Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Amidst GOP Anti-Regulatory Budget Riders, a Familiar Plan for Paralysis by Analysis

House Republicans are fond of accusing the Obama Administration of trying to “regulate when it cannot legislate.” With a slight modification, a similar accusation can be hurled at House Republicans: They are trying to appropriate when they cannot legislate. This accusation has the benefit of actually being true.

The Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill for the EPA and the Department of Interior, currently being debated in the People’s House, is loaded down with dozens of anti-environment and anti-public safety policy riders.   Several of these riders are virtually identical to bills that have been considered or are being considered in the House, but which have no chance of passing the Senate or surviving a presidential veto. These riders include a measure that prohibits the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste (Section 434), blocks the EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (Section 431), exempts offshore oil drilling facilities from several Clean Air Act requirements (Section 443), among others.

None of these policy riders would save the American taxpayer a single dime. They do, however, offer House Republicans a better chance to advance their anti-regulatory agenda than would a stand-alone bill—a wildly inappropriate end-run around the constitutionally mandated legislative process designed to provide their corporate benefactors with benefits that would otherwise be opposed by the majority of Americans.

One of these riders that warrants special attention can be found in Section 462 (page 151). It sounds more innocuous than many of the others, because it does not outright block a regulation – yet it is hardly less serious in purpose or effect.  It requires the EPA to conduct a new detailed study of the various economic impacts of several of its rules, including the utility MACT rule (a rule to limit hazardous pollutants from power plants) and the interstate transport rule (a rule to limit pollution from power plants that drifts into neighboring states). Sound familiar? That’s because much of the language of this rider has been lifted straight from the TRAIN Act, an anti-regulatory favorite among the House GOP that has zero chance of passing the Senate. The rider adds an additional kicker: It prohibits the EPA from taking any action on the utility MACT and interstate transport rules until six months after the agency has completed the study. This prohibition is particularly troublesome in the case of the interstate transport rule, since the EPA already issued the final rule earlier this month. Accordingly, the rider retroactively rewrites the rule, and stays its effective date until six months after the study is completed.

The problems with the TRAIN Act study are clear. It is tilted against regulation, because it does not consider benefits. It is unnecessary and largely duplicative, because the EPA’s rules must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis before they can be finalized anyway. It will produce results that are so uncertain as to be useless, because it requires analysis of a litany of unknowable information: the cost of energy in 20 years; how regulations that haven’t even been written yet will indirectly affect jobs; and so on. The appropriations rider replicates these problems as well. But, since it is tucked away in an appropriations bill, they will not receive the full scrutiny deserved. (I suspect that is that point.) And the rider even takes this one step further by making agency action on two critical regulatory safeguards contingent upon the completion of this flawed study.

Fortunately, some Democrats in the House are taking steps to defeat many of these riders. To his credit, President Obama has issued a strong veto threat against an appropriations bill that contains anti-regulatory riders. Let’s hope these efforts succeed in stopping House Republicans’ efforts to appropriate when they cannot legislate.

Showing 2,819 results

James Goodwin | July 28, 2011

Amidst GOP Anti-Regulatory Budget Riders, a Familiar Plan for Paralysis by Analysis

House Republicans are fond of accusing the Obama Administration of trying to “regulate when it cannot legislate.” With a slight modification, a similar accusation can be hurled at House Republicans: They are trying to appropriate when they cannot legislate. This accusation has the benefit of actually being true. The Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill for the EPA and […]

Aimee Simpson | July 26, 2011

Holding its Legal (and Parental) Ground: EPA Responds to the American Chemistry Council’s Request for Correction of the BPA Action Plan

Being a parent is not easy, but some of the most difficult moments arise when you know what needs to be done to protect your child and your child has other sentiments. Call it a temper tantrum, a battle of wills, or disobedience, it all evokes a sense of frustration, exhaustion, and, let’s face it, self-doubt. There […]

Carl Cranor | July 25, 2011

Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products: How the First Circuit Opened Courthouse Doors for Wronged Parties to Present Wider Range of Scientific Evidence

In Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceutical,  General Electric. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael the U.S. Supreme Court sought to bring principles for reviewing expert testimony in line with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The opinions sought  to ensure that legal arguments would better comport with the pertinent science needed for the legal cases at […]

Holly Doremus | July 22, 2011

UK Report: Behavioral Change Takes More Than a Nudge

No one seems to like the idea of regulation these days. Nudges, alternatives that try to get people to voluntarily alter their behavior by changing the context in which they make decisions, have been widely touted as a better approach. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “regulatory czar” in the Office of Management and Budget, is a leading […]

Holly Doremus | July 21, 2011

EPA Finalizes Mountaintop Removal Guidance

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. After a three-and-a-half month delay for White House review, EPA has finalized its guidance for review of mountaintop removal mining permits in Appalachia. I needn’t have worried that the White House would roll EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on this one. The final guidance maintains the strong stand EPA took last April […]

Frank Ackerman | July 21, 2011

Facing up to the Real Cost of Carbon

This item, cross-posted from Triple Crisis, was written by CPR Member Scholar Frank Ackerman and fellow Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S. Center economist Elizabeth A. Stanton. Your house might not burn down next year. So you could probably save money by cancelling your fire insurance. That’s a “bargain” that few homeowners would accept. But it’s the same […]

Rena Steinzor | July 20, 2011

When Politics Trump Science: How the Ozone Standard’s Three-Year Delay Has Already Led to Thousands of Avoidable Deaths

This post was written by CPR President Rena Steinzor and Policy Analyst James Goodwin. Few incidents better illustrate the Bush Administration’s outright hostility to politically inconvenient science than its 2008 rule updating the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In the run-up to that rule, Bush’s EPA ignored the unanimous recommendation of the Clean Air […]

Holly Doremus | July 20, 2011

White Paper on Habitat Conservation Plans and Climate Change

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. Melinda Taylor at the University of Texas School of Law and I have just put out a white paper on Habitat Conservation Plans and Climate Change: Recommendations for Policy.  It can be accessed here through Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, or here through UT’s Center for Global […]

Carl Cranor | July 19, 2011

How to Diss A Book Without Reading It

When you write a book, particularly one that has something to do with matters political, you have to expect criticism. So when I wrote Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk from Toxicants (Harvard, 2011), I fully expected it to take a shot or two – not just from some of my colleagues […]