S-4619-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to exempt "marginal wells" — oil wells producing 15 or fewer barrels per day and natural gas wells producing 90,000 or fewer cubic feet per day — from all EPA performance standards, emissions monitoring, leak detection and repair requirements, and recordkeeping obligations. It would also prohibit the EPA from requiring states to include marginal well standards in their state implementation plans, and would terminate any pending enforcement actions against marginal well operators. States that voluntarily revise their plans to remove marginal well standards would receive expedited EPA review, with automatic approval if the EPA does not act within 180 days.
Who benefits
Operators of marginal oil and gas wells, who number in the tens of thousands and are often small, independent businesses. Rural landowners who lease mineral rights to marginal well operators. Oil- and gas-dependent rural communities where marginal wells provide local employment and tax revenue. States with large numbers of marginal wells (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Pennsylvania) that would gain flexibility in their air quality plans. Marginal well operators currently facing pending EPA enforcement actions, whose cases would be terminated upon enactment.
Who is hurt
Communities near marginal wells that may experience increased methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions without regulatory oversight. Downwind states and localities that could see air quality effects from unregulated emissions. Competing oil and gas producers who remain subject to Clean Air Act standards and face higher compliance costs. Environmental monitoring and compliance service companies that provide leak detection and reporting services to the oil and gas sector. Future plaintiffs who would lose the ability to bring enforcement actions based on marginal well violations that occurred before enactment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that marginal wells — which account for roughly 20% of U.S. oil production and 12% of natural gas production according to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission — are operated predominantly by small, independent businesses for whom EPA compliance costs are disproportionately burdensome relative to their output. They contend that applying the same regulatory framework to a 10-barrel-per-day stripper well as to a high-volume industrial operation is economically irrational, and that without relief many marginal wells will be prematurely abandoned, permanently losing recoverable domestic reserves and the jobs and local tax revenue that depend on them.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that methane — the primary emission of concern at oil and gas well sites — is a potent greenhouse gas roughly 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over a 20-year period, and that exempting tens of thousands of well sites from all monitoring and leak detection eliminates the ability to measure, let alone reduce, those emissions. They contend that the bill's blanket exemption, which covers not just reporting burdens but all performance standards and even pending enforcement actions, goes well beyond economic relief for small operators and instead creates a permanent, unmonitored emissions category that undermines national air quality goals under the Clean Air Act.
Constitutional context
The Clean Air Act rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which is well-established for air pollution regulation. Because this bill narrows — rather than expands — EPA authority by statute, it does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022); Congress is directly exercising its legislative power to define the scope of regulation. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently review any EPA implementing regulations, but the statutory exemption itself is a direct congressional act and not subject to agency deference challenges.
Checks and balances
Congress would directly narrow EPA's regulatory authority through statute; the EPA retains implementation responsibility but loses discretion over marginal wells; states gain flexibility but cannot be required to regulate marginal wells; federal courts retain jurisdiction to review the EPA's conforming regulatory revisions.
Historical precedent
The Clean Air Act already contains size- and output-based tiering for some source categories (e.g., major vs. area sources under Sections 112 and 302), and Congress has previously carved out small or low-production operations from specific regulatory programs, though a blanket statutory exemption of this scope for an entire well category is not a direct precedent.