Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, prevents the President from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing unless Congress expressly authorizes it. It states Congress’s view that states should retain primary regulatory authority over fracking on state and private lands.
Climate/public-health risks versus energy jobs and production
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that plainly states its prohibition on a presidential moratorium for hydraulic fracturing but is minimally detailed.
The bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, prevents the President from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing unless Congress expressly authorizes it.
It states Congress’s view that states should retain primary regulatory authority over fracking on state and private lands.
The prohibition applies notwithstanding other law.
Legislatively simple and low fiscal impact aid House prospects, but Senate supermajority requirements, controversy, and possible executive opposition lower overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that plainly states its prohibition on a presidential moratorium for hydraulic fracturing but is minimally detailed.
Climate/public-health risks versus energy jobs and production
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Climate/public-health risks versus energy jobs and production
Likely strongly opposed.
The persona would see the bill as removing an important federal tool to address climate, water, and health risks from fracking.
They would view state-level regulation as uneven and insufficient for national environmental protection.
Mixed and cautious.
The persona would appreciate legal certainty and deference to states, but worry about constraining executive flexibility for emergencies or national-level environmental harms.
They would seek narrow exceptions or clearer safeguards.
Favorable.
The persona would view the bill as preventing executive overreach, securing energy production and jobs, and reinforcing state control over natural resources.
They would see limited downside in restricting unilateral federal moratoria.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Legislatively simple and low fiscal impact aid House prospects, but Senate supermajority requirements, controversy, and possible executive opposition lower overall chances.
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.
A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.
Climate/public-health risks versus energy jobs and production
Legislatively simple and low fiscal impact aid House prospects, but Senate supermajority requirements, controversy, and possible executive…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy change that plainly states its prohibition on a presidential moratorium for hydraulic fracturing but is minimally detailed.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.