Overview

Title

To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing.

ELI5 AI

In this bill, they want the President to ask Congress first before saying "no" to fracking, which is a way to get oil and gas from the ground. They also think each state should decide their own rules about fracking in their area, like deciding their bedtime routine.

Summary AI

H. R. 133 aims to prevent the President from establishing a ban on hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, without the approval of Congress. The bill expresses that individual states should have the main responsibility for regulating fracking on state and private lands within their borders. It emphasizes the importance of protecting American energy production by ensuring that such regulations remain primarily at the state level unless otherwise directed by Congress.

Published

2025-01-03
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2025-01-03
Package ID: BILLS-119hr133ih

Keywords AI

hydraulic fracturing fracking state regulation energy production executive power moratorium legal conflicts environmental impacts public health congressional approval

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
236
Pages:
2
Sentences:
9

Language

Nouns: 76
Verbs: 16
Adjectives: 12
Adverbs: 1
Numbers: 3
Entities: 17

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.59
Average Sentence Length:
26.22
Token Entropy:
4.43
Readability (ARI):
16.93

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

House Resolution 133, titled the “Protecting American Energy Production Act,” aims to limit the federal government's ability to impose restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. Introduced by Representative Boebert in January 2025, the bill asserts that individual states should be responsible for regulating hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas on state and private lands. Furthermore, the bill seeks to prohibit the President from unilaterally declaring a moratorium on fracking without Congressional approval.

Summary of Significant Issues

The significant issues in the bill revolve around the division of power between the states, the federal legislature, and the executive branch.

  1. Executive Power Restriction: The bill explicitly restricts the President from declaring a moratorium on fracking, which raises questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. By requiring Congressional approval, the bill limits the executive's ability to respond swiftly to issues concerning fracking, such as environmental emergencies or new scientific findings.

  2. Ambiguity and Lack of Detail: The bill does not provide specific guidelines or conditions under which Congress might authorize a moratorium on fracking. This lack of clarity could lead to confusion and inefficiency within the legislative process, potentially delaying responses to fracking-related challenges.

  3. State Regulatory Primacy: By advocating for states' regulatory primacy, the bill may result in inconsistent standards across different states. This variability might affect environmental and health outcomes, depending on the stringency of each state’s regulations.

  4. Environmental and Health Concerns Omission: The bill does not address potential environmental or public health impacts of fracking, which remain contentious issues in public discussions.

Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders

Broad Public Impact

The broad public could be affected by this bill in several ways. On one hand, supporters argue that the bill could enhance energy independence by securing continuous access to oil and natural gas resources. They contend that state regulation allows for more tailored solutions that account for local circumstances and economic needs. On the other hand, opponents express concern that without strong federal oversight, some states might neglect environmental protections, which could have adverse effects on public health and safety.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

  • Energy Industry: The energy sector might view the bill favorably as it prevents sudden federal restrictions on fracking, thus allowing continued operations and potential growth. The industry might also benefit from the ability to navigate state regulatory environments rather than a potentially more restrictive federal policy.

  • State Governments: State governments would have increased autonomy in regulating fracking practices. This could empower states to align regulations with their economic goals and environmental philosophies but might also burden them with managing the environmental and health consequences independently.

  • Environmental Advocacy Groups: Environmental organizations may view this bill with alarm as it restricts federal intervention in fracking, an activity they often link to environmental degradation and public health risks. These groups typically advocate for stricter controls over fracking due to the potential for groundwater contamination and other environmental concerns.

  • Local Communities: Communities located near fracking sites could experience varied impacts. While some may see economic benefits through job creation and investment, others might face increased environmental risks. The variability in state regulations could lead to uneven protections for residents depending on where they live.

In conclusion, H.R. 133 represents a significant legislative proposal aimed at drawing lines of authority over fracking regulation but involves debates about executive power, environmental responsibility, and public health that resonate across various stakeholders and the nation as a whole.

Issues

  • The provision in Section 2(b) that prohibits the President from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing without Congressional approval could lead to potential conflicts or limitations in executive power, which might be deemed significant from a political and legal perspective.

  • The lack of detailed criteria or procedures in Section 2 for Congress to authorize a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing introduces ambiguity and might complicate the legislative process, raising concerns about transparency and clear legislative guidelines.

  • The use of the phrase 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law' in Section 2(b) may create legal ambiguity or conflicts since it seeks to override other laws without specifying which ones, potentially leading to legal challenges.

  • Section 2(a)'s provision that states should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing could lead to uneven regulatory standards across different states, impacting environmental and health considerations that some stakeholders find important.

  • Section 2 does not address potential environmental impacts or public health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing, which could be significant ethical and political issues given the ongoing public debate over fracking.

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.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of the bill is titled "Short title." It allows the law to be referred to as the "Protecting American Energy Production Act."

2. Protecting American energy production Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section states that Congress believes states should be in charge of regulating hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas on state and private lands. It also prohibits the President from declaring a ban on hydraulic fracturing unless Congress passes a law to allow it.