PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 7.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 23, 2023
Elimination of Future Technology Delays Act of 2023
This bill establishes new requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it makes certain determinations under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) related to chemical substances that are considered to be a critical energy resource (i.e., any energy resource that is essential to the U.S. energy sector and energy systems and has a vulnerable supply chain).
Currently, under TSCA, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances must notify the EPA before manufacturing a new chemical substance or before manufacturing or processing a substance for a significant new use. The EPA must review such notices and provide a determination on the substance or significant new use.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Under the bill, the EPA must consider economic, societal, and environmental costs and benefits when making determinations on notices for (1) new chemical substances that are considered to be a critical energy resource, or (2) significant new uses for such chemicals.
If the EPA fails to make a determination by the end of the applicable review period and the submitter has not withdrawn the notice, the submitter may proceed in manufacturing or processing the substance. Applicable fees must not be refunded if a submitter proceeds with manufacturing or processing.
The EPA may suggest the withdrawal of a notice for a chemical substance that is a critical energy resource, or request a suspension of the review period, if the EPA has conducted a preliminary review of the notice and provided a draft of determination to the submitter.
People & committees
Rep. Curtis, John R. [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 7.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-14.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-14.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 21.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 13 - 6 .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1158 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1158 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1158 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1158 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.