[House Report 113-164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    113-164

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



 
                  ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013

                                _______
                                

 July 22, 2013.--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. 1582]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1582) to protect consumers by prohibiting the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 
promulgating as final certain energy-related rules that are 
estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause 
significant adverse effects to the economy, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     3
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee Consideration..........................................    10
Committee Votes..................................................    10
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    15
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    15
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    15
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    15
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    15
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    15
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    16
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    16
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    17
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    17
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    17
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    17
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    18
Dissenting Views.................................................    19
Exchange of Letters..............................................    26

                               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 ``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING CERTAIN ENERGY-RELATED RULES 
                    THAT WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE 
                    ECONOMY.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency may not promulgate as final an energy-
related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion if the 
Secretary of Energy determines under section 3(3) that the rule will 
cause significant adverse effects to the economy.

SEC. 3. REPORTS AND DETERMINATIONS PRIOR TO PROMULGATING AS FINAL 
                    CERTAIN ENERGY-RELATED RULES.

  Before promulgating as final any energy-related rule that is 
estimated to cost more than $1 billion:
          (1) Report to congress.--The Administrator of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a 
        report (and transmit a copy to the Secretary of Energy) 
        containing--
                  (A) a copy of the rule;
                  (B) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
                  (C) an estimate of the total costs of the rule, 
                including the direct costs and indirect costs of the 
                rule;
                  (D) an estimate of the total benefits of the rule, an 
                estimate of when such benefits are expected to be 
                realized, and a description of the modeling, the 
                assumptions, and the limitations due to uncertainty, 
                speculation, or lack of information associated with the 
                estimates under this subparagraph;
                  (E) an estimate of the increases in energy prices, 
                including potential increases in gasoline or 
                electricity prices for consumers, that may result from 
                implementation or enforcement of the rule; and
                  (F) a detailed description of the employment effects, 
                including potential job losses and shifts in 
                employment, that may result from implementation or 
                enforcement of the rule.
          (2) Initial determination on increases and impacts.--The 
        Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission and the Administrator of the Energy 
        Information Administration, shall prepare an independent 
        analysis to determine whether the rule will cause--
                  (A) any increase in energy prices for consumers, 
                including low-income households, small businesses, and 
                manufacturers;
                  (B) any impact on fuel diversity of the Nation's 
                electricity generation portfolio or on national, 
                regional, or local electric reliability;
                  (C) any adverse effect on energy supply, 
                distribution, or use due to the economic or technical 
                infeasibility of implementing the rule; or
                  (D) any other adverse effect on energy supply, 
                distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply 
                and increased use of foreign supplies).
          (3) Subsequent determination on adverse effects to the 
        economy.--If the Secretary of Energy determines, under 
        paragraph (2), that the rule will cause an increase, impact, or 
        effect described in such paragraph, then the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
        Labor, and the Administrator of the Small Business 
        Administration, shall--
                  (A) determine whether the rule will cause significant 
                adverse effects to the economy, taking into 
                consideration--
                          (i) the costs and benefits of the rule and 
                        limitations in calculating such costs and 
                        benefits due to uncertainty, speculation, or 
                        lack of information; and
                          (ii) the positive and negative impacts of the 
                        rule on economic indicators, including those 
                        related to gross domestic product, 
                        unemployment, wages, consumer prices, and 
                        business and manufacturing activity; and
                  (B) publish the results of such determination in the 
                Federal Register.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) The terms ``direct costs'' and ``indirect costs'' have 
        the meanings given such terms in chapter 8 of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency's ``Guidelines for Preparing Economic 
        Analyses'' dated December 17, 2010.
          (2) The term ``energy-related rule that is estimated to cost 
        more than $1 billion'' means a rule of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency that--
                  (A) regulates any aspect of the production, supply, 
                distribution, or use of energy or provides for such 
                regulation by States or other governmental entities; 
                and
                  (B) is estimated by the Administrator of the 
                Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the 
                Office of Management and Budget to impose direct costs 
                and indirect costs, in the aggregate, of more than 
                $1,000,000,000.
          (3) The term ``rule'' has the meaning given to such term in 
        section 551 of title 5, United States Code.

