Released December 30, 2020 | SUGAR LAND
en
Written by John Egan for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--To supporters, President Donald Trump's flurry of 11th-hour environmental regulatory moves are a fulfillment of his pledge to streamline costly and far-reaching federal regulation. To his critics, the recent spate of rulemakings is a mean-spirited effort to throw sand into the gears of the incoming Biden administration's energy and environmental plans.
Wherever you come down on those steps, there's no denying they will leave an imprint on the incoming president's energy and environment agenda -- at least for a while.
On December 9, Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled the final rule on cost-benefit calculations under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision the Trump administration had long sought. The new rule sharply limits counting what are called "co-benefits," or indirect benefits, in the calculation of costs and benefits of a proposed rule under the CAA. The final rule also requires future CAA rules to focus exclusively on U.S. benefits, which could limit the ability to use the rule to achieve global climate change goals.
"Today's action ensures that EPA is consistent in evaluating costs and benefits when developing broad-reaching policies that affect the American public," Wheeler said in a statement. "Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are ensuring that future rulemakings under the Clean Air Act are transparent, fair, and consistent with EPA governing statutes. The American public deserves to know the benefits and costs of federal regulations."
Later that day, in a webcast hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a free-market think tank, Wheeler said the final rule, "is all about transparency," and criticized those in the news media who "are ignoring what we are trying to do here and mischaracterizing this."
"Our goal with this rule is to help the public better understand the why of a rulemaking, in addition to the what," he continued. He argued that the agency's past approach of combining "direct" and "indirect" benefits of a rule "has meant inconsistent rules and a disoriented private sector."
Combining "direct" and "indirect" benefits of a rule is "a poster child for how not to conduct cost-benefit analysis," Wheeler reportedly said at the Heritage Foundation event on December 9. "That was how the previous administration used them to justify the mercury rule. What we're trying to do is stop things like that from happening in the future. It's taking the regulatory process out of the proverbial smoke-filled back room."
Wheeler was referring to the way the Obama administration counted "direct" and "indirect" benefits of limiting mercury emissions in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finalized several years ago.
After an initial calculation showed the direct costs of the MATS rule vastly outweighed its direct benefits, the administration added "indirect" benefits to the tally. The MATS rule, in lowering the amount of mercury and toxic gases that could be emitted by coal-fired power generators, also generated "indirect" benefits, such as preventing particulate matter and a host of other emissions from being released into the air. Lowering the amount of particular matter emissions brought hefty health-care benefits, which caused benefits to significantly outweigh costs. The Obama administration counted those "indirect" benefits in its calculation of costs and benefits of the final MATS rule.
Wheeler said the finalized rule unveiled December 9 did not rule out counting "indirect" benefits of a future rule, but any administration wanting to modify those standards would have to be prepared to defend its reasoning and its math.
The final rule, published December 23 in the Federal Register and effective immediately, was welcomed by Republican lawmakers and energy-industry trade groups.
Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford commented, "Oklahomans can often feel the direct impact that federal regulations have on their families and businesses, but frequently the basis for those regulations is unclear. I applaud the EPA for finalizing a rule that provides clarity and consistency in the rulemaking process to ensure Americans have the transparency and voice they need in federal rules."
Added Chad Whiteman, vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute, "Providing greater consistency and transparency in the cost-benefit analysis process is fundamental to improving agency decision-making."
Environmentalists and Democratic officials were as sharply critical of the final rule as Republicans and energy groups were in welcoming it.
"A lame duck Trump EPA is exiting with a legacy of lawbreaking and lying about the health benefits of clean air and climate safeguards, to hamstring future EPAs and thwart stronger protections," John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (New York, New York), told The Washington Post. "The president's minions know this midnight rollback will be reversed by an incoming Biden administration or the courts; so this cynical act is sheer sabotage, designed to waste resources and the time it will take to reverse it."
On December 9, Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, tweeted, "This rule will distort EPA analysis by discounting the health benefits of air pollution standards & prioritizing the financial costs to polluters above health costs to the public. It's a betrayal both of the Clean Air Act and of EPA's mission to protect human health. It is simply unconscionable start to finish, and I hope President-elect Joe Biden will reverse this disastrous action."
A national coalition of health and medical organizations, including the American Lung Association and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, last August criticized the EPA's rationale for the rule.
Some legal experts told media outlets it could take about six months to challenge and potentially overturn the rule through administrative means. Add to that the time and effort of fighting the expected litigation to be filed by groups that sought the rule change.
Reversing the rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) might be a speedier alternative. The CRA, enacted in the mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) was Speaker of the House, allows a newly elected Congress to roll back any major rules enacted by an executive level agency like the EPA that were finalized in the last 60 legislative days of the previous congressional session. A simple majority in both houses of congress is necessary to overturn a rule under the CRA.
Democrats will be the majority party in the House of Representatives when the new Congress is seated January 6. The majority of the Senate won't be decided until after Georgia holds its Senate runoff elections January 5. In the Senate, Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 50-46, plus two Independents who typically caucus with the Democrats. But there are several moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) who could vote with the Democrats. Similarly, in the Senate, the Democrats could lose the votes of some conservative members of their party, such as Joe Manchin (West Virginia). So counting the votes in advance is challenging.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR), with global headquarters in Sugar Land, Texas, six offices in North America and 12 international offices, is the leading provider of global market intelligence specializing in the industrial process, heavy manufacturing and energy markets. Industrial Info's quality-assurance philosophy, the Living Forward Reporting Principle, provides up-to-the-minute intelligence on what's happening now, while constantly keeping track of future opportunities. Follow IIR on: Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn. For more information on our coverage, send inquiries to info@industrialinfo.com or visit us online at http://www.industrialinfo.com.
