H.R.133 - Protecting American Energy Production Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 133, the "Protecting American Energy Production Act," seeks to prevent the President from unilaterally imposing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) unless authorized by an Act of Congress. The bill affirms the sense of Congress that states should have primary regulatory authority over fracking on state and private lands. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Ms. Boebert and referred to the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.
The bill aims to ensure continued energy production through hydraulic fracturing. It emphasizes state regulatory control over the process.
This legislation reflects a congressional effort to limit executive power in energy policy and maintain state autonomy in regulating fracking.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 133 would restrict the President's ability to halt hydraulic fracturing without congressional approval. This could lead to increased energy production, particularly in states with significant oil and natural gas reserves.
It would also reinforce the role of state governments in regulating fracking activities. This could result in varying environmental and safety standards across different states.
The bill's passage would likely spur further debate on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding energy policy.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Domestic Energy Production: Prevents potential moratoriums that could limit oil and gas production.
- State Regulatory Control: Reinforces the role of states in regulating fracking activities on state and private lands.
- Economic Benefits: Supports job creation and economic activity in the oil and gas industry.
- Reduced Dependence on Foreign Energy Sources: Promotes energy independence by ensuring continued domestic production.
- Congressional Oversight: Ensures that any moratorium on fracking is subject to congressional approval.
Potential Disadvantages
- Environmental Concerns: May lead to increased environmental risks associated with fracking, such as water contamination and seismic activity.
- Reduced Federal Oversight: Limits the federal government's ability to implement uniform safety and environmental standards.
- Potential for Inadequate State Regulations: State regulations may not be as stringent as federal regulations, leading to environmental damage.
- Climate Change Impacts: Continued reliance on fossil fuels may hinder efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources.
- Public Health Risks: Increased fracking activity may pose risks to public health due to air and water pollution.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill touches on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as outlined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests legislative powers in Congress. By requiring congressional authorization for a moratorium, the bill seeks to assert congressional authority over energy policy.
The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, is also relevant. The bill's emphasis on state primacy in regulating fracking aligns with this principle.
However, the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which could be interpreted to justify federal regulation of fracking if it affects interstate commerce.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).