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 1582, the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013,'' was 
introduced by Rep. Bill Cassidy on April 16, 2013. The 
legislation will protect American consumers by increasing 
transparency and interagency review of new billion-dollar 
energy rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) that have the potential to drive up energy costs and 
destroy jobs. The bill provides for greater checks and balances 
over EPA's rulemaking activity by requiring, before the agency 
finalizes new energy-related rules estimated to cost more than 
$1 billion, that the agency submit a report to Congress 
providing information detailing certain cost, benefit, energy 
price, and job impacts, and also that the Secretary of Energy, 
in consultation with other relevant agencies, conduct a review 
of the energy price, reliability, and other energy-related 
impacts, and make a determination about whether the rule will 
cause significant adverse effects to the economy.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Background

    Since 2009, EPA has proposed or finalized thousands of 
pages of new regulations imposing billions of dollars 
cumulatively in new compliance costs across the economy. These 
regulations include new rules that affect the production, 
supply, distribution, or use of energy and may impose annual 
compliance costs that continue over a period of years or even 
of decades.
    EPA currently has more significant regulatory actions under 
review with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) than any 
other Federal agency. OMB, moreover, has projected that nearly 
half the costs of new Federal regulations over the past decade 
come from EPA rules, stating that ``the rules with the highest 
benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the 
Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of 
Air,'' and estimated that EPA rules over that period accounted 
for ``44 to 54 percent of the monetized costs'' of regulations.
    Since 2009, the EPA has finalized several energy-related 
rules, which, by the agency's own estimates, have imposed costs 
of more than $1 billion, including:
           Greenhouse Gas Standards for Light-Duty 
        Vehicles (MY 2012-2016): $52 billion;
           Greenhouse Gas Standards for Light-Duty 
        Vehicles (MY 2017-2025): $144 billion;
           Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty 
        Vehicles (MY 2014-2018): $8.1 billion;
           Ocean-Going Vessels Standards: $1.85 billion 
        annually in 2020, increasing to $3.1 billion annually 
        in 2030;
           Utility MACT Rule: $9.6 billion annually;
           Boiler MACT Rule: $1.4 billion to $1.6 
        billion annually;
           Cement MACT Rule: $925 million to $950 
        million annually;
           Cross-State Air Pollution Rule/Clean Air 
        Interstate Rule: $2.4 billion; and,
           Nationwide Sulfur Dioxide Standards: $1.5 
        billion in 2020.
    Pending EPA energy-related rules proposed since 2009 that 
also may impose costs of more than $1 billion include the 
following:
           Tier 3 Vehicle and Gasoline Standards: $2 
        billion in 2017, increasing to $3.4 billion in 2030;
           Nationwide Ozone Standards: $19 billion to 
        $90 billion annually;
           316(b) Rule: $383 million to $4.6 billion 
        annually;
           Coal Ash Rule: $587 million to $1.4 billion 
        annually;
           Greenhouse Gas ``New Source Performance 
        Standards'' for Power Plants: To Be Determined; and,
           Greenhouse Gas ``New Source Performance 
        Standards'' for Refineries: To Be Determined.

