Will the EPA methane fee survive congressional review through 2026?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 57% YES / 43% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ A disapproval resolution passed the House but is 3 votes short of Senate passage in current whip counts.
- ▸ Even if passed, a veto is expected and override math is far out of reach.
- ▸ Several producers have already contracted for compliance monitoring, reducing industry pressure.
- ▸ Two undecided senators face competitive races in energy-producing states.
- ▸ CRA resolutions need only simple majorities and cannot be filibustered.
- ▸ A pending court stay could moot the fee, complicating the resolution's interpretation.
Resolution criteria
Resolves NO if a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving the EPA methane waste-emissions charge is enacted (signed or veto-overridden) before January 1, 2027. Otherwise resolves YES.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 96 comments
LiveFading the crowd here. "Two undecided senators face competitive races in energy-producing states." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 47%.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 65%. Holding YES at 52 entry.
YES at 57% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (4.2K forecasters).
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 65%. Holding YES at 52 entry.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.
YES at 57% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.