Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020.
ELI5 AI
H. J. RES. 30 is a suggestion from some lawmakers who want to stop a new rule. This rule was supposed to help reduce certain gases in the air that can harm the planet, but these lawmakers think maybe it shouldn't happen yet.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 30 is a joint resolution introduced in the 119th Congress that seeks congressional disapproval of a specific rule established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule in question is related to the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as outlined under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020. By disapproving the EPA rule, the resolution aims to prevent the rule from having any legal effect. The proposal has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Joint Resolution 30 represents a proposal in the U.S. Congress to nullify a specific rule put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule pertains to the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are potent greenhouse gases. The rule was established in alignment with the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 and published in the Federal Register in October 2024. By passing this resolution, Congress aims to ensure that the rule no longer holds any power or enforceability.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue with this resolution is the lack of detailed explanation regarding the reasons for disapproving the EPA's rule. The resolution does not provide any context or justification for the disapproval, raising questions about transparency and intent. Additionally, the broad language used to render the rule ineffective raises concerns about legal certainty and future regulatory actions. Moreover, referencing a publication date in October 2024 could be perplexing, especially if reviewed before that date, suggesting possible timing complications.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this resolution could signal a shift in federal environmental policy, particularly concerning the regulation of substances that contribute to climate change. Hydrofluorocarbons are known to have a substantial environmental impact due to their greenhouse gas properties. Therefore, the rollback of rules governing the reduction of these chemicals might affect the country's broader environmental and climate objectives. The outcome of the resolution could potentially lead to increased emissions unless other measures are implemented.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The resolution might have mixed consequences for various stakeholders. Industries that utilize HFCs, such as refrigeration and air conditioning manufacturers, might view the resolution positively as it could alleviate regulatory burdens and associated compliance costs. However, environmental groups and organizations advocating for strong climate action could view the disapproval negatively, as it might weaken efforts to mitigate climate change.
In summary, the lack of detailed reasoning and the implications for regulatory certainty suggest this resolution could have diverse effects across different sectors. While it might relieve some industries of regulatory constraints, it raises concerns over environmental policy direction and transparency.
Issues
The bill lacks a detailed explanation of the reasons for disapproving the Environmental Protection Agency's rule on hydrofluorocarbon phasedown, which might lead to ambiguity in understanding the rationale and potentially undermine transparency. (Section Text Issue 1)
The disapproval of the EPA rule on significant environmental regulatory measures such as hydrofluorocarbon management does not address potential impacts, which could be seen as a lack of consideration for environmental consequences. (Section Text Issue 4)
The language stating that the rule shall have 'no force or effect' is too broad and lacks specificity regarding the intended consequences or alternative actions, which might lead to legal uncertainties. (Section Text Issue 2)
The reference to a future date (October 11, 2024) in the document could cause confusion if reviewed before that date, indicating potential temporal issues in its interpretation. (Section Text Issue 3)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress rejects the rule made by the Environmental Protection Agency about reducing the use of hydrofluorocarbons, which was outlined in a 2024 publication. This decision means the rule will not have any impact or be enforced.