Need for Legislation

    H.R. 1582, which would ensure greater transparency and more 
rigorous interagency review of EPA billion-dollar energy rules, 
is needed to protect American consumers and jobs from costly 
regulations that may drive up energy prices and undermine the 
nation's economic recovery. As OMB recently stated, ``poorly 
designed regulations may have adverse effects on real people, 
by, for example, increasing prices, discouraging innovation, or 
decreasing employment.''
    Collectively, EPA's billion-dollar energy-related 
regulations have significant impacts on jobs and the economy. A 
study by the National Association of Manufacturers estimated 
that the collective cost of just six of EPA's already finalized 
or anticipated billion-dollar regulations would be $100 billion 
annually and put more than 2 million jobs at risk, and that a 
worst-case scenario could mean the loss of $630 billion in 
output, 4.2 percent of GDP and 9 million jobs. A study by NERA 
Economic Consulting for the American Coalition for Clean Coal 
Electricity found that seven EPA regulations could lead to 
69,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plant retirements by 2019, 
a total that represents approximately 20 percent of U.S. coal-
fired generating capacity. Further, the study estimated that 
the costs to the electricity sector to comply with these rules 
could be over $16 billion annually over the period 2013 through 
2034, or a total cost of $220 billion for just one sector of 
the U.S. economy.
    At the legislative hearing on the discussion draft of H.R. 
1582, the President of the Industrial Energy Consumers of 
America, Paul Cicio, testified about the potential impacts of 
EPA's major regulations on consumers and jobs, ``[w]hen the EPA 
is promulgating rules and costs on the electric utility 
industry--we consumers pay for it. When the EPA promulgates 
rules on the oil and natural gas industry--consumers pay for 
it.'' He testified that ``[s]omeone has to pay for these 
regulations, and that someone is the industrial sector and 
other U.S. consumers.''
    The Vice President of Advocacy for the American Fuel & 
Petrochemical Manufacturers, Brendan Williams, similarly 
testified that ``[e]nergy cost increases carry significant 
implications for consumers and our economy. Consider the 
following facts: every penny increase in gasoline prices 
translates into a more than $1 billion increase in household 
energy spending. And this is money that, as my colleague noted, 
consumers could spend elsewhere on other goods and services.'' 
He also testified that the increased energy costs have 
``significant ripple effects throughout the economy,'' and that 
``[t]he potential for such ripple effects is why we need to 
ensure regulation takes a balanced approach and maximizes 
environmental protection without disproportionately raising 
consumer costs or sending manufacturing jobs overseas.''
    The Director of the Electricity Reliability Coordination 
Council, Scott Segal, also testified regarding the potential 
adverse effects of higher energy costs on consumers and the 
economy, stating:
        [I]it should come as no surprise that higher 
        electricity prices are destructive to our economy. 
        Consider, residential consumers, small businesses, 
        hospitals, schools, farms, industrial operations all 
        depend on reliable and affordable electric power. 
        Higher prices disproportionately impact vulnerable 
        individuals, including the poor, the elderly, and those 
        on fixed incomes. One-quarter of Americans report 
        having problems paying for several basic necessities; 
        23 percent have difficulty in paying their utilities. 
        That is who is damaged when we don't fully take into 
        account the consumer impact of higher electricity 
        costs.
    EPA's major recent and pending rules affecting the power 
sector have the potential not only to raise energy prices for 
consumers, but also to adversely impact electric reliability. 
As of July 2013, 294 coal-fired electric generating units 
totaling 43,000 megawatts (MW) in 33 States have announced they 
were closing due, at least in part, to EPA policies. In 
November 2012, the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation issued its 2012 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 
concluding that over 70,000 MW of fossil-fuel fired generating 
capacity, which is predominantly coal-fired power plants, will 
retire over the next 10 years, with 90 percent retiring in the 
next 5 years, aligning with the compliance deadlines of EPA's 
Utility MACT rule. This will mean the loss of 20% of the 
nation's coal-fired generation by 2017.

