Okay, let’s break down H.J. Res. 35, focusing on what it aims to do, why it’s important, and the context surrounding it. This will be written with clarity in mind, assuming a general audience.
Article: Congress Attempts to Overturn EPA’s Methane Waste Emissions Charge for Oil and Gas
Introduction:
On March 4, 2025, a Congressional bill known as H.J. Res. 35 was formally introduced. This resolution aims to block a rule implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning waste emissions charges for the petroleum and natural gas industry. Specifically, it targets a rule designed to facilitate compliance with regulations related to methane emissions, including provisions for “netting” (offsetting emissions reductions) and exemptions. This is a significant move that could reshape how the oil and gas sector addresses methane pollution.
Understanding H.J. Res. 35 and the Congressional Review Act:
-
H.J. Res. 35: A Congressional Disapproval Attempt: The core of H.J. Res. 35 is to utilize a mechanism within the law that allows Congress to overturn regulations issued by federal agencies like the EPA. “H.J. Res.” stands for House Joint Resolution. Passing this resolution would effectively nullify the EPA’s methane waste emissions rule.
-
The Congressional Review Act (CRA): The Tool Being Used: The resolution invokes Chapter 8 of Title 5 of the United States Code, which is the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA gives Congress a limited window (usually 60 legislative days) after a rule is finalized to review it and pass a joint resolution of disapproval. If the resolution passes both the House and Senate and is signed by the President (or if Congress overrides a presidential veto), the rule is blocked and the agency is generally prohibited from issuing a similar rule in the future without explicit authorization from Congress.
The EPA’s Methane Waste Emissions Rule: What’s at Stake?
To understand why H.J. Res. 35 is significant, we need to understand the EPA rule it targets. Here’s a breakdown:
-
Methane: A Potent Greenhouse Gas: Methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas, far more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a shorter period. Reducing methane emissions is considered crucial to mitigating climate change in the near term.
-
Oil and Gas Industry: A Major Source: The oil and natural gas industry is a major source of methane emissions. These emissions can occur during production, processing, transportation, and storage of oil and gas. Leaks from pipelines, venting of gas, and incomplete combustion are all contributors.
-
The Waste Emissions Charge (aka “Methane Fee”): The EPA rule likely establishes a “waste emissions charge” – essentially a fee – on methane emissions from certain segments of the oil and gas industry that exceed specified thresholds. The goal is to incentivize companies to reduce methane leaks and emissions. The “waste” designation emphasizes that the methane is lost to the atmosphere instead of captured and sold.
-
Facilitating Compliance: Netting and Exemptions: The EPA rule also likely includes provisions for:
- Netting: Allowing companies to offset emissions by reducing emissions elsewhere in their operations. For example, a company might be able to reduce overall emissions by replacing old, leaky equipment with newer, more efficient technology. This would need to be rigorously measured and verified.
- Exemptions: Defining specific circumstances under which companies might be exempt from the waste emissions charge. This could include exemptions for small producers or for certain types of equipment.
Arguments For and Against H.J. Res. 35 (and, implicitly, the EPA Rule):
-
Arguments in Favor of H.J. Res. 35 (Against the EPA Rule):
- Economic Burden: Opponents argue that the waste emissions charge will increase energy costs for consumers and businesses, particularly during a time of inflation and economic uncertainty.
- Job Losses: Some claim the rule could lead to job losses in the oil and gas sector, particularly for smaller companies that may struggle to afford the compliance costs.
- Regulatory Overreach: Critics argue that the EPA is exceeding its authority and that the rule is unnecessary, given existing state regulations and voluntary industry initiatives to reduce methane emissions.
- Technological Feasibility: Concerns may be raised about the technical feasibility of accurately measuring and reducing methane emissions across all segments of the industry.
-
Arguments Against H.J. Res. 35 (In Favor of the EPA Rule):
- Climate Change Mitigation: Supporters emphasize the urgent need to reduce methane emissions to combat climate change and protect public health.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Proponents argue that the rule is a cost-effective way to reduce methane emissions, as the cost of capturing and selling the gas is often less than the cost of the waste emissions charge.
- Innovation and Job Creation: Some argue that the rule will incentivize innovation in methane detection and reduction technologies, leading to new job opportunities in the clean energy sector.
- Environmental Justice: Supporters highlight that communities living near oil and gas facilities are disproportionately affected by methane pollution and that the rule will help to protect these vulnerable populations.
- Consistency: Emphasize the need for a consistent, federal standard for methane emission control rather than a patchwork of state regulations.
Potential Outcomes and Implications:
- If H.J. Res. 35 Passes: The EPA’s methane waste emissions charge rule would be blocked. This would likely weaken efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and could undermine the U.S.’s climate goals.
- If H.J. Res. 35 Fails: The EPA rule would remain in effect, and the oil and gas industry would be subject to the waste emissions charge and the associated compliance requirements. This would likely lead to increased investment in methane reduction technologies and practices.
The Political Context:
The fate of H.J. Res. 35 is highly dependent on the political makeup of Congress and the stance of the President. It is likely to be a contentious issue, with strong partisan divisions. Interest groups from both sides, including environmental organizations, industry associations, and labor unions, will likely lobby heavily on the issue. Public opinion may also play a role in influencing the outcome.
Conclusion:
H.J. Res. 35 represents a significant challenge to the EPA’s efforts to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. The outcome of this Congressional resolution will have important implications for climate change mitigation, energy costs, and the future of the oil and gas sector. It highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between environmental protection and economic development.
The AI has delivered the news.
The following question was used to generate the response from Google Gemini:
At 2025-03-04 12:35, ‘H.J. Res.35(ENR) – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions.’ was published according to Congressional Bills. Please write a detailed article with related information in an easy-to-understand manner.
1