[House Report 112-208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-208

======================================================================



 
  TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE NATION ACT OF 
                                  2011

                                _______
                                

 September 15, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. Upton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2401]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and 
incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Amendment........................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     4
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     5
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Committee Votes..................................................     7
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    12
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    12
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    12
Earmarks.........................................................    12
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    12
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    12
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    13
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    14
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    14
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    16
Dissenting Views.................................................    17

                               Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of 
Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COMMITTEE FOR THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS THAT 
                    IMPACT ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED 
                    STATES.

  (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a committee to be 
known as the Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of Regulations that 
Impact Energy and Manufacturing in the United States (in this Act 
referred to as the ``Committee'') to analyze and report on the 
cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with sections 3 and 4.
  (b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the following 
officials (or their designees):
          (1) The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 
        Economist.
          (2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Chief 
        Economist and the Under Secretary for International Trade.
          (3) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Commissioner 
        of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
          (4) The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator 
        of the Energy Information Administration.
          (5) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Deputy 
        Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy of the 
        Department of the Treasury.
          (6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
          (7) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
          (8) The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
          (9) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
        Regulatory Affairs.
          (10) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
        Administration.
          (11) The Chairman of the United States International Trade 
        Commission, acting through the Office of Economics.
  (c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as Chair of the 
Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair, the Secretary of 
Commerce shall consult with the members serving on the Committee 
pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (11) of subsection (b).
  (d) Consultation.--In conducting analyses under section 3 and 
preparing reports under section 4, the Committee shall consult with, 
and consider pertinent reports issued by, the Electric Reliability 
Organization certified under section 215(c) of the Federal Power Act 
(16 U.S.C. 824o(c)).
  (e) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 60 days after 
submitting its final report pursuant to section 4(c).

SEC. 3. ANALYSES.

  (a) Scope.--The Committee shall conduct analyses, for each of the 
calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030, of the following:
          (1) The cumulative impact of covered rules that are 
        promulgated as final regulations on or before January 1, 2012, 
        in combination with covered actions.
          (2) The cumulative impact of all covered rules (including 
        covered rules that have not been promulgated as final 
        regulations on or before January 1, 2012), in combination with 
        covered actions.
          (3) The incremental impact of each covered rule not 
        promulgated as a final regulation on or before January 1, 2012, 
        relative to an analytic baseline representing the results of 
        the analysis conducted under paragraph (1).
  (b) Contents.--The Committee shall include in each analysis conducted 
under this section the following:
          (1) Estimates of the impacts of the covered rules and covered 
        actions with regard to--
                  (A) the global economic competitiveness of the United 
                States, particularly with respect to energy intensive 
                and trade sensitive industries;
                  (B) other cumulative costs and cumulative benefits, 
                including evaluation through a general equilibrium 
                model approach;
                  (C) any resulting change in national, State, and 
                regional electricity prices;
                  (D) any resulting change in national, State, and 
                regional fuel prices;
                  (E) the impact on national, State, and regional 
                employment during the 5-year period beginning on the 
                date of enactment of this Act, and also in the long 
                term, including secondary impacts associated with 
                increased energy prices and facility closures; and
                  (F) the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply 
                in the United States.
          (2) Discussion of key uncertainties and assumptions 
        associated with each estimate.
          (3) A sensitivity analysis.
          (4) Discussion, and where feasible an assessment, of the 
        cumulative impact of the covered rules and covered actions on--
                  (A) consumers;
                  (B) small businesses;
                  (C) regional economies;
                  (D) State, local, and tribal governments;
                  (E) local and industry-specific labor markets; and
                  (F) agriculture,
        as well as key uncertainties associated with each topic.
  (c) Methods.--In conducting analyses under this section, the 
Committee shall use the best available methods, consistent with 
guidance from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4.
  (d) Data.--In conducting analyses under this section, the Committee--
          (1) shall use the best data that are available to the public 
        or supplied to the Committee by its members, including the most 
        recent such data appropriate for this analysis representing air 
        quality, facility emissions, and installed controls; and
          (2) is not required to create data or to use data that are 
        not readily accessible.
  (e) Covered Rules.--In this section, the term ``covered rule'' means 
the following:
          (1) The following published rules (including any successor or 
        substantially similar rule):
                  (A) ``Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce 
                Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 
                Ozone'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (August 2, 
                2010).
                  (B) ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
                Ozone'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 2938 (January 19, 
                2010).
                  (C) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
                Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 
                and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', 
                published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
                  (D) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
                Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, 
                and Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 
                15554 (March 21, 2011).
                  (E) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
                Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 
                Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for 
                Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-
                Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-
                Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units'', 
                signed by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on March 16, 
                2011.
                  (F) ``Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; 
                Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal 
                of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'', 
                published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (June 21, 2010).
                  (G) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
                for Sulfur Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 
                (June 22, 2010).
                  (H) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
                for Nitrogen Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 
                (February 9, 2010).
          (2) The following additional rules or guidelines promulgated 
        on or after January 1, 2009:
                  (A) Any rule or guideline promulgated under section 
                111(b) or 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
                7411(b), 7411(d)) to address climate change.
                  (B) Any rule or guideline promulgated by the 
                Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a 
                State, a local government, or a permitting agency under 
                or as the result of section 169A or 169B of the Clean 
                Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491, 7492).
                  (C) Any rule establishing or modifying a national 
                ambient air quality standard under section 109 of the 
                Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409).
  (f) Covered Actions.--In this section, the term ``covered action'' 
means any action on or after January 1, 2009, by the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, a State, a local government, or a 
permitting agency as a result of the application of part C of title I 
(relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or 
title V (relating to permitting) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 
et seq.), if such application occurs with respect to an air pollutant 
that is identified as a greenhouse gas in ``Endangerment and Cause or 
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 
Clean Air Act'', published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

SEC. 4. REPORTS; PUBLIC COMMENT.

