Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill repeals Section 136 of the Clean Air Act, which establishes a methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems, and rescinds any unobligated funds previously made available under that section.
Progressives emphasize climate and health harms; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrow substantive statute-repeal measure with clear identification of the provision to be removed and an explicit rescission clause.
The bill repeals Section 136 of the Clean Air Act, which establishes a methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems, and rescinds any unobligated funds previously made available under that section.
Narrow but high-salience target of climate policy; easier in a supportive House, significantly harder in the Senate absent broad agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrow substantive statute-repeal measure with clear identification of the provision to be removed and an explicit rescission clause. It lacks problem exposition, fiscal analysis, and transitional detail.
Progressives emphasize climate and health harms; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and health harms; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief.
Likely opposed.
Repealing a methane reduction incentive program removes a federal tool to cut greenhouse gas emissions and address pollution near affected communities.
The rescission of unobligated funds further prevents continuation of mitigation activities.
Mixed/leaning skeptical.
Wants evidence on how effective Section 136 has been and whether repeal materially saves money or improves outcomes.
Would prefer reforming or replacing poorly performing elements rather than blanket repeal if environmental harms are likely.
Likely supportive.
Views repeal as reducing federal intervention in energy markets, cutting unnecessary spending, and lowering burdens on domestic natural gas producers.
The rescission is seen as returning funds to broader budget priorities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but high-salience target of climate policy; easier in a supportive House, significantly harder in the Senate absent broad agreement.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and health harms; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief.
Narrow but high-salience target of climate policy; easier in a supportive House, significantly harder in the Senate absent broad agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrow substantive statute-repeal measure with clear identification of the provision to be removed and an explicit rescission clause. It lacks p…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.