S.J. Res. 12 is a single‑clause joint resolution using the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5) to disapprove an 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). The resolution declares that rule “shall have no force or effect.”
The practical result, if enacted, is immediate removal of the specified federal charge and of the compliance framework the EPA established for netting and exemptions. That changes the regulatory baseline for oil and gas operators, EPA enforcement options, and any downstream state or private plans that relied on the federal rule as a compliance benchmark.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves the EPA rule under chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act), and states the rule has no force or effect. Under the CRA, a successful disapproval also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule in substantially the same form without separate statutory authorization.
Who It Affects
Directly affects petroleum and natural gas operators subject to the EPA’s waste‑emissions charge and the procedural netting/exemption regime; EPA program and enforcement staff; environmental compliance teams and counsel for energy firms; and consultants who design compliance systems.
Why It Matters
This is a statutory nullification, not a regulatory tweak: it erases a federal pricing/compliance tool aimed at methane and related waste emissions and changes the legal landscape for how those emissions are regulated at the federal level. That shift has legal, operational, and commercial consequences for regulated entities and for states filling gaps.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.J. Res. 12 contains one operative sentence: it disapproves the EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge rule and declares the rule void.
The bill invokes chapter 8 of title 5—the Congressional Review Act (CRA)—so the resolution uses the mechanism Congress created to overturn recently issued federal rules by joint resolution of disapproval.
When a CRA resolution succeeds, the targeted regulation is treated as having no force or effect from the date of the resolution. Importantly, the CRA also bars the agency from issuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” unless Congress later authorizes it.
That legal bar constrains the agency’s options: it cannot simply republish the same regulatory approach without new statutory authority or a materially different rulemaking record.The EPA rule at issue established a charge on certain waste emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems and set out administrative procedures—including rules for netting emissions and for exemptions—to facilitate compliance. Voiding that rule removes the federal charge and the associated compliance framework, creating immediate regulatory relief for entities that would have paid the charge but simultaneously removing a federal mechanism intended to reduce emissions.
The resolution is short and doctrinally direct; it does not create replacement requirements, transition provisions, or new funding for alternative regulatory measures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution disapproves the EPA 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).
It invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act), which both nullifies the rule and bars the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization.
The operative text is a single, affirmative disapproval clause: the specified EPA rule “shall have no force or effect.”, Because the resolution targets a federal pricing/compliance instrument (a charge), its nullification removes both the levy and the EPA’s procedural rules for netting and exemptions that structured compliance.
Senator John Hoeven is the sponsor; the printed bill text shows it was introduced as S.J. Res. 12 with a Fed. Reg. citation and the resolution language narrowly focused on disapproval rather than on alternative policy.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapproval and nullification of the specified EPA rule
This provision is the heart of the joint resolution: it states that Congress disapproves the named EPA rule and that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” In practice under the CRA, that language nullifies the regulatory text identified by citation; there are no savings, transition, or severability provisions in the resolution itself, so the rule is treated as if it had never been legally effective.
Precise citation of the EPA rule being disapproved
The resolution identifies the rule by title and by the Federal Register citation (89 Fed. Reg. 91094, Nov. 18, 2024). That specificity matters procedurally: the CRA resolution must refer to a rule submitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register. The citation pins the resolution to one discrete regulatory action—the waste‑emissions charge and its compliance procedures—rather than to a broader regulatory program.
Invocation of chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act)
By invoking chapter 8, the resolution operates under the CRA’s framework: Congress may disapprove rules by passing a joint resolution, and upon enactment the rule is void and cannot be reissued in substantially the same form absent new legislation. The resolution itself does not restate those CRA mechanics, but the statutory consequences flow from that citation and shape the real‑world effect of the disapproval.
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
- Integrated and independent oil and gas producers: They avoid the new federal waste‑emissions charge and the administrative burden and costs of complying with the EPA’s netting and exemptions framework.
- Energy compliance and legal teams seeking regulatory certainty on federal charges: The resolution removes a federal charge that would have introduced new compliance regimes and reporting obligations.
- Investors and operators focused on near‑term cash flow: Eliminating the charge reduces immediate regulatory cost exposure for facilities that would have been subject to the rule.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental protection interests and public‑health advocates: They lose a federal economic tool designed to reduce waste emissions and the compliance procedures intended to make the charge operational.
- EPA program offices and enforcement divisions: The agency loses a regulatory instrument it developed to address emissions and will need to adjust enforcement priorities and rulemaking plans.
- Companies and service providers that already invested in early compliance work: Entities that spent capital or resources to prepare for the rule may face sunk costs if the rule is voided.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between legislative check and regulatory expertise: the resolution exercises Congress’s authority to overturn an agency rule quickly, which reduces immediate regulatory cost for industry, but in doing so it removes a targeted federal tool designed to address emissions—forcing a choice between democratic oversight and leaving complex environmental policy to agency rulemaking and technical processes.
The resolution is legally blunt but substantively narrow: it cancels a single EPA rule without proposing a replacement approach or transitional mechanisms. That creates a gap between the policy the rule sought to implement (a charge backed by procedures for netting and exemptions) and the regulatory baseline that remains after disapproval.
The CRA’s bar on reissuing a “substantially similar” rule raises difficult drafting questions for the agency: to address the same underlying emissions problem, EPA would need to craft a materially different rule or seek explicit legislative authority, both of which are time‑consuming and legally exposed.
There are practical uncertainties the resolution does not resolve. The text does not address whether any enforcement actions taken under the voided rule during the period it was effective survive (court decisions and statutory interpretation under the CRA will shape that answer).
It also does not account for state regulatory responses; states could expand their own requirements, creating a patchwork of obligations for operators. Finally, the resolution’s focus on nullification raises strategic questions for agencies about how to design subsequent rulemaking records to avoid running afoul of the CRA bar while still achieving emissions reductions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.