  (a) Preliminary Report.--Not later than January 31, 2012, the 
Committee shall make public and submit to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a preliminary report 
containing the results of the analyses conducted under section 3.
  (b) Public Comment Period.--The Committee shall accept public 
comments regarding the preliminary report submitted under subsection 
(a) for a period of 90 days after such submission.
  (c) Final Report.--Not later than August 1, 2012, the Committee shall 
submit to Congress a final report containing the analyses conducted 
under section 3, including any revisions to such analyses made as a 
result of public comments, and a response to such comments.

SEC. 5. REGULATORY DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN RULES.

  (a) No Final Action.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall not take final action with respect to the rule 
listed in subparagraph (E) of section 3(e)(1) (relating to national 
emission standards and standards of performance for certain electric 
generating units) until a date (to be determined by the Administrator) 
that is at least 6 months after the day on which the Committee submits 
the final report under section 4(c).
  (b) Rules Finalized Prior to Enactment.--Notwithstanding the final 
action taken with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (A) of 
section 3(e)(1) (relating to Federal implementation plans to reduce 
interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone) and final 
action (if any) taken with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph 
(E) of section 3(e)(1) prior to the date of the enactment of this Act--
          (1) such final action shall not be or become, as applicable, 
        effective until a date (to be determined by the Administrator) 
        that is at least 6 months after the day on which the Committee 
        submits the final report under section 4(c); and
          (2) the date for compliance with any standard or requirement 
        in either such finalized rule, and any date for further 
        regulatory action triggered by either such finalized rule, 
        shall be delayed by a period equal to the period--
                  (A) beginning on the date of the publication of the 
                final action for the respective finalized rule; and
                  (B) ending on the date on which such final action 
                becomes effective pursuant to paragraph (1).
  (c) Applicability of Clean Air Interstate Rule During Interim 
Period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall continue to implement the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule and the rule establishing Federal 
Implementation Plans for the Clean Air Interstate Rule as promulgated 
and modified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency (70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005), 71 Fed. Reg. 25288 (April 
28, 2006), 71 Fed. Reg. 25328 (April 28, 2006), 72 Fed. Reg. 59190 
(Oct. 19, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 62338 (Nov. 2, 2007), 74 Fed. Reg. 56721 
(Nov. 3, 2009)) until the date on which final action with respect to 
the rule listed in subparagraph (A) of section 3(e)(1) becomes 
effective pursuant to subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act for fiscal year 2012--
          (1) $3,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, of which not 
        more than $2,000,000 shall be for carrying out section 3; and
          (2) $500,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.
  (b) Offset.--Effective October 1, 2011, section 797(a) of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, as amended by section 2(e) of the Diesel Reduction 
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-364), is amended--
          (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
          (2) by inserting ``$46,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and'' 
        after ``to carry out this subtitle''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2401, the ``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of 
Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011'' was introduced by Rep. John 
Sullivan (together with Reps. Matheson, Upton, Whitfield, 
Shimkus, Walden, Latta, Harper, McMorris Rodgers, McKinley, 
Terry, Capito, Pompeo, Ross, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilbray, 
Turner, Duncan, Bucshon, Duffy, Roskam, Myrick, Olson, Johnson, 
Rokita, Costa, Holden, and Rogers.) on June 24, 2011. The 
legislation establishes an interagency committee for the 
cumulative analysis of certain significant Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that impact energy and 
manufacturing in the U.S. The committee will analyze and report 
on the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and 
actions on the U.S.'s global economic competitiveness, domestic 
energy prices and reliability, and jobs, in addition to other 
metrics. In addition, H.R. 2401 will delay the final date for 
two of the rules being analyzed--one impacting utility boilers 
and one addressing interstate emissions--until the impact of 
the collection of regulations is fully understood.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Americans today confront a weak economy, with an 
unemployment rate exceeding 9 percent, rising energy prices, 
and intense global competition for the manufacturing sector 
jobs. Despite these difficult economic conditions, EPA has 
planned, proposed, and finalized a number of regulations that 
are expected to negatively impact the U.S.'s global economic 
competitiveness, domestic energy prices and reliability, and 
jobs. To date, there has been no study of the cumulative impact 
of these many regulations. Such a study of the cumulative 
impacts of regulations should be completed prior to the 
implementation of further significant regulations in order to 
inform policymakers of whether these rules will result in 
duplicative, conflicting, or overlapping requirements and 
whether alternative strategies should be undertaken to avoid 
damage to an already fragile economy.
    H.R. 2401 specifies that the following EPA rules and 
actions are to be included in the report.
           Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance 
        Standards for Petroleum Refineries and Utilities as 
        well as Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
        Title V permitting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (``GHG 
        Rules'');
           National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
        Ozone, Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen 
        Dioxide;
           Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``C-SAPR'');
           National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 
        Air Pollutants for Major and Area Boiler Sources 
        (``Boiler MACT Rules'');
           National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 
        Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-fired Electric 
        Generating Units (``Utility MACT Rule'');
           Coal Combustion Residuals Rule; and
           Recent actions under the Regional Haze 
        Program.
    Rule-by-rule analyses performed by the EPA and by outside 
parties reveal that many of these regulations individually will 
cost tens of billions of dollars each year. These costs are 
associated with installation of control equipment and 
monitoring that result in increased energy costs and employment 
market changes. For example, according to estimates prepared by 
EPA itself:
           The Boiler MACT Rules will impose $5.8 
        billion in up-front capital costs, and new compliance 
        costs of $2.2 billion annually.
           The Utility MACT Rule will impose costs of 
        $10.9 billion annually, and electricity price increases 
        of 3.7% in 2015, 2.6% in 2020, and 1.9% in 2030.
           C-SAPR will impose costs of $1.4 billion in 
        2012 and $800 million in 2014. National Ambient Air 
        Quality Standards for Ozone would have imposed costs of 
        $19 to $90 billion annually by 2020.
    Other estimates are even higher. For example, for NERA 
Economic Consulting has preliminarily estimated the costs for 
the Utility MACT and C-SAPR together to be $17.8 billion 
annually, and a total cost of $184 billion (present value) from 
2011 to 2030.
    It is also unknown whether the benefits associated with 
emissions reductions under the regulations could be achieved 
more efficiently through a different combination of controls. 
Because there has been no cumulative analysis of these 
regulations, it is not known whether the benefits are 
duplicative, and in fact, could be achieved by imposing only a 
subset of these regulations, thereby providing public health 
protection while also reducing the overall regulatory burden on 
the economy.

