New to the art form? This Wall Street Journal article will get you orientated. Also, for more information on how some of these titles mislead lawmakers and the citizenry, find some academic commentary from Brian Christopher Jones here:

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

"Consumer Relief" but Potential Administrative Burden

Rep. Cassidy (R., LA) has introduced the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, which would require EPA and DOE members to file additional reports on rules regarding various energy projects. The White House has objected to the bill, which will be debated soon in the House, noting: 

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1582. The bill would require the Department of Energy to undertake duplicative, costly, and time consuming reviews of energy-related EPA rules, thereby delaying or permanently preventing EPA from fulfilling its legal obligations to protect public health and the environment. 
Existing law already requires agencies to submit cost-benefit analysis to the Congress of any rule costing over $100 million annually. H.R. 1582 would require agencies to waste limited analytical resources on a duplicative analysis. Further, by indefinitely delaying the implementation of existing public health and environmental laws, the bill would harm communities affected by pollution. This delay would also create uncertainty for regulated businesses, inhibiting their decision-making and planning efforts. Finally, H.R. 1582 would likely result in unnecessary litigation, since it would prevent EPA from meeting its statutory obligations to finalize rules within specified timeframes. 

No comments:

Post a Comment