Wherever you come down on those steps, there's no denying they will leave an imprint on the incoming president's energy and environment agenda -- at least for a while.
On December 9, Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled the final rule on cost-benefit calculations under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision the Trump administration had long sought. The new rule sharply limits counting what are called "co-benefits," or indirect benefits, in the calculation of costs and benefits of a proposed rule under the CAA. The final rule also requires future CAA rules to focus exclusively on U.S. benefits, which could limit the ability to use the rule to achieve global climate change goals.
"Today's action ensures that EPA is consistent in evaluating costs and benefits when developing broad-reaching policies that affect the American public," Wheeler said in a statement. "Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are ensuring that future rulemakings under the Clean Air Act are transparent, fair, and consistent with EPA governing statutes. The American public deserves to know the benefits and costs of federal regulations."
Later that day, in a webcast hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a free-market think tank, Wheeler said the final rule, "is all about transparency," and criticized those in the news media who "are ignoring what we are trying to do here and mischaracterizing this."
"Our goal with this rule is to help the public better understand the why of a rulemaking, in addition to the what," he continued. He argued that the agency's past approach of combining "direct" and "indirect" benefits of a rule "has meant inconsistent rules and a disoriented private sector."
Combining "direct" and "indirect" benefits of a rule is "a poster child for how not to conduct cost-benefit analysis," Wheeler reportedly said at the Heritage Foundation event on December 9. "That was how the previous administration used them to justify the mercury rule. What we're trying to do is stop things like that from happening in the future. It's taking the regulatory process out of the proverbial smoke-filled back room."
Wheeler was referring to the way the Obama administration counted "direct" and "indirect" benefits of limiting mercury emissions in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finalized several years ago.
After an initial calculation showed the direct costs of the MATS rule vastly outweighed its direct benefits, the administration added "indirect" benefits to the tally. The MATS rule, in lowering the amount of mercury and toxic gases that could be emitted by coal-fired power generators, also generated "indirect" benefits, such as preventing particulate matter and a host of other emissions from being released into the air. Lowering the amount of particular matter emissions brought hefty health-care benefits, which caused benefits to significantly outweigh costs. The Obama administration counted those "indirect" benefits in its calculation of costs and benefits of the final MATS rule.
Wheeler said the finalized rule unveiled December 9 did not rule out counting "indirect" benefits of a future rule, but any administration wanting to modify those standards would have to be prepared to defend its reasoning and its math.
The final rule, published December 23 in the Federal Register and effective immediately, was welcomed by Republican lawmakers and energy-industry trade groups.
Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford commented, "Oklahomans can often feel the direct impact that federal regulations have on their families and businesses, but frequently the basis for those regulations is unclear. I applaud the EPA for finalizing a rule that provides clarity and consistency in the rulemaking process to ensure Americans have the transparency and voice they need in federal rules."
Added Chad Whiteman, vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute, "Providing greater consistency and transparency in the cost-benefit analysis process is fundamental to improving agency decision-making."
Environmentalists and Democratic officials were as sharply critical of the final rule as Republicans and energy groups were in welcoming it.
"A lame duck Trump EPA is exiting with a legacy of lawbreaking and lying about the health benefits of clean air and climate safeguards, to hamstring future EPAs and thwart stronger protections," John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (New York, New York), told The Washington Post. "The president's minions know this midnight rollback will be reversed by an incoming Biden administration or the courts; so this cynical act is sheer sabotage, designed to waste resources and the time it will take to reverse it."
On December 9, Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, tweeted, "This rule will distort EPA analysis by discounting the health benefits of air pollution standards & prioritizing the financial costs to polluters above health costs to the public. It's a betrayal both of the Clean Air Act and of EPA's mission to protect human health. It is simply unconscionable start to finish, and I hope President-elect Joe Biden will reverse this disastrous action."
A national coalition of health and medical organizations, including the American Lung Association and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, last August criticized the EPA's rationale for the rule.
Some legal experts told media outlets it could take about six months to challenge and potentially overturn the rule through administrative means. Add to that the time and effort of fighting the expected litigation to be filed by groups that sought the rule change.
Reversing the rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) might be a speedier alternative. The CRA, enacted in the mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) was Speaker of the House, allows a newly elected Congress to roll back any major rules enacted by an executive level agency like the EPA that were finalized in the last 60 legislative days of the previous congressional session. A simple majority in both houses of congress is necessary to overturn a rule under the CRA.
Democrats will be the majority party in the House of Representatives when the new Congress is seated January 6. The majority of the Senate won't be decided until after Georgia holds its Senate runoff elections January 5. In the Senate, Republicans currently outnumber Democrats 50-46, plus two Independents who typically caucus with the Democrats. But there are several moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) who could vote with the Democrats. Similarly, in the Senate, the Democrats could lose the votes of some conservative members of their party, such as Joe Manchin (West Virginia). So counting the votes in advance is challenging.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR), with global headquarters in Sugar Land, Texas, six offices in North America and 12 international offices, is the leading provider of global market intelligence specializing in the industrial process, heavy manufacturing and energy markets. Industrial Info's quality-assurance philosophy, the Living Forward Reporting Principle, provides up-to-the-minute intelligence on what's happening now, while constantly keeping track of future opportunities. Follow IIR on: Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn. For more information on our coverage, send inquiries to info@industrialinfo.com or visit us online at http://www.industrialinfo.com.