                              ENERGY COSTS

    Analysis completed for some individual rules demonstrates 
that significant energy price increases are expected, but there 
has been no cumulative analysis to explore whether these 
electricity and fuel price increases are additive, or whether 
energy cost increases will be greater as the result of efforts 
to comply with multiple rules concurrently. For example, 
according to estimates prepared by EPA:
       The Utility MACT Rule will increase electricity 
prices 3.7% in 2015, 2.6% in 2020, and 1.9% in 2030.
       The Transport Rule will increase electricity 
prices 1.7% in 2012 and .8% in 2014.
    NERA Economic Consulting has preliminarily estimated that 
these two rules, together, will increase energy prices 12% 
nationally in 2016, and as high as 24% in certain states.

                    JOBS AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

    Unemployment in the U.S. remains very high. Economic 
recovery has lagged beyond expectations. In this environment 
more than ever, there is concern that manufacturing firms will 
find more favorable operating conditions overseas, reducing 
their U.S. workforce. Further, jobs associated with those 
facilities expected to cease operations as the result of these 
regulations will increase the pressure on the economy to absorb 
unemployed workers.
    There has been no analysis of the cumulative impact of 
these regulations on unemployment in the United States, or on 
the likelihood of manufacturers to move facilities abroad to 
take advantage of lower energy prices and more business-
friendly regulatory approaches.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Power on April 7, 2011, held 
a legislative hearing on a discussion draft of the 
``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation 
Act,'' and received testimony from:

           Gerry Cauley, President and CEO, North 
        American Reliability Administration;
           Mark A. Bailey, President and CEO, Big 
        Rivers Electric Corporation;
           Timothy R. Hess, Division Vice President, 
        Glatfelter;
           Scott Segal, Director, Electric Reliability 
        Coordinating Council;
           Robin Ridgway, Director of Environmental 
        Health, Safety and Regulatory Compliance, Purdue 
        University;
           Rena Steinzor, President, Center for 
        Progressive Reform; and
           Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director, 
        Environmental Integrity Project.

                        Committee Consideration


    On March 31, 2011, Representatives John Sullivan and Jim 
Matheson released a discussion draft of the Transparency in 
Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011.
    On April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held 
a legislative hearing on the discussion draft.
    On May 4, 2011, Representatives Sullivan and Matheson, 
together with other Members, introduced the legislation as H.R. 
1705.
    On May 24, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
favorably reported H.R. 1705 to the full Committee by voice 
vote. During the markup, three amendments were offered, of 
which one was adopted, all by voice vote.
    On June 24, 2011, Representatives Sullivan and Matheson, 
together with other Members, reintroduced H.R. 1705, with an 
amendment, as H.R. 2401.
    On July 8, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power favorably 
reported the bill to the full Committee by voice vote. During 
the markup, two amendments were offered and defeated, one by 
voice vote and one by roll call vote.
    On July 11, 2011, and July 12, 2011, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce met in open markup session. During the 
markup, six amendments were offered of which four were adopted, 
two by voice and two by roll call vote.
    On July 12, 2011, the Committee ordered H.R. 2401 favorably 
reported to the House, as amended.

                            Committee Votes


    Clause 3(b) of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A 
motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 2401 reported to the House, 
as amended, was agreed to by a record vote of 33 yeas and 13 
nays. The following reflects the recorded votes taken during 
the Committee consideration, including the names of those 
Members voting for and against.



                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee made findings that are 
reflected in this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2401 establishes an interagency committee to perform 
analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain 
rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency.

            New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority and 
                            Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the 
Nation Act of 2011, would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                                Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 2401, the Transparency in 
Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011, 
contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate


H.R. 2401--Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation 
        Act of 2011

    Summary: H.R. 2401 would establish an interagency committee 
(to be known as the Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of 
Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing in the United 
States) to analyze and report on a variety of rules and actions 
taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to 
enforcing the Clean Air Act. The Secretary of Commerce would 
chair the committee, which would consist of representatives 
from various agencies, including EPA, the Department of Labor, 
and the Department of Energy. The committee would be required 
to analyze potential economic impacts of specific EPA rules in 
calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030, using the best data 
available; the final report would be due to the Congress no 
later than August 1, 2012.
    The bill also would delay until six months after the 
release of that final report the implementation of two EPA 
rules the Transport Rule and the Utility Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology Rule. Finally, the bill would reduce the 
amounts authorized to be appropriated under current law to 
support an EPA program related to diesel emissions. Assuming 
appropriation actions consistent with the bill, CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 2401 would result in net discretionary 
savings of $43 million over the 2012-2016 period.
    Enacting this legislation would not affect direct spending 
or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2401 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2401 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300 
(natural resources and environment) and 370 (commerce and 
housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2012     2013     2014     2015     2016   2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Funding for the Department of Commerce:
    Authorization Level.................................        3        0        0        0        0         3
    Estimated Outlays...................................        3        0        0        0        0         3
Funding for the Environmental Protection Agency:
    Estimated Authorization Level.......................        1        0        0        0        0         1
    Estimated Outlays...................................        1        0        0        0        0         1
Reduced Authorizations for the Diesel Emissions
 Reduction Program:
    Authorization Level.................................      -54        0        0        0        0       -54
    Estimated Outlays...................................      -14      -16       -9       -5       -3       -47
    Total Proposed Changes:
        Estimated Authorization Level...................      -50        0        0        0        0       -50
        Estimated Outlays...............................      -10      -16       -9       -5       -3       -43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 2401 would authorize the 
appropriation in 2012 of $3 million for the Department of 
Commerce and $1 million for EPA to meet the requirements for 
data collection and analyses under the bill. The bill also 
would delay the implementation of EPA's two rules related to 
pollution, but CBO estimates that delay would not have a 
significant impact on the federal budget. Finally, the 
legislation would reduce, from $100 million to $46 million, an 
existing authorization of appropriations to support EPA's 
program to reduce diesel emissions in 2012. (For 2011, $50 
million was appropriated for this program.) Taken as a whole, 
CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would result 
in a net decrease in discretionary spending of $43 million over 
the 2012-2016 period, assuming appropriation actions consistent 
with the bill.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2401 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman and 
Susan Willie; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
Ryan Miller; Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation


Section 1: Short title

    Section 1 provides the short title for the legislation, the 
``Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation 
Act of 2011'' (TRAIN Act).

