Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal agency rule. If both chambers of Congress pass the joint resolution and the President signs it, the named rule is invalidated and cannot take effect. The law also bars the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress enacts new legislation authorizing it.
The rule titled "Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions."
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act is considered under expedited procedures in the Senate and cannot be filibustered, so it needs only a simple majority there; because this is a joint resolution it must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President (or have a veto overridden) to take effect. The resolution text notes a committee discharge petition was used to place it on the Senate calendar.
This joint resolution, filed under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions” (89 Fed.
Reg. 91094, Nov. 18, 2024).
If enacted, the resolution states the rule "shall have no force or effect." The measure was sponsored by Senator John Hoeven and other Republican senators and was placed on the Senate calendar; its Senate consideration was later indefinitely postponed by unanimous consent.
Narrow CRA disapproval is administratively simple but politically polarizing; success depends on aligned majorities and executive branch position.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and properly framed Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted rule and states the operative legal effect. It relies on the CRA statutory mechanism without adding procedural complexity.
Climate/action vs. economic/regulatory burden framing
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Climate/action vs. economic/regulatory burden framing
Likely opposes the joint resolution because it would block an EPA emissions-charge rule aimed at petroleum and natural gas sources.
They would view nullifying the rule as a setback for climate mitigation, pollution reduction, and public-health protections tied to fossil-fuel waste emissions.
Approaches the resolution with mixed views: endorses the need for emissions reductions but worries about economic impacts and rule design.
Prefers revising the EPA rule through negotiated fixes, cost‑benefit analysis, and phased implementation rather than outright disapproval.
Likely supports the joint resolution as a rollback of a regulatory charge on oil and gas producers.
Sees the EPA rule as an added cost, regulatory overreach, and potential driver of higher energy prices and compliance burdens.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow CRA disapproval is administratively simple but politically polarizing; success depends on aligned majorities and executive branch position.
The Senate agreed to bring this bill to the floor. Debate and amendment votes can now begin.
Climate/action vs. economic/regulatory burden framing
Narrow CRA disapproval is administratively simple but politically polarizing; success depends on aligned majorities and executive branch po…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and properly framed Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the targeted rule and states the operative legal effect. It r…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.