David Valadao (R-CA)
To amend Public Law 99–338 with respect to Kaweah Project permits.
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill proposes amendments to Public Law 99-338 regarding the Kaweah Project permits. It specifically targets the first section of that law, which was previously amended by Public Law 108-447. The legislation seeks to increase the number of allowed renewals from three to seven. Additionally, the bill removes the specific mention of the Southern California Edison Company from the text.
Yes
- Scored +1
Is this likely to create jobs?
Increasing permit renewals may provide long-term stability for project-related employment.
- Scored +1
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Extended permit cycles can facilitate ongoing industrial or energy project activity.
- Scored +1
Would business owners be better off under this?
Removing specific company naming and increasing renewals provides greater operational flexibility for energy entities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased Permit Renewals: By changing the number of renewals from "3" to "7" in Section 1, the bill allows for more extended project continuity or oversight cycles.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Removal of Specific Entity Designation: The bill strikes the phrase "of Southern California Edison Company" in Section 1, which removes the specific company name from the provision.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Extended permit cycles can facilitate ongoing industrial or energy project activity. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increasing permit renewals may provide long-term stability for project-related employment.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Removing specific company naming and increasing renewals provides greater operational flexibility for energy entities.
- 7/15/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 7/14/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3226)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1044.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3226)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 6/30/2025
- Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-174.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 140.
- 2/12/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
- 2/6/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.