Section 2: Committee for the cumulative analysis of regulations that 
        impact energy and manufacturing in the United States

    Section 2 establishes an interagency committee (the 
``Committee'') for the cumulative analysis of regulations that 
impact energy and manufacturing in the United States, and sets 
forth the composition of the Committee, which will include:
           The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 
        the Chief Economist;
           The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
        the Chief Economist and the Under Secretary for 
        International Trade;
           The Secretary of Labor, acting through the 
        Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics;
           The Secretary of Energy, acting through the 
        Administrator of the Energy Information Administration;
           The Secretary of the Treasury, acting 
        through the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment 
        and Energy of the Department of the Treasury;
           The Administrator of EPA;
           The Chairman of the Council of Economic 
        Advisors;
           The Chairman of the Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission;
           The Administrator of the Office of 
        Information and Regulatory Affairs;
           The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
        Business Administration; and
           The Chairman of the United States 
        International Trade Commission, Office of Economics.
    The Committee will be chaired by Committee members from the 
Department of Commerce in consultation with Committee members 
from the Department of the Treasury and the International Trade 
Commission. The TRAIN Act directs the Committee to consult with 
and consider pertinent reports issued by the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation.
    The Committee will terminate 60 days after submitting a 
final report.

Section 3: Analyses

    Section 3 of the TRAIN Act describes the analyses that the 
Committee is required to conduct, including an estimate of the 
cumulative impacts of covered rules and actions that are 
proposed or finalized by January 1, 2012. The Committee will 
also conduct an analysis of the incremental impact of each 
covered rule proposed but not finalized relative to that 
cumulative baseline. The Committee's analyses will include the 
impacts of the covered rules and actions with regard to:
           U.S. competitiveness, including energy 
        intensive and trade sensitive industries;
           other cumulative cost and cumulative benefit 
        impacts;
           changes in electricity and fuel prices;
           impact on national, State, and regional 
        employment both in the short- and long-term; and
           reliability and adequacy of bulk power 
        supply.
    The analyses will also include a discussion of the key 
uncertainties and assumptions associated with each estimate, a 
sensitivity analysis, and a discussion of the cumulative impact 
of the covered rules and actions on consumers; small 
businesses; regional economies; State, local, and tribal 
governments; local and industry-specific labor markets; and 
agriculture. The analyses must be conducted with best available 
methods and best available data that are available publicly or 
provided by members of the Committee.
    Section 3 also specifies that the following EPA rules and 
actions are to be covered in the report:
           Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance 
        Standards for Petroleum Refineries;
           Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance 
        Standards for Utilities;
           Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
        Title V permitting for GHG Emissions;
           Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 
        Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen 
        Dioxide;
           Clean Air Transport Rule for 28 Eastern 
        States;
           Boiler Maximum Available Control Technology 
        for Major and Area Sources;
           Electric Generating Units Maximum Available 
        Control Technology;
           Coal Combustion Residuals Rule; and
           Recent actions under the Regional Haze 
        Program.

Section 4: Reports; Public comment

    Section 4 specifies reporting and a public comment period. 
A preliminary report is to be made public and submitted to 
Congress by January 31, 2012. Public comments will be accepted 
on the preliminary report for 90 days. The final report is then 
due by August 1, 2012.

Section 5: Regulatory deferral of certain rules

    Section 5 defers the promulgation and effective date of two 
rules that are included in the study until a date that is at 
least 6 months after submission of the final report. The two 
rules are:
           Clean Air Transport Rule for 28 Eastern 
        States, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 
        Rule;
           Electric Generating Units Maximum Available 
        Control Technology.

Section 6: Authorization of appropriations

    Section 6 specifies an authorization of $3.5 million and 
corresponding offsets from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 
of 2010.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE VII--VEHICLES AND FUELS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle G--Diesel Emissions Reduction

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 [Effective on October 1, 2011, section 6(b) of H.R. 2401 provides for 
   amendments to section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (as 
 amended and in effect on such date by section 2(e) of Public Law 111-
                           364) as follows:]

SEC. 797. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out this subtitle $46,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and 
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years [2012] 2013 through 2016, 
to remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                     I. Purpose of the Legislation

