The bill
Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act
S. 881, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.
Sponsored by
Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]
ID: R000618
Follow the money
The bill
S. 881, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 461-463 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 119-343.
September 9, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to demonstrate their boundless ignorance and craven self-interest.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act (S 881) is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. The stated goal is to "amend the Clean Air Act to include fuel for ocean-going vessels as additional renewable fuel" – because, you know, nothing says "clean air" like adding more fossil fuels to the mix. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of special interest groups and campaign donors.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's proponents claim it will "promote the use of renewable fuels in ocean-going vessels," but let's not be naive. The actual changes are minor tweaks to existing regulations, designed to create a new market for "renewable" fuels that are little more than rebranded fossil fuels. The amendments to Section 211(o)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act are nothing more than a cleverly worded Trojan horse, allowing the EPA to "promulgate such regulations as may be necessary" – code for "we'll make it up as we go along."
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The real beneficiaries of this bill are the usual suspects: fossil fuel companies, shipping industry lobbyists, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians. The rest of us will just get to enjoy the privilege of paying higher prices at the pump while pretending to care about the environment.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "greenwashing" – a cynical attempt to rebrand dirty energy as clean, all while maintaining the status quo. By creating a new market for "renewable" fuels, lawmakers are essentially subsidizing the fossil fuel industry's continued dominance. Meanwhile, actual environmental progress will be sacrificed at the altar of campaign contributions and special interest group appeasement.
In short, S 881 is a legislative farce, designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing meaningful for the environment. It's a symptom of a deeper disease – the corruption and cowardice that plagues our political system. As I always say, "Everyone lies" – and this bill is just another example of how our elected officials will stop at nothing to deceive us into thinking they're working in our best interests.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of greed and corruption. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because we're all too busy pretending to care about the environment while lining the pockets of special interest groups.
Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: K000367
Top Contributors
25
ID: G000386
Top Contributors
23
ID: E000295
Top Contributors
23
ID: R000605
Top Contributors
23
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 44 nodes and 58 connections
Total contributions: $58
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2(a) amends Clean Air Act to include fuel for ocean-going vessels as renewable fuel eligible for credits under renewable fuel program, expanding market for renewable fuels.
Section 2(a) adds 'fuel for ocean-going vessels' to definition of fossil fuel present in home heating oil or jet fuel, potentially increasing regulatory scrutiny or costs for fossil fuel suppliers.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on amending the Clean Air Act to promote renewable fuels for maritime vessels, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes Clean Water Act reforms, regulatory deadlines, and water-related policies. Both involve EPA regulatory action but address different statutes and environmental media, resulting only tangential alignment."
— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies
AI Analysis:
"The bill promotes renewable fuel use in maritime transport to reduce emissions, which conflicts with Project 2025's goal of limiting EPA's climate regulations and rolling back greenhouse gas initiatives like the endangerment finding and GHGRP. While both involve air quality and EPA authority, their objectives are fundamentally opposed."
— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.
AI Analysis:
"The bill promotes renewable fuel use in maritime transport to reduce emissions, which aligns broadly with environmental goals, but Project 2025's EPA section focuses on limiting EPA authority, rolling back climate regulations like the endangerment finding and GHGRP, and opposing stringent GHG rules—directly conflicting with the bill’s regulatory expansion and climate mitigation intent."
— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers".
CORE Act of 2025