Right now, the Senate is wrestling with S.J. Res. 12, a resolution that’s stirring up some serious debate. It’s aimed at stopping a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule called Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions, published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2024. This rule puts new demands on the petroleum and natural gas industries, all in the name of environmental protection. But here’s the problem: many see it as the EPA overstepping its bounds—big time—and even flirting with unconstitutional moves. Supporting S.J. Res. 12 isn’t just about tweaking a policy; it’s about defending the way our government is supposed to work and why that matters.
The EPA’s job is straightforward: take the laws Congress passes and put them into action. It’s not supposed to start crafting its own rules that look and feel like legislation. Yet that’s exactly what this waste emissions rule does. With complex procedures like “netting” and “exemptions,” it’s setting detailed policies for entire industries—something only Congress has the authority to do. When unelected agency officials take that kind of power, they’re sidelining the lawmakers we vote for. That’s not a small oversight; it’s a direct hit to how democracy functions. S.J. Res. 12 is about pulling the EPA back into its lane and restoring the balance.
Our Constitution lays out a clear playbook: Congress writes the laws, the executive branch (including agencies like the EPA) enforces them, and the courts settle disputes. This separation of powers has kept our nation on track for over two centuries. But when the EPA rolls out a rule this expansive—one that goes well beyond enforcing existing laws and starts dictating new mandates—it’s stepping into Congress’s territory. This isn’t just bureaucratic overreach; it’s a challenge to the foundation of how our government operates. If this stands, what’s next? S.J. Res. 12 gives Congress a chance to reclaim its role and protect that core constitutional principle.
Then there’s the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Regulating industries like oil and gas—vital to states like Texas, Oklahoma, or Louisiana—falls in that category. Those states know their own needs, from environmental challenges to economic realities, far better than a federal agency ever could. Yet the EPA’s rule forces a single, rigid standard on everyone, ignoring local differences. That’s not just impractical; it undermines the whole idea of federalism, where states have a say in their own affairs. S.J. Res. 12 stands up for states’ rights against this federal overreach.
This isn’t just about legal technicalities—there’s a real cost here. The rule piles new compliance burdens on industries that drive jobs and energy, potentially raising prices and threatening livelihoods. Environmental goals are important, no question, but they don’t justify an agency rewriting the rules of governance. States can handle these issues without the EPA overstepping. S.J. Res. 12 is a critical move to keep our system accountable, safeguard the economy, and uphold the law as it’s meant to be. This matters to all of us—because when agencies like the EPA stretch too far, it’s our voice, our rights, and our future on the line. Supporting this resolution sends a clear message: power belongs with the people and their elected leaders, not unelected officials.