    In hearings and the subcommittee markup, the majority 
repeatedly stated that this legislation is designed to help 
agencies improve their economic analyses of proposed and final 
EPA regulations and to provide a better picture of the 
cumulative impacts of multiple regulations affecting the same 
industries. An amendment during markup in full committee 
offered by Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield fundamentally 
changed the nature of the bill. Rather than comprising just a 
mandate for additional studies, the bill now prohibits 
finalizing or implementing two of the most significant EPA air 
quality rules proposed in decades.
    The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule and the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule will finally require decades-old coal-
fired power plants with no modern pollution controls to install 
readily available pollution controls to reduce their emissions 
of mercury, other toxic air pollutants, fine particulates, and 
the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. If EPA is allowed 
to implement these rules, each year they will avoid tens of 
thousands of premature deaths, improve the health of millions 
of Americans, especially children, and produce tens of billions 
of dollars of net benefits for the country.
    The TRAIN Act would indefinitely delay these rules and 
would prohibit EPA from finalizing or implementing these rules 
until at least February 1, 2013, and likely later. The 
legislation eliminates existing statutory and/or court-ordered 
deadlines for rulemaking and establishes no new deadlines, 
resulting in no enforceable deadline for either rule. The 
legislation also prohibits EPA from finalizing the Mercury and 
Air Toxics rule and prohibits the Cross-State Air Pollution 
rule from being in effect until a date that is to be determined 
by the Administrator. The date can be no earlier than six 
months after the completion of the multi-agency analytical 
effort and report mandated by section 3 of the bill, which is 
due by August 1, 2012. As discussed below, given the number of 
agencies involved, the extensive analytical work required, and 
the inadequate funding provided for the effort, it appears 
highly unlikely that the report could be produced by the 
deadline. In addition, section 5(b)(2) extends the compliance 
deadline for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for a period 
equal to the period of delay in the bill's effectiveness.
    Neither the Energy and Power Subcommittee nor the full 
Committee held any hearings on the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule or any legislative hearing on the language to block and 
indefinitely delay the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule and the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Mercury and Air Toxics Rule 
was examined in a single hearing that addressed three separate 
EPA final or proposed rules covering different industrial 
sectors. These are two of the most significant rules EPA has 
proposed or finalized in years to address air pollution, and 
there would be significant public health and economic 
consequences from their indefinite delay. At the full Committee 
markup, Ranking Member Waxman reiterated that prior to 
legislating, the Committee should have held hearings on the 
substance of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury 
and Air Toxics Rules, as well as the effects of the proposed 
language to delay them indefinitely.
    Several Democratic members of the Committee offered 
amendments during markup to improve the bill and ensure EPA 
retained the authority to meet its legal and statutory 
obligations to protect the environment and public health. These 
amendments were defeated, as discussed below.

                  II. Rules Blocked by the Legislation

                  A. MERCURY AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS

    In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress adopted 
provisions to address toxic air pollution from power plants. 
Section 112(n) requires EPA to complete by 1993 a study of the 
hazards to public health reasonably anticipated to occur as a 
result of toxic air pollution from power plants. If, after 
considering the results of the study, EPA finds that regulation 
is appropriate and necessary, EPA is required to regulate power 
plants under the air toxics requirements of section 112.
    EPA completed the study in 1998, and in December 2000, EPA 
concluded that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate 
hazardous air pollutants from power plants.\1\ Power plants are 
by far the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions into the 
air. Mercury is a particular concern for women of childbearing 
age, infants, and children because studies have linked mercury 
exposure to nervous system damage, which can impair children's 
ability to think and learn. Power plants also release other 
toxic metals, such as arsenic, chromium and nickel, which can 
cause cancer and other health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from 
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Final Report to Congress, 
Volume 1 (Feb. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA's December 2000 finding triggered a requirement for EPA 
to finalize regulations to control toxic air pollution from 
power plants by December 2004, pursuant to a settlement 
agreement.\2\ EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule in March 
2005. However, the approach taken in that rulemaking regulated 
only mercury, not other air toxics, and it avoided the 
requirement under section 112 to install maximum available 
control technology by establishing a trading system under 
section 111 instead. The D.C. Circuit vacated the rule in 
February 2008, stating that EPA's rationale for this approach 
``deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA's 
desires for the plain text of section 112(c)(9).''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\U.S. EPA, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power 
Plants: History (online at www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/
history.html); U.S. EPA, Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 
65 Fed. Reg. 79825 (Dec. 20, 2000).
    \3\State of New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Twenty-one years after the Clean Air Act provisions to 
address this threat were adopted and eleven years after finding 
that regulation is necessary and appropriate, on March 16, 
2011, EPA proposed the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule to reduce 
power plant emissions of these hazardous air pollutants.\4\ The 
proposed rule would reduce emissions of mercury, preventing 
more than 90% of the mercury in the coal from being emitted 
into the air and cutting emissions of other toxic 
substances.\5\ EPA also estimates that the rule will reduce 
fine particle emissions by 29% in 2015, which will produce 
tremendous health benefits.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\U.S. EPA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating 
Units and Standards of Performance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric 
Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small 
IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; Proposed 
Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 24976-25147 (May 3, 2011) (hereinafter ``Proposed 
Air Toxics Rule'').
    \5\U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet: Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
(May 4, 2011).
    \6\Proposed Air Toxics Rule at 25073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For each year that the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule is 
delayed by this bill, there will be up to an additional 17,000 
premature deaths; 11,000 non-fatal heart attacks; 120,000 cases 
of aggravated asthma; 12,200 hospital and emergency room 
visits; 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis; 11,000 cases of 
acute bronchitis; and 850,000 days when people miss work.\7\ 
This will lead to a less healthy population and less productive 
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet: Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
(May 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA estimates the monetized public health benefits of this 
proposed rule to be between $59 billion and $140 billion in 
2016, while costs are estimated at $10.9 billion.\8\ EPA 
believes that utilities can achieve the emissions reductions 
without significantly affecting the availability and cost of 
electricity to consumers.\9\ EPA also assessed the impacts of 
the proposed rule on jobs and the economy, finding that more 
jobs will be created in the air pollution control technology 
production field than may be lost as the result of compliance 
with these proposed rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Proposed Air Toxics Rule at 25078.
    \9\ Id. at 24978-24979.
    \10\Id. at 24979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   B. CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE

    Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D) addresses air quality 
problems created by facilities that are located outside of a 
state experiencing an air quality problem. Downwind states do 
not have authority to require pollution reductions from 
facilities located in upwind states. Thus, this provision 
prohibits any state from allowing its facilities to emit air 
pollution in amounts that will significantly contribute to 
downwind states' failure to meet health-based national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS).
    In March 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR) to help 28 states in the eastern, central, and southern 
U.S. meet the health-based ambient air quality standards for 
fine particles and ozone by requiring emission reductions in 
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in upwind states. That rule 
was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008. 
However, the court allowed the rule to remain in place while 
EPA revised the rule consistent with the court's opinion, based 
in part on EPA's representations to the court that it would 
move ``expeditiously'' to replace the rule and that such a 
rulemaking would take ``about two years.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\State of North Carolina v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2008) (on petitions 
for rehearing); State of North Carolina v. EPA, Reply in Support of 
Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (Nov. 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule as a 
replacement for CAIR on July 6, 2011.\12\ The Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule requires 27 states in the eastern, central, and 
southern U.S. to reduce power plant emissions that cause air 
quality problems in other states. Compared with CAIR, the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule requires greater emission 
reductions and is more targeted to produce air quality 
improvements in areas with unhealthy air quality. EPA estimates 
that by 2014, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and other 
federal rules will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the 27-
state region by 73% from 2005 levels and nitrogen oxides by 54% 
from 2005 levels.\13\ These pollution reductions will yield 
between $120 billion and $280 billion in annual health benefits 
in 2014, vastly outweighing the rule's estimated costs of $800 
million that year.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\U.S. EPA, Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of 
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals; 
Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011) (hereinafter ``Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule'').
    \13\U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet, The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule: 
Reducing Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 
(Aug. 8, 2011).
    \14\Cross-State Air Pollution Rule at 48215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule brings many areas into 
attainment with the 1997 and 2006 fine particle NAAQS and the 
1997 ozone NAAQS by 2014. Absent the rule, in 2012, 27 counties 
are projected to experience air pollution at levels above the 
fine particle and/or ozone standards.\15\ With the rule, only 
two counties in the covered region will continue to violate the 
ozone or fine particle standards.\16\ If the rule is delayed, 
downwind states may have to impose more stringent controls on 
local businesses to make up for the effects of increased out-
of-state pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\U.S. EPA, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Reducing Air 
Pollution, Protecting Public Health (presentation) (July 18, 2011) at 
5.
    \16\Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This rule will improve the health of millions of Americans. 
For each year that this rule is delayed by the bill, there will 
be up to an additional 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-
fatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 19,000 cases of acute 
bronchitis, and 1.8 million days when people miss work or 
school due to illness.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet, The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule: 
Reducing Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 
(Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                C. CONCERNS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

    Some have expressed concerns about the cumulative effect on 
the utility sector of these and other future EPA rules. 
Specifically, opponents of the rules argue that they will force 
utilities to shut down power plants and threaten the 
reliability of the electricity grid. In addition, the State of 
Texas and Texas utilities have voiced concerns about the impact 
of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule on Texas power plants. 
The majority also argues that the costs of these rules are too 
high and that they destroy jobs.
    Multiple analyses rebut the reliability concerns. The 
Bipartisan Policy Center found that any impacts on the 
reliability of the electric system due to EPA regulations are 
manageable and that tools are available at the federal, state, 
and local levels to address localized reliability risks.\18\ An 
analysis prepared for state air quality agencies concluded that 
utilities are well-equipped to comply with EPA rules without 
affecting the reliability of the electricity system.\19\ This 
analysis found that the electric power sector has access to a 
range of available pollution control technology options as well 
as experience in their installation and operation that will 
enable compliance with these rules.\20\ It also found that the 
industry has a demonstrated ability to install a substantial 
number of controls in a short period of time and has access to 
a skilled workforce to install proven and available control 
technologies.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Bipartisan Policy Center, Environmental Regulation and Electric 
System Reliability (June 13, 2011).
    \19\Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Control 
Technologies to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
Coal-Fired Power Plants (Mar. 31, 2011).
    \20\Id.
    \21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, a recently updated report by M.J. Bradley and 
Associates concluded that the electric system will remain 
reliable if industry and its regulators proactively manage the 
transition to cleaner, more efficient power plants.\22\ The 
Bradley report found that EPA's proposed standards are 
achievable and well within the capability of existing pollution 
control technology, noting that recent binding commitments made 
by utilities in one of the most coal-dependent regions of the 
country indicate adequate generation capacity and a substantial 
reserve margin that will remain after these rules are in 
effect.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\M.J. Bradley & Associates and Analysis Group, Ensuring a Clean, 
Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System 
Reliability (Aug. 2010); M.J. Bradley & Associates and Analysis Group, 
Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining 
Electric System Reliability; Summer 2011 Update (June 2011).
    \23\M.J. Bradley & Associates and Analysis Group, Ensuring a Clean, 
Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System 
Reliability; Summer 2011 Update, 5 (June 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 11, 2011, 36 energy businesses and business 
associations, including Calpine, Constellation Energy, Entergy, 
Exelon, NRG Systems, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Public 
Service Enterprise Group, sent a letter to House leadership 
that reiterated these findings.\24\ They stated that the power 
industry can comply with the air toxics standards for the 
electric utility sector without threatening electric system 
reliability, and they noted that the industry has already made 
significant investments in control technology in anticipation 
of the rule.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Letter to The Honorable John Boehner et al, from Acciona Wind 
Energy USA et al (July 11, 2011).
    \25\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The arguments that these rules are too costly also are not 
supported by the available evidence. The combined annual 
benefits of the two rules are estimated to range from roughly 
$179 billion to $420 billion in the 2014-2016 time-frame, while 
the combined annual costs are estimated at $11.7 billion.\26\ 
The monetized benefits exceed the costs of these rules by at 
least 15 to 1 and as much as 36 to 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Proposed Air Toxics Rule at 25078; Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule at 48215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, the Clean Air Act has proven that it provides 
benefits that far outweigh the costs. EPA examined the 
cumulative costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act and found 
that the monetary value of protecting American's health through 
implementing the Clean Air Act is projected to reach $2 
trillion in 2020 alone.\27\ Over the period from 1990 through 
2020, the benefits of the Clean Air Act are projected to exceed 
the costs by a factor of more than 30 to 1.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\U.S. EPA, Section 812 Prospective Analysis: The Benefits and 
Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2020 (Aug. 2010).
    \28\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               III. Amendments Offered in Full Committee

    During consideration of H.R. 2401 by the full Committee, 
Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA) offered two amendments to 
improve the bill. Her first amendment specified that the bill 
could not ``delay or otherwise interfere with implementation of 
any statutory or other legal deadline or obligation.'' The 
amendment also would have allowed the interagency committee 
established to analyze EPA rules to forego certain analyses if 
the committee determined that they were not feasible given 
available information, modeling limitations, and available 
funding. The Committee defeated this amendment on a voice vote.
    The second Capps amendment directed the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) to require all nuclear power plants in the 
United States to prevent damage to reactor cores and spent fuel 
in the event of an extended loss of onsite power due to a 
natural disaster. On July 13, 2011, NRC's Japan Task Force 
released the results of its systematic review of nuclear 
reactor safety regulations and practices in the United States 
in light of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear 
power plant in Japan. The task force concluded that ``a 
sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to 
occur in the United States.''\29\ However, the task force 
described the current safety regime as a ``patchwork of 
regulatory requirements'' developed ``piece-by-piece over the 
decades'' and made recommendations for how to improve safety in 
several areas.\30\ In particular, the task force recommended 
that NRC require licensees to reevaluate each reactor's ability 
to withstand earthquakes, floods and long-term loss of onsite 
power and upgrade structures and systems as necessary.\31\ The 
Committee defeated the Capps amendment on a 18-30 vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Recommendations for Enhancing 
Reactor Safety in the 2.0 Century (July 12, 2011) at vii.
    \30\Id. 
    \31\Id. at ix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ranking Member Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Congresswoman Donna 
Christensen (D-VI) also offered an amendment to improve the 
analysis of EPA regulations. First, the amendment would have 
provided needed balance to the interagency committee by adding 
representatives with expertise in public health and 
environmental protection, including the Chair of the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the Director of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, and the Director of the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. In 
addition, the amendment specified that the interagency 
committee had to consider the benefits of EPA rules, including 
changes in the incidence of asthma, birth defects, and 
premature mortality; impacts on air and water quality; impacts 
in the clean energy sector; and impacts on productivity from 
reduced absenteeism at work and school. The Committee accepted 
an amendment from Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) clarifying 
that the interagency committee should examine the positive and 
negative impacts of the rules on public health and the 
environment. Nevertheless, the Committee defeated the modified 
Rush-Christensen amendment by a vote of 20-28.

