LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HR 4880119th CongressIn Committee

Primacy Certainty Act of 2025

Introduced: Aug 5, 2025
Sponsor: Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2] (R-Texas)
Defense & National Security
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

Primacy Certainty Act of 2025 would overhaul how the EPA reviews and decides whether a state may take over the regulation of Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill tightens and clarifies timelines for EPA decisions, introduces an automatic-approval trigger if the agency does not act within a defined window (provided the state has other primacy for UIC wells and proper recordkeeping), and adds new requirements to speed up pre-application work, coordination, and reporting on resources. It also directs EPA to finalize any pending permits or applications before the state assumes primacy and to transfer relevant materials to the state upon transfer. The provisions are designed to create more predictable timelines and to ensure states with existing enforcement capabilities can take over Class VI regulation more quickly, while preserving criteria-based grounds for denial. In short, the bill aims to shorten the EPA decision timeline for Class VI primacy, reduce delays, and provide a clear process and staffing/funding expectations to support states transitioning to primary enforcement responsibility.

Key Points

  • 1Timeline and decision rules for Class VI primacy
  • 2- General response deadline set at 90 days.
  • 3- A new 180-day window for the Administrator to approve, disapprove, or approve in part and disapprove in part a state’s request.
  • 4- If no decision is made by 180 days, the Administrator must provide a written, detailed explanation and a list of deficiencies.
  • 5- If still no decision 30 days after the end of the 180-day window and the state has other primacy for other classes, the request is automatically approved, provided the state has an adequate primary enforcement program for other wells.
  • 6Completeness and process efficiency
  • 7- The Administrator must determine completeness of the application or notice within 10 days; if no determination is made, the submission is administratively complete upon request.
  • 8Handling of pending permits and transfers
  • 9- The EPA must resolve pending Class VI permits/applications before the state assumes primacy and transfer related information to the state afterward.
  • 10Grounds for denial and no conditional approvals
  • 11- Denial (or partial approval) must be based solely on whether the state meets the statutorily described criteria for primacy.
  • 12- EPA cannot condition approval on including provisions not required by the Act.
  • 13Preapplication activities and coordination
  • 14- EPA must expeditiously work with states on preapplication activities and designate a single state-level coordinator for presubmission, review, and staffing.
  • 15Resource and funding assessment
  • 16- Within 90 days of enactment, the Administrator (with the state coordinator) must report on staffing/resources and funding needs to implement these changes.
  • 17Funding and cross-reference to IIJA
  • 18- Funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act can be used to support the resource assessment required by the bill.
  • 19- The IIJA is amended to recognize this use.
  • 20Applicability and transitional provisions
  • 21- Applies to new Class VI primacy submissions submitted on or after the enactment date.
  • 22- For prior submissions, the 180-day decision clock starts at enactment, and decisions must be processed in the order submitted under the new rules.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- States seeking or currently pursuing primary enforcement responsibility for Class VI wells.- State environmental or public health agencies that would take over Class VI UIC programs.- The EPA (federal regulator) responsible for administering the new timelines and oversight during transition.Secondary group/area affected- Operators of Class VI wells (often associated with carbon capture and storage projects) who would be subject to state primacy once approved.- Communities and drinking-water systems relying on underground injection controls, as faster determinations may affect regulatory oversight and timing.Additional impacts- Potentially quicker state readiness and implementation for Class VI regulation, assuming states meet criteria and have adequate resources.- Administrative workload implications for EPA to meet new deadlines and to provide detailed explanations when decisions are delayed.- Fiscal implications tied to funding needs for staffing and program administration, with possible use of IIJA funds to support the transition.- Legal and policy implications regarding how determinations are made (grounds for denial, avoidance of conditional approvals).Class VI wells are specifically those used for injecting CO2 for long-term storage, and are defined under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.The bill seeks to balance more predictable timelines with safeguards by requiring clear criteria-based decisions and maintaining the possibility of denial if states don’t meet standards.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 8, 2025