Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Save America’s Valuable Energy (SAVE) Act amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the sale of petroleum products drawn from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to any entity headquartered in (1) countries listed in table 1 to paragraph (d)(1) of 22 C.F.R. §126.1 as of enactment, and (2) Russia. It adds a new statutory section codifying the prohibition and updates the EPCA table of contents and cross-references.
Progressives stress climate transition and transparency requirements.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy amendment that inserts a statutory prohibition into the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and identifies responsible authority and covered jurisdictions, but it omits important implementation, definitional, fiscal, and oversight details.
The Save America’s Valuable Energy (SAVE) Act amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the sale of petroleum products drawn from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to any entity headquartered in (1) countries listed in table 1 to paragraph (d)(1) of 22 C.F.R. §126.1 as of enactment, and (2) Russia.
It adds a new statutory section codifying the prohibition and updates the EPCA table of contents and cross-references.
Content is modest and administratively simple, so is easy to accept; however standalone bills of this type often stall unless attached to larger legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy amendment that inserts a statutory prohibition into the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and identifies responsible authority and covered jurisdictions, but it omits important implementation, definitional, fiscal, and oversight details.
Progressives stress climate transition and transparency requirements.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress climate transition and transparency requirements.
Likely generally supportive of restricting SPR sales to hostile or sanctioned regimes and Russia for national security and human rights reasons, but wary that continued SPR use props up fossil fuel consumption.
May press for transparency, non-use of SPR to suppress conservation incentives, and alignment with climate goals.
Concerned about unintended consumer impacts if market flexibility is reduced.
Pragmatically inclined to accept the security rationale for preventing sales to sanctioned countries and Russia, but cautious about operational impacts on SPR effectiveness and market stability.
Would want clear waiver authority, cost-benefit analysis, and minimal administrative complexity before full endorsement.
Likely strongly supportive because the bill prevents strategic U.S. energy resources from aiding adversaries, reinforces sanctions (especially against Russia), and advances national security.
May also favor the measure as protecting American energy leverage, while some conservatives could seek retained executive flexibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is modest and administratively simple, so is easy to accept; however standalone bills of this type often stall unless attached to larger legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress climate transition and transparency requirements.
Content is modest and administratively simple, so is easy to accept; however standalone bills of this type often stall unless attached to l…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy amendment that inserts a statutory prohibition into the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and identifies responsible authorit…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.