                    IV. Section by Section Analysis

Section 2. Committee for the cumulative analysis of regulations that 
        impact energy and manufacturing in the United States
    H.R. 2401 establishes an interagency committee to analyze 
and report on the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain 
rules and actions of EPA. By design, the committee will focus 
only on the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits to 
public health and the environment.
    Section 2 sets forth the composition of the committee, 
which will include representatives of the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Treasury; EPA; the 
Council of Economic Advisors; the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission; and the Small Business Administration, among 
others. With the exception of EPA, the new committee does not 
include any members with a focus on or expertise in public 
health or environmental protection. Additionally, while the 
Department of Energy is included in the committee, the 
Department's participation is limited to the Energy Information 
Administration, which does not have expertise in clean energy 
policy.
Section 3. Analyses
    Section 3 of H.R. 2401 describes the analyses that the 
committee is required to conduct, including an estimate of the 
cumulative impacts of covered rules and actions. This section 
is fundamentally flawed in three respects: (1) it will produce 
an analysis that is inherently biased; (2) the analysis 
required is not feasible and is unlikely to produce credible 
results; and (3) the analysis is unnecessary.
            The analysis is inherently biased
    The bill instructs the committee to examine the cumulative 
impacts of EPA regulations on U.S. competitiveness, electricity 
and fuel prices, employment, and the reliability and adequacy 
of bulk power supply. While those are all relevant 
considerations, the purpose of the regulations is to protect 
public health and the environment by reducing pollution. Yet, 
the bill does not require any evaluation of the cumulative 
projected benefits of EPA regulations for public health and 
environmental protection, such as the benefits from decreased 
hospitalizations or the benefits of slowing climate change. 
Requiring an analysis that largely focuses on the cumulative 
costs of regulation while disregarding the benefits will 
necessarily produce a biased picture of whether the regulations 
are on net positive or negative for the country.
            The analysis is infeasible and unlikely to produce credible 
                    results
    H.R. 2401 requires the committee to produce a report 
containing a complex array of analyses of numerous rules and 
actions that will--or may--be finalized between now and 2030.
    It is unclear how it would be possible to conduct a 
credible economic analysis of the impact of a regulation that 
has not yet been finalized. The whole point of providing for 
notice and comment is to allow affected industries and the 
public to supply information and suggest changes to improve 
EPA's proposed approach. While the analysis could simply be 
based on the proposal, there are often significant changes in 
response to public comment that modify the levels of control 
required in the final rule, changing the compliance options and 
atmospheric impacts, and thus changing the final costs and 
benefits. In a recent example, EPA made changes between the 
proposed and final rules to regulate toxic air pollution from 
industrial boilers that cut the projected costs of the rule in 
half.
    The guess-work required would become even more extreme with 
respect to rules that have not yet been proposed or even 
contemplated. For example, the bill would require the committee 
to examine any change to a national ambient air quality 
standard revised between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 
2030. Section 109 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review 
these standards every five years. It is impossible to know how 
EPA will consider revising the standards over the next 19 years 
or how technology and science will evolve to inform those 
revisions.
    Making matters more complicated, the Clean Air Act gives 
state and local governments the flexibility to determine their 
own strategies to achieve air quality goals. Because of this 
flexibility afforded to state and local governments, the 
legislation could be interpreted to require analyses of 
hundreds of state and local rules that may, or may not, be 
developed over the next 19 years. In fact, the bill explicitly 
includes state and local permitting actions addressing 
greenhouse gases.
    Even if it were possible to conduct such analyses, it could 
prove impossible to do so by the statutory deadlines provided 
for in the legislation: A draft no later than January 31, 2012, 
with a final report no later than August 1, 2012, with a 90 day 
period for public comment between the draft and final reports.
    The history of these types of analyses suggests that this 
timeframe is likely to be unrealistic. For example, EPA has 
prepared two studies of the cumulative costs and benefits of 
the Clean Air Act. The first study had a six-year process of 
study development and outside expert review.\32\ The second 
study began in July of 2001, the analytical design plan was 
reviewed in 2003, and the study was not completed until 
2011.\33\ In another example, in February 2003, Congress 
charged the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the 
effects of just two EPA rules relating to regulation of 
stationary sources.\34\ The Academy did not complete its report 
until July 2006.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\U.S. EPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 
2010 (Nov. 1999).
    \33\U.S. EPA, Section 812 Prospective Analysis: The Benefits and 
Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2020 (Aug. 2010).
    \34\PL No: 108-7, Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 
(Feb. 20, 2003).
    \35\National Academies of Science, New Source Review for Stationary 
Sources of Air Pollution (July 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The limited resources authorized by the legislation also 
reduce the committee's ability to produce a credible and useful 
report. The bill authorizes just $3.5 million for 11 
departments and agencies to implement the legislation over an 
approximately 14-month timeframe, depending upon the date of 
enactment. These funds could be depleted if just a few 
employees per department or agency worked on the project, 
leaving virtually no resources for the data analysis, economic 
modeling, computer runs, and other analytic work that would be 
necessary to produce a substantive report.
            The analysis is unnecessary
    The analysis proposed by this bill also is unnecessary and 
redundant, as EPA and other federal agencies already must meet 
numerous statutory and administrative requirements for economic 
analysis of regulations.
    Existing requirements for analysis of impacts and response 
to public comments in EPA actions are established by the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 
specific environmental statutes, executive orders on regulatory 
planning and review, requirements of the Office of Management 
and Budget, Circular A-4, and other sources.\36\ According to 
the GAO, these requirements are ``clearly voluminous and 
require a wide range of procedural, consultative, and 
analytical action on the part of the agencies.''\37\ Because of 
those requirements, the GAO has found that, on average, 
promulgation of a major rule is a four-year process.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Congressional Research Service, Report RL32240, ``The Federal 
Rulemaking Process: An Overview'' (Feb. 22, 2011.)
    \37\Government Accountability Office, Federal Rulemaking: 
Procedural and Analytical Requirements at OSHA and Other Agencies, 
Testimony before the Committee on Education and the Workforce (June 14, 
2001).
    \38\Government Accountability Office, Federal Rulemaking: 
Improvements Needed to Monitoring and Evaluation of Rules Development 
as Well as to the Transparency of OMB Regulatory Reviews (Apr. 2009) 
(GA0-09-205).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to perform 
regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) of all rules it deems to be 
``significant'' and to submit these analyses to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review. EPA has completed RIAs for 
the final rules covered by the TRAIN Act, in accordance with 
OMB requirements. In addition, section 312 of the Clean Air Act 
requires EPA to conduct periodically a comprehensive analysis 
of the impact of Clean Air Act requirements on public health, 
the economy, and the environment.
Section 4. Reports; Public comment
    This section requires a preliminary report by January 31, 
2012, and a final report by August 1, 2012. The committee is 
required to provide for 90 days of public comment on the 
preliminary report. This would leave just three months to 
complete the final report.
Section 5. Regulatory deferral of certain rules
    As originally introduced, H.R. 2401 did not include any 
provisions to delay EPA regulations pending the completion of 
the report proposed by the bill. However, industry urged the 
bill's sponsors to include such provisions. For example, in 
testimony before the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Dirk 
Krouskop of MeadWestvaco encouraged the Subcommittee ``to move 
to swift passage of the TRAIN Act while legislatively staying 
significant rulemakings, such as Boiler MACT, until such time 
as the full economic impact of the cumulative regulatory burden 
facing the regulated community is understood.''\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Testimony of Dirk J. Krouskop, Vice President, MeadWestvaco, 
before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, Hearing on Recent EPA Rulemakings Relating to Boilers, Cement 
Manufacturing Plants, and Utilities, 112th Cong. (Apr. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Full Committee markup of this bill, Subcommittee 
Chairman Ed Whitfield offered an amendment to block and 
indefinitely delay the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, which was adopted on a vote of 
32 to 18.
    As discussed above, the bill as amended would prohibit EPA 
from finalizing or implementing these rules until at least 
February 1, 2013, and likely later. It also would provide for 
indefinite delay in finalizing these rules by eliminating 
existing statutory and/or court-ordered deadlines for 
rulemaking and establishing no new deadlines, resulting in no 
enforceable deadline for either rule.
Section 6. Authorization of appropriations
    Section 6 of the bill funds the provisions of the TRAIN Act 
by cutting the authorization for funding for the Diesel 
Emissions Reduction Program (DERA) by $54 million in 2012, 
which is $4 million below the most recent appropriated funding 
level for DERA. DERA, as established under the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, provides EPA grant and loan authority for 
promoting diesel emission reductions.\40\ Since 2008, EPA has 
awarded more than 500 grants for diesel emission reduction 
projects nationwide.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title VII, Subtitle G.
    \41\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DERA Grant Programs 
(online at http://wwvv.epa.gov/cleandiesel/grantfund.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DERA program has proven popular and successful. For 
example, on March 28, 2011, approximately 500 groups, ranging 
from the American Lung Association to Caterpillar, Inc. to the 
Western Growers to the National Association of Clean Air 
Agencies, wrote to the House Appropriations Committee 
requesting support for the program, stating:

          Since enactment in 2005, DERA has been successful 
        from an economic, environmental and public health 
        perspective. The DERA program has been responsible for 
        the creation and retention of local U.S. jobs that 
        involve manufacturing, installation and servicing of 
        emissions related technologies. In a FY2008 Report to 
        Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
        estimates that for every dollar spent on the DERA 
        program, an average of more than $20 in health benefits 
        are generated. Every state in the nation now has a 
        diesel retrofit program and benefits from DERA 
        funding.\42\

    \42\Letter to Rep. Mike Simpson and Rep. James Moran from the DERA 
coalition (Mar. 28, 2011).

    With additional funding, DERA could provide additional 
tangible benefits to public health. Instead, this bill 
redirects funding away from DERA to support a new government 
bureaucracy to produce redundant and unreliable analyses.
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Diana DeGette.
                                   Jan Schakowsky.
                                   G.K. Butterfield.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Eliot L. Engel.
                                   Jay Inslee.
                                   Bobby L. Rush.
                                   Lois Capps.
                                   Kathy Castor.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   Doris O. Matsui.
                                   Donna Christensen.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Anna G. Eshoo.

                                  
