impose and detail a waste emissions charge and related compliance procedures would not take effect. This could mean they would not have to follow the specific charge, netting rules, or exemptions laid out in that EPA rule.
  • Environmental regulators (EPA): The EPA would be blocked from implementing the specific rule named in the resolution. Under the Congressional Review Act process, it may also face limits on issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization (see "What is unclear" below).
  • Communities and the public concerned about emissions: If the disapproval stays in effect, the particular federal fee and compliance procedures in this rule would not apply. What replaces them (if anything) would depend on future EPA actions or legislation.
  • Congress and courts: The resolution is a formal congressional rejection of a federal rule; if enacted, it could lead to legal or policy follow-up about how to address the regulatory gap.

What is unclear: The resolution does not say what would replace the EPA rule or how EPA would proceed on similar policy goals. It also does not include any timing for implementation beyond declaring the rule void.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The resolution text and provided materials do not include a fiscal estimate, cost analysis, or statements about budget impacts.
  • Possible effects that are not estimated here include administrative costs for EPA if it must revise or withdraw rulemaking, economic effects on energy companies if the charge would have applied, and downstream effects on consumers or state budgets — but none of these are quantified in the supplied material.

Proponents' View#

The supplied material does not include public statements from supporters. Based on the resolution’s action, a possible stated purpose is identifiable:

  • The bill appears intended to stop the EPA rule from taking effect.
  • Supporters may argue that disapproving the rule would prevent a new fee or charge on petroleum and natural gas systems and avoid the compliance obligations the rule would create.
  • Supporters may also see this as protecting producers from new federal costs or preserving existing industry practices by preventing the rule’s netting and exemption procedures from applying.

Opponents' View#

The supplied material does not include formal criticisms. Based on what the resolution would do, reasonable concerns or trade-offs include:

  • One concern is that disapproval would prevent the EPA rule’s emissions charge and related compliance procedures from taking effect, leaving a gap in the specific federal approach to charging for waste emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems.
  • It is unclear how EPA would pursue similar policy goals after disapproval; the Congressional Review Act generally limits reissuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization, which could make future rulemaking more difficult.
  • The resolution does not address what, if anything, would replace the rule’s provisions, creating uncertainty for regulated companies, regulators, and communities about near-term policy and enforcement.
  • There is no cost estimate supplied, so the fiscal trade-offs (lost revenue from a charge, administrative savings, legal costs, or impacts on emissions) are not specified.