A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Primacy Certainty Act of 2025 seeks to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. It focuses on clarifying the timeline for the Administrator of the EPA to approve or disapprove a State's underground injection control program for Class VI wells. The bill establishes specific deadlines for responses, completeness determinations, and automatic approvals. It also requires the Administrator to coordinate with States and report on necessary resources and funding. Finally, it addresses how pending permits and prior submissions should be handled.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill facilitates the transfer of regulatory authority from the federal EPA to the States through automatic approval timelines for Class VI well programs.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Administrator to provide detailed explanations and itemized lists of deficiencies regarding application statuses.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill provides more predictable timelines for state-level regulatory approvals that businesses may require for operations involving Class VI wells.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill restricts the EPA's ability to impose additional conditions on State approval for Class VI well programs, which could potentially limit additional environmental safeguards.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Certainty for States: The bill creates a system where an application is considered approved if the Administrator does not act within a specific timeframe, provided the State has established primary enforcement authority for other classes of wells. (Section 2(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I))
-
Faster Completeness Determinations: The Administrator must determine if an application is complete within 10 days of submission, or it will be considered administratively complete upon the State's request. (Section 2(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa))
-
Streamlined Transition of Responsibility: Following the approval of a State's application, the Administrator is required to expeditiously render decisions on pending permits and transfer relevant information to the State. (Section 2(a)(1)(B)(D))
-
Enhanced Coordination: The bill mandates that the Administrator designate an individual to coordinate preapplication activities, application review, and the hiring of necessary staff for each State. (Section 2(a)(1)(6))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Grounds for Denial: The bill restricts the Administrator's ability to deny an application, stating that a denial must be based solely on a finding that the State does not meet specific criteria. (Section 2(a)(1)(E))
-
Restrictions on Approval Conditions: The Administrator is prohibited from conditioning the approval of a State's application on the inclusion of provisions that were not in the original submission or are not explicitly required by the title. (Section 2(a)(1)(F))
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.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill facilitates the transfer of regulatory authority from the federal EPA to the States through automatic approval timelines for Class VI well programs. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Administrator to provide detailed explanations and itemized lists of deficiencies regarding application statuses.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill provides more predictable timelines for state-level regulatory approvals that businesses may require for operations involving Class VI wells. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Streamlining the regulatory process for underground injection could potentially facilitate energy and carbon management projects often located in rural areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill streamlines the regulatory approval process for Class VI wells, which may reduce regulatory uncertainty for businesses involved in carbon sequestration or similar underground injection activities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill restricts the EPA's ability to impose additional conditions on State approval for Class VI well programs, which could potentially limit additional environmental safeguards.
- 8/5/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 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.
August PflugerRepublican · Texas
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas