Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill requires the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to include data on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in specified EIA publications (including the Petroleum Supply Monthly and the Weekly Petroleum Status Report) and other relevant reports. Required data include feedstock type, origin, and volume used to produce SAF by State (or Petroleum Administration for Defense District where appropriate), in the United States, and, to the maximum extent practicable, by foreign country; and totals of SAF produced (by State and nationally) and SAF imported (by foreign country and in total).
Degree of support: liberals and centrists generally support transparency; conservatives are more concerned about federal burden and business confidentiality.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that clearly states the goal and the primary implementing entity, and it specifies concrete data elements to be published in named EIA reports.
This bill requires the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to include data on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in specified EIA publications (including the Petroleum Supply Monthly and the Weekly Petroleum Status Report) and other relevant reports.
Required data include feedstock type, origin, and volume used to produce SAF by State (or Petroleum Administration for Defense District where appropriate), in the United States, and, to the maximum extent practicable, by foreign country; and totals of SAF produced (by State and nationally) and SAF imported (by foreign country and in total).
The bill mandates use of an accounting methodology consistent with reliable statistical sampling techniques and that avoids double counting, and it defines "sustainable aviation fuel" by reference to section 40B(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.
On content alone, this bill is a narrow, implementable administrative reporting requirement with low fiscal and ideological friction—characteristics that historically make legislation easier to enact than sweeping policy changes. Its success depends largely on procedural factors, competing legislative priorities, and whether implementers (EIA and industry) raise cost or confidentiality objections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that clearly states the goal and the primary implementing entity, and it specifies concrete data elements to be published in named EIA reports. It partially anticipates methodological risks by requiring reliable sampling and avoidance of double counting and by using an existing statutory definition of sustainable aviation fuel.
Degree of support: liberals and centrists generally support transparency; conservatives are more concerned about federal burden and business confidentiality.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Degree of support: liberals and centrists generally support transparency; conservatives are more concerned about federal burden and business confidentiality.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill as a useful transparency measure that helps hold industry and policymakers accountable for the sources and flows of SAF.
They would appreciate public reporting of feedstocks and imports because it can expose use of high‑risk feedstocks (e.g., crops driving land‑use change) and enable stronger environmental oversight.
At the same time they would note that reporting alone does not set emissions standards or prevent greenwashing, and would see this as a first step rather than a complete policy response.
A centrist would likely view the bill as a modest, pragmatic transparency measure that fills an information gap without imposing direct regulatory mandates.
They would appreciate EIA reporting to improve market signals and policymaking while being cautious about implementation costs and confidentiality concerns.
Overall they would see it as a reasonable step if it is implemented efficiently and with safeguards for proprietary data.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of new federal reporting mandates and worry about additional regulatory burdens on the energy and aviation supply sectors.
They might accept the value of market transparency in principle but would be concerned about costs, federal data‑collection overreach, and potential use of the data to justify subsidies or mandates favoring certain technologies.
If safeguards on proprietary information and limits on federal scope are included, some conservatives might consider the measure tolerable but not a priority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this bill is a narrow, implementable administrative reporting requirement with low fiscal and ideological friction—characteristics that historically make legislation easier to enact than sweeping policy changes. Its success depends largely on procedural factors, competing legislative priorities, and whether implementers (EIA and industry) raise cost or confidentiality objections.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Degree of support: liberals and centrists generally support transparency; conservatives are more concerned about federal burden and busines…
On content alone, this bill is a narrow, implementable administrative reporting requirement with low fiscal and ideological friction—charac…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that clearly states the goal and the primary implementing entity, and it specifies concrete data elements to be published in named…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.