This joint resolution disapproves and strips legal effect from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 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)).
The operative text follows the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to declare that the named rule “shall have no force or effect.”
The practical consequence is immediate regulatory removal of the EPA’s specified compliance procedures — including whatever netting or exemptions the rule authorized — and a statutory bar on reissuing the rule in substantially the same form absent new congressional authorization. That shift matters to compliance officers, energy companies, and regulators because it removes a federal route for meeting an emissions charge and leaves questions about the legal status of transactions, credits, or approvals already carried out under the now-disapproved procedures.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a specific EPA rule and states the rule shall have no force or effect. It thereby eliminates the federal procedures the EPA established to facilitate compliance with a waste emissions charge for petroleum and natural gas systems.
Who It Affects
Operators in the petroleum and natural gas sector, their in-house compliance and legal teams, regulated utilities and midstream companies, EPA enforcement and permitting offices, and secondary markets (insurers, lenders) tied to emissions obligations are directly affected.
Why It Matters
Nullifying a technical compliance rule removes a predictable, federal framework for netting and exemptions and triggers legal and operational uncertainty for existing compliance actions, permitting, and commercial arrangements that relied on those procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The joint resolution targets one EPA rule by name and citation and declares it void under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Under the CRA, Congress can pass a joint resolution to disapprove a federal rule; doing so not only strips the rule of legal force but also constrains the agency’s ability to reissue the same regulation without fresh statutory authorization.
The resolution itself is short and narrowly focused: it names the rule and states that it shall have no effect.
Practically, the resolution removes from the federal regulatory landscape whatever procedural mechanisms the EPA had created to help covered entities comply with a waste emissions charge — for example, protocols for netting emissions between facilities, processes for granting exemptions, or administrative pathways for demonstrating compliance. With that federal procedure gone, regulated parties lose a standardized pathway to comply and may need to rely on alternative mechanisms (state rules, case-by-case enforcement discretion, contractual arrangements) or wait for new federal guidance or legislation.The disapproval also raises immediate legal and transactional questions.
Contracts, permits, or compliance certifications that were executed under the EPA’s procedures may no longer rest on a valid federal rule; parties who relied on those procedures face counterparty risk or litigation exposure. At the agency level, EPA will need to adjust enforcement and guidance materials, and downstream actors—insurers, lenders, and environmental markets—must reassess the value and validity of credits, offsets, or netting calculations predicated on the rescinded procedures.Finally, the CRA’s ban on reissuing a substantially similar rule without explicit congressional authorization means that the void may persist unless Congress passes new enabling language or the agency devises materially different procedures.
That places the decision over detailed compliance architecture for this emissions charge back into the legislative and political arena rather than leaving it in agency rulemaking alone.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution expressly disapproves the EPA rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,” cited at 89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (Nov. 18, 2024).
Congress uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) as the statutory vehicle; the resolution states the named rule “shall have no force or effect.”, The CRA creates a statutory bar on issuing a subsequent rule in “substantially the same form” absent new congressional authorization, effectively blocking the EPA from reinstating identical procedures through a follow-on rulemaking.
The joint resolution does not replace the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions generally under underlying statutes; it removes only the specified procedural rule and leaves broader statutory programs intact unless separately amended.
Voidance of the rule creates legal uncertainty around actions taken while the rule was in effect—permits, compliance filings, or commercial arrangements that relied on the rule may face challenges or require renegotiation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Caption identifying the target rule and statutory authority
The opening lines state that Congress is acting under chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) and identify the specific EPA rule by title and Federal Register citation. This matters because CRA disapprovals must precisely reference the rule to meet statutory requirements; an imprecise reference creates procedural grounds for later challenge.
Disapproval and nullification of the named rule
This is the core operative sentence: Congress disapproves the EPA rule and declares it will have no force or effect. That single clause triggers the CRA’s legal consequences—removal of the rule from the United States Code of Federal Regulations and cosmetic and substantive unwinding of the agency’s action to the extent feasible.
Formal attestations and signatures for enactment
The resolution ends with the standard enrollment lines for the Speaker and the Vice President as President of the Senate. These are formalities that complete the statutory process; once enrolled and signed (or otherwise enacted), the disapproval takes legal effect without embedding new regulatory text or alternate compliance mechanisms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Operators and producers in the petroleum and natural gas sector: Removing the EPA’s specified netting and exemption procedures reduces immediate administrative burdens and potential additional charges tied to those procedures.
- Companies that opposed the EPA rule on compliance cost grounds: They avoid compliance obligations and procedural requirements the rule would have imposed.
- Market participants relying on regulatory certainty favoring less federal oversight (some state regulators and industry trade groups): They gain leverage to push for state-level approaches or negotiated, less prescriptive federal solutions.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA and its enforcement offices: The agency must unwind a rule, revise guidance, and recalibrate enforcement priorities without the procedural tool it created.
- Compliance and legal teams at energy firms that already implemented systems under the voided rule: These teams bear transition costs, potential sunk compliance costs, and contract renegotiation or litigation risk.
- Third parties relying on the rule’s procedures (insurers, lenders, carbon market participants): They face valuation uncertainty for instruments and commitments calculated under now-invalidated procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between restoring immediate regulatory relief for affected industry players and preserving a structured federal pathway for consistent, enforceable compliance: the resolution eliminates the EPA’s procedural tool to ease compliance burdens, but by doing so it also removes the standardized, transparent mechanism the agency designed—trading predictable federal rules for legal uncertainty and fragmented alternatives.
The headline effect—nullifying a named rule—is straightforward, but its downstream consequences are messy. The resolution removes a federal compliance pathway without providing an alternative.
That gap may force regulated entities to seek state-level clarity, rely on informal EPA guidance, or await new legislation. Those stopgap approaches will vary by jurisdiction and counterpart, increasing transaction costs and legal risk for bilateral contracts and capital providers.
Another implementation tension concerns retrospective reliance. Parties and agencies that acted when the rule appeared valid may face disputes over whether prior approvals, permits, or contractual adjustments remain enforceable.
Courts will likely assess whether specific agency actions taken under the now-disapproved rule remain binding; the resolution does not expressly unwind administrative actions that the agency completed while the rule was in force, creating an area of litigation and operational ambiguity. Finally, the CRA’s prohibition on reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization hands substantial leverage to Congress over technical compliance details; it substitutes political negotiation for administrative rulemaking, which can be slower or more binary and may deter the agency from reattempting regulation even where substantive environmental objectives remain.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.