CRA By the Numbers 2025: Update for March 31, 2025

Since our last update (March 18), we have seen some small changes regarding CRA resolutions. There have been no new resolutions signed into law (only two so far), and there are now seven resolutions that have passed one chamber. This means that in addition to the six resolutions that had already cleared one chamber (you can see our previous update for a detailed description of those resolutions), there have been votes on four other resolutions.

• H.J.Res. 25 ("Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales") passing both the House and the Senate (292-132 and 70-28, respectively). This CRA resolution gathered an extremely high level of bipartisan support, which undermines the usefulness of the CRA as a way to overcome the filibuster.
• H.J.Res.75, which targets a rule by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers," passed the House on March 27 (214-193).
• H.J.Res.24, whichtargets a rule by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers," passed the House on March 27 (203-182), with 45 legislators not voting. From these, 20 were Republicans and 25 were Democrats.
• S.J.Res.18, which targets a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions," passed the Senate by a 52-48 vote (Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) opposed the resolution). This may be a sign that Republicans may not have the votes in the House).

We have also seen a small increase in the number of resolutions on the legislative calendar, which has grown from four to five (as of March 31). In addition to the four resolutions that were already scheduled for a vote (S.J.Res.7, S.J.Res.30, S.J.Res.4, and S.J.Res.31 — all in the Senate), there is one more resolution (H.J.Res.59) on the House calendar, but the House is unlikely to take this one up. The reason is that H.J.Res.59 is the companion bill to S.J.Res.18 that would overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule limiting the overdraft fees that banks can charge to their customers. The Senate vote to toss this rule has caused a voter uproar.

Fossil fuels, financial interests, and CRA resolutions

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, we have seen an unrelenting assault by the president and Republicans in Congress against climate and energy rules. The first two CRA resolutions that became law (signaling that the issue represents a clear policy priority) are part of this push, as they undid regulations aimed at implementing a fee on methane emissions from large emitters in the oil and gas sector and to require companies to perform an assessment for potentially sensitive archaeological resources ahead of oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Fossil fuel expansion has been a priority for the Trump administration since Day One, and the CRA is being used as a blunt tool for favoring fossil fuel interests while disregarding its environmental and social impacts. During this congressional cycle, legislators have introduced 15 resolutions targeting rules that affect the oil and gas sectors, directly (like the methane fee mentioned above) or indirectly (in the form of energy efficiency mandates or vehicle emission standards, for example).

Many of these (six) target the Energy Conservation Program from the Department of Energy (DOE), which has been a common target of CRA resolutions in the past. DOE has the authority to develop and implement test procedures and efficiency standards for more than 60 products covering residential, commercial and industrial, lighting, and plumbing applications.

Other resolutions have targeted rules that implement sections of the Clean Air Act, that impose fees for the oil and gas industry, that define various vehicle emission standards, and that specify precautionary measures before drilling can take place. We have included a table at the end that lists all of these CRA resolutions.

These 15 resolutions have gathered support from 68 Republican legislators (19 senators and 49 House members), either as sponsors or cosponsors. Many of them represent districts with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. Although we cannot claim any sort of quid pro quo, it is undeniable that the fossil fuel industry will benefit greatly from a relaxation (or elimination) of rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or protecting the environment. The motivations for sponsoring or supporting these resolutions are myriad, ranging from virtue signaling to congressional coalition building, but financial ties are certainly part of the equation.

During the last campaign cycle (two years before their most recent victory for representatives and six years for senators), fossil fuel interests have been among the top five contributors for 23 legislators involved in pro-fossil fuel CRA resolutions, supplying a combined total of $9,518,635 to their campaign funds. This is almost certainly an undercount, as we are only considering one electoral cycle and cases in which fossil fuel interests have been a top contributor, but it raises questions about electoral dynamics and the democratic process.

Among the 23 legislators who have been top recipients of fossil fuel money, three of them account for 41 percent of the total amount: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX11), and Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT).

From these three, the case of Rep. Pfluger stands out. Oil and gas contributions represent 23 percent of the total funds he raised during the last electoral cycle, making him much more dependent on these contributions for his campaign expenditures, and thus, more likely to favor these interests. Contrast this with Sen. Cruz, whose oil and gas contributions — despite being the highest in the list — represent less than two percent of his total contributions. Pfluger introduced one of the two CRA resolutions that have been signed into law: H.J.Res.35, which undid the EPA rule implementing a methane fee for oil and gas operations. Pfluger has introduced similar legislation in the past, showing the intimate alignment between his behavior in Congress and the oil and gas industry.