What the Legislation Would Do

    Under H.R. 1582, EPA's billion-dollar energy-related rules 
would be subject to increased oversight and transparency 
regarding the costs, benefits and job impacts. H.R. 1582 would 
require EPA, in advance of finalizing such rules, to submit to 
Congress a report providing estimates of the total benefits of 
the rule, including an estimate of when such benefits are 
expected to be realized, and a description of the modeling, the 
assumptions, and the limitations due to uncertainty, 
speculation, or lack of information; and the employment 
impacts.
    Under H.R. 1582, EPA's billion-dollar energy-related rules 
would be subject to heightened interagency review by the 
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with other relevant 
agencies. As an initial matter, before such a rule could be 
promulgated as final by EPA, the Secretary of Energy, in 
consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), would 
determine whether the rule will cause: (a) any increase in 
energy prices for consumers, including low-income households, 
small businesses, and manufacturers; (b) any impact on fuel 
diversity of the Nation's electricity generation portfolio or 
on national, regional, or local electric reliability; (c) 
adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use due to 
the economic or technical infeasibility of implementing the 
rule; or (d) any other adverse effect on energy supply, 
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply and 
increased use of foreign supplies).
    The bill would further require that if the Secretary of 
Energy determines that the rule will cause such an increase, 
impact, or effect, then the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Secretary of Labor, and the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration, would be required to determine whether such 
increase, impact, or effect will cause significant adverse 
effects to the economy, taking into consideration the costs and 
benefits of the rule and limitations in calculating such costs 
and benefits due to uncertainty, speculation, or lack of 
information, and the positive and negative impacts on economic 
indicators, including those related to gross domestic product, 
unemployment, wages, consumer prices, and business and 
manufacturing activity.
    An independent review led by the Department of Energy (DOE) 
is appropriate because the department has primary 
responsibility for the coordination of national energy policy. 
The DOE Organization Act directs the department to assure 
``coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy 
policy and programs.'' Consultation with the EIA and FERC, and 
thereafter with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce and the 
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator, in 
addition to EPA, is also appropriate and consistent with their 
statutory missions. In particular, EIA is the primary Federal 
government authority on energy statistics and analysis, and it 
is the nation's premier source of energy information. The FERC 
is an independent agency that regulates the interstate 
transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity, and also 
regulates natural gas and hydropower projects. The Department 
of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics is an independent 
statistical agency and is the principal Federal agency 
responsible for measuring labor market activity, working 
conditions, and price changes in the economy. The Department of 
Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis is one of the world's 
leading statistical agencies, and provides estimates of gross 
domestic product and related measures. Finally, the SBA is an 
independent agency of the Federal government established to 
aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small 
business concerns, including by assessing the impact of the 
regulatory burdens on small business.
    The bill is prospective and affects only future EPA energy-
related billion-dollar rules. The greater transparency and 
heightened interagency review of EPA's major energy rules will 
not prevent any of these rules from going forward except those 
that, in the determination of the President's Energy Secretary, 
after consulting with other relevant agencies, would cause 
significant adverse effects to the economy. Nothing in the bill 
will affect any existing or recently adopted EPA regulations.

