Congress orders refinery-friendly study, presetting the case for deregulation
H.R. 3109 — REFINER Act · Filed by Robert Latta (R-OH) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Apr 30, 2025 · Passed chamber
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Secretary of Energy to direct the National Petroleum Council to produce a report within 90 days examining U.S. petrochemical refineries—their role in energy security, capacity, expansion opportunities, risks, and any federal or state policies that have reduced capacity. The report must include recommendations to increase refinery capacity and be made public. The bill itself creates no new regulations, subsidies, or restrictions; it is purely a fact-finding and reporting mandate.
Why we flagged it
The bill is a pure reporting mandate with no operative regulatory or financial mechanism. It commissions research into refinery capacity and policy impacts, framed to support industry arguments for expanded production and reduced regulatory burden.
What the text implies
- The report's scope—examining 'Federal or State executive actions, regulations, or policies that have caused or contributed to a decline in capacity'—presupposes that capacity decline is a policy problem requiring remedy, not a market or environmental outcome to be evaluated neutrally.
- Recommendations to 'encourage an increase in capacity' may later justify deregulation, subsidy, or environmental-review streamlining without Congress having explicitly voted on those measures.
- The National Petroleum Council is an industry-dominated advisory body; its report will reflect refinery-sector perspectives on what policies constrain them, potentially framing environmental or climate regulations as 'barriers' rather than public-interest measures.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill itself is neutral—it mandates a study with no direct regulatory or financial consequences. However, the framing and scope suggest the report is designed to support arguments for deregulation or reduced environmental oversight of refineries. Citizens may benefit from transparent information about energy security and refinery economics, but the report's recommendations could later drive policy that favors industry interests over environmental or climate concerns.
Who stands to gain
- petrochemical refineries and refining companies
- petroleum and natural gas producers
Named in the bill
Secretary of Energy, National Petroleum Council, U.S. petrochemical refineries, Congress
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.
- Apr 30, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Apr 30, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
- Jun 5, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
- Jun 25, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 20”
- Nov 20, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 230 - 176 (Roll no. 303). (text: CR H4835)”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
5 lobbying clients named this bill on 7 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $57,360,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 18 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 78% of bills with at least one filing.
Robert Latta, the sponsor, reported $876,626 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $5,000 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.
- Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $54,660,000 on 3 filings
- Phillips 66 — $1,320,000 on 1 filing
- American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers — $1,160,000 on 1 filing
- Pbf Holding Company LLC — $200,000 on 1 filing
- County of Kern — $20,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,507 characters) on Jul 10, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress orders refinery-friendly study, presetting the case for deregulation” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3109 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.