Uncertainties and Limitations in EPA's Cost and Benefit Analyses

    Greater transparency and interagency review of EPA's 
significant review is warranted not only because of the 
significant adverse impacts to jobs and the economy, but also 
because significant concerns have been raised regarding EPA's 
cost estimating practices, including its failure to assess 
fully the potential costs and potential job impacts.
    Economist and Senior Vice President of NERA Economic 
Consulting, Dr. Anne Smith, testified that ``[f]or major 
energy-related regulations, an analysis that accounts for 
secondary or ripple effects through the full economy is the 
only type that can be expected to provide a balanced 
understanding of overall economy impacts.'' However, EPA 
typically has not reported the full price effects and other 
costs that ripple through the wider economy in its regulatory 
impact analyses. EPA instead approaches cost estimation in a 
manner that restricts analysis to limited sectors, even though 
it has developed economy-wide modeling capability that could 
provide fuller information about the price and employment 
impacts of its rules. Additionally, Dr. Smith testified that 
for its major Clean Air Act regulations, since 2010 EPA has 
calculated employment impact estimates using a simplistic 
multiplier formula that is ``guaranteed to estimate that each 
new regulation will result in an increase in jobs.''
    The Director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating 
Council, Scott Segal, similarly raised concerns that EPA does 
not fully consider all compliance costs. He stated that ``when 
looking at cost[,] EPA only considers direct compliance costs, 
but dismisses risks associated with electric reliability and 
energy prices, and how that affects poor and minority families 
or U.S. business competitiveness. In effect, EPA is inflating 
the benefits of its rules while ignoring the costs.''
    Greater transparency and interagency review is also 
warranted due to the limitations and uncertainties associated 
with EPA's benefits estimates, including for the agency's major 
Clean Air Act rules, which are primarily attributable to 
reductions in fine particulate matter. As OMB recently stated 
in a Draft 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of 
Federal Regulations: ``It is important to emphasize that the 
large estimated benefits of EPA rules are mostly attributable 
to the reduction in public exposure to a single air pollutant: 
fine particulate matter.'' Further, OMB stated:
        More research remains to be done on several key 
        questions, including analysis of the health benefits 
        associated with reduction of [particulate matter], 
        which as noted, drive a large percentage of aggregate 
        benefits from air pollution controls. . . . With 
        respect to particulate matter, additional research 
        would be exceedingly valuable to clarify and resolve 
        relevant scientific issues and to make further progress 
        on the relationship between particulate matter and 
        health improvements.
    Public health experts also have raised concerns regarding 
the limitations and uncertainties in EPA's benefits estimates 
based on reductions in particulate matter. For example, in a 
hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on June 28, 
2012, relating to EPA's proposed particulate matter standards, 
Dr. Peter Valberg, former member of the Harvard School of 
Public Health, testified that ``there are major questions about 
EPA's forecast of serious health effects caused by small 
increments in [particulate matter] levels at concentrations 
close to the [national ambient air quality standards]. EPA's 
statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and 
uncertainties.'' Similarly, Dr. Tony Cox of the Colorado School 
of Public Health testified in a hearing before the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Power on June 19, 2012, relating to EPA 
regulations that ``[t]he use of statistical associations to 
address causal questions about health effects of regulation is 
not only technically incorrect, but, as practiced by EPA and 
others, is also highly misleading to policy makers.''
    In addition to questions concerning EPA's claimed benefits 
associated with reductions in fine particulate matter near or 
below national ambient air quality levels, questions have also 
been raised regarding the use by EPA and other Federal agencies 
of ``Social Cost of Carbon'' (SCC) estimates to calculate large 
climate benefits for new rules. EPA describes the SCC as 
follows:
        EPA and other federal agencies use the social cost of 
        carbon (SCC) to estimate the climate benefits of 
        rulemakings. The SCC is an estimate of the economic 
        damages associated with a small increase in carbon 
        dioxide emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a 
        given year. This dollar figure also represents the 
        value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction 
        (i.e. the benefit of a CO2 reduction).'' EPA states 
        that ``the models estimate damages occurring after the 
        emission release and into the future, often as far out 
        as the year 2300.
    Recently, and without any public review or comment, the 
Administration increased its SCC estimates from approximately 
$21/per ton in 2010 to approximately $36/per ton in 2013, and 
disclosed the new projections in the context of a DOE 
rulemaking relating to microwave ovens (see 78 Fed. Reg. 36316, 
36349 (June 17, 2013)). While the new increased estimates are 
likely to be used to justify expensive new EPA greenhouse gas 
rules relating to power plants, the new SCC estimates are 
highly speculative. DOE stated in its recent microwave oven 
rule:
        A recent report from the National Research Council 
        points out that any assessment will suffer from 
        uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information 
        about: (1) Future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) 
        the effects of past and future emissions on the climate 
        system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the 
        physical and biological environment; and (4) the 
        translation of these environmental impacts into 
        economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify 
        and monetize the harms associated with climate change 
        will raise serious questions of science, economics, and 
        ethics and should be viewed as provisional. Id. at 
        36349.
    H.R. 1582 will help ensure that before EPA finalizes major 
billion-dollar energy rules, the uncertainties and limitations 
in EPA's estimates of both costs and benefits will be subject 
to additional Congressional oversight and public review and 
greater consideration in the interagency review process for 
EPA's most expensive energy-related rules.

Supporters of the Legislation

    Supporters of the legislation include:
           American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
           American Forest and Paper Association
           American Foundry Society
           American Fuel and Petrochemical 
        Manufacturers
           Americans for Prosperity
           Association of Washington Business
           Automotive Recyclers Association
           California Manufacturers & Technology 
        Association
           Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry
           Electric Reliability Coordinating Council
           Foundry Association of Michigan
           Indiana Cast Metals Association
           Industrial Energy Consumers of America
           Iowa Association of Business and Industry
           Metals Service Center Institute
           Mississippi Manufacturers Association
           National Association of Manufacturers
           National Mining Association
           National Oilseed Processors Association
           Non-Ferrous Founders' Society
           Ohio Cast Metals Association
           Pennsylvania Foundry Association
           Portland Cement Association
           State Chamber of Oklahoma
           Texas Cast Metals Association
           Textile Rental Services Association
           The Fertilizer Institute
           Window and Door Manufacturers Association
           Wisconsin Cast Metals Association
           Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce

                                HEARINGS

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on the 
``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013'' on April 12, 2013, and 
received testimony from:
           Paul N. Cicio, President, Industrial Energy 
        Consumers of America;
           Brendan Williams, Vice President of 
        Advocacy, American Fuel & Peterochemical Manufacturers;
           Scott H. Segal, Director, Electric 
        Reliability Coordinating Council;
           Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, 
        NERA Economic Consulting;
           William N. Rom, M.D., Professor of Medicine 
        and Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine on 
        behalf of American Thoracic Society; and,
           Rena Steinzor, President, Center for 
        Progressive Reform.
    The EPA and U.S. Department of Energy were invited to 
testify but declined. EPA provided a written statement for the 
record.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On April 12, 2013, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
held a hearing on the discussion draft of the ``Energy 
Consumers Relief Act of 2013.'' On April 16, 2013, 
Representative Cassidy introduced the legislation as H.R. 1582.
    On July 9, 2013 and July 10, 2013, the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power met in open markup session, and reported the 
bill favorably, by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 10 nays. 
During the markup, two amendments were offered, and one 
amendment was rejected and one amendment was adopted by a voice 
vote.
    On July 16, 2013 and July 17, 2013, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce met in open markup session. During the markup, 
four amendments were offered, of which one was adopted, by 
voice vote, and three amendments were rejected by roll call 
votes. A motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 1582, reported to 
the House, with amendment, was agreed to by a record vote of 25 
ayes and 18 nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII 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. 1582, reported to the House, 
with amendment, was agreed to by a record vote of 25 ayes and 
18 nays. The following reflects the recorded votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:


                      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. 1582 provides for greater transparency and interagency 
review of EPA energy-related rules estimated to cost $1 billion 
or more.

   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. 
1582, Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, would result in no 
new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or 
tax expenditures or revenues.

       EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 1582, Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, 
contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 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:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1582, the Energy 
Consumers Relief Act of 2013.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. 
Mehlman and Megan Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                    Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1582--Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013

    H.R. 1582 would require that before the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) finalizes any energy-related rule with 
an estimated regulatory cost of more than $1 billion, including 
indirect costs, EPA must submit a report to the Congress 
detailing the rule's potential costs and other impacts on jobs 
and gasoline prices. The legislation also would require the 
Department of Energy (DOE), in consultation with other 
agencies, to prepare an independent analysis of those rules to 
determine if they would adversely affect the economy. EPA would 
be prohibited from finalizing any rule that DOE determines 
would have significant adverse effects to the economy.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1582 would cost $35 
million over the 2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 1582 would not affect 
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    CBO's estimate is based on information from EPA about the 
anticipated number of energy-related rules that would be 
subject to the requirements under this bill over the next five 
years. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1582 would not have 
a significant impact on spending by EPA because most of the 
analysis that it would need to complete under H.R. 1582 will 
already be conducted to meet similar reporting requirements 
under existing Executive Orders. CBO estimates, however, that 
DOE would need additional appropriations of about $7 million 
annually to meet new and expanded reporting requirements under 
H.R. 1582. Those costs would cover staff and support costs for 
about five studies per year that would be similar in scope to 
recent DOE analyses of proposed energy legislation. That 
estimate is based on information from the Energy Information 
Administration, the organization within DOE that would be 
responsible for completing the analyses and reports.
    H.R. 1582 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 
Mehlman and Megan Carroll. The estimate was 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.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.R. 1582 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1582 does not 
direct to be completed any rule making within the meaning of 5 
U.S.C. 551.

                      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 THE LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1582, the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013'' 
would provide for greater transparency and interagency 
coordination by prohibiting EPA from finalizing certain energy-
related rules if the Secretary of Energy determines the rule 
would cause significant adverse effects to the economy. 
Specific provisions include the following:
    Section 1: This section provides the short title of 
``Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013.''
    Section 2: This section prohibits the EPA Administrator 
from finalizing any energy-related rule estimated to cost more 
than $1 billion if the Secretary of Energy determines that the 
rule will cause significant adverse effects to the economy.
    Section 3: This section provides for certain reports and 
determinations prior to the finalizing of EPA energy-related 
rules estimated to cost more than $1 billion. Section 3(1) of 
the Act directs that before such a rule may be promulgated as 
final, the EPA Administrator shall submit a report to Congress 
(and transmit a copy to the Secretary of Energy) that includes: 
(1) a copy of the rule; (2) a concise general statement 
relating to the rule; (3) an estimate of the total costs of the 
rule, including direct and indirect costs; (4) an estimate of 
the total benefits of the rule, an estimate of when such 
benefits are expected to be realized, and a description of the 
modeling, the assumptions, and the limitations due to 
uncertainty, speculation, or lack of information associated 
with the estimates; and (5) a detailed description of the 
employment effects, including potential job losses and shifts 
in employment, that may result from implementation or 
enforcement of the rule.
    Section 3(2) provides that before such a rule may be 
promulgated as final by EPA, the Secretary of Energy, in 
consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and 
the Energy Information Administration, shall prepare an 
independent analysis to determine whether the rule will cause: 
(a) any increase in energy prices for consumers, including low-
income households, small businesses, and manufacturers; (b) any 
impact on fuel diversity of the nation's electricity generation 
portfolio or on national, regional, or local electric 
reliability; (c) any adverse effect on energy supply, 
distribution or use due to the economic or technical 
infeasibility of implementing the rule; or (d) any other 
adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use 
(including a shortfall in supply and increased use of foreign 
supplies).
    Section 3(3) specifies that if the Secretary of Energy 
determines that the rule will cause an increase, impact, or 
effect described in section 3(2), then the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary 
of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and the Administrator of 
the Small Business Administration, shall: (a) determine whether 
such increase, impact, or effect will cause significant adverse 
effects to the economy, taking into consideration the costs and 
benefits of the rule and limitations in calculating such costs 
and benefits due to uncertainty, speculation, or lack of 
information, and the positive and negative impacts on economic 
indicators, including those related to gross domestic product, 
unemployment, wages, consumer prices, and business and 
manufacturing activity; and (b) publish the results of such 
determination in the Federal Register.
    Section 4: This section contains the following definitions:
    1. ``Direct costs'' and ``indirect costs'' have the 
meanings given such terms in chapter 8 of EPA's ``Guidelines 
for Preparing Economic Analyses'' dated December 17, 2010.
    2. ``Energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more 
than $1 billion'' means a rule of the EPA that (a) regulates 
any aspect of the production, supply, distribution, or use of 
energy or provides for such regulation by States or other 
governmental entities; and (b) is estimated by the 
Administrator of EPA or the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to impose direct costs and indirect 
costs, in the aggregate, of more than $1 billion.
    3. ``Rule'' has the meaning given to such term in section 
551 of title 5, U.S. Code.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                               I. Summary

    Supporters of H.R. 1582 claim that this bill simply 
provides more transparency of major energy-related rules. In 
reality, the bill indefinitely delays or even blocks critical 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules to protect human 
health, the environment, and our climate. This bill gives the 
Energy Secretary unprecedented authority to veto EPA rules that 
the agency proposed under the authority of the Clean Air Act, 
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other cornerstone 
environmental statutes. It also creates a duplicative 
regulatory review process that is less transparent than the 
rigorous review process already used by EPA and other federal 
agencies.

              II. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1582

                              A. SECTION 2

    Section 2 of the bill prohibits the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) from finalizing any ``energy-related 
rule'' that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion if the 
Secretary of Energy determines that the rule will cause 
``significant adverse effects to the economy.''
    The term ``significant adverse effects to the economy'' is 
not defined. In addition, the term ``energy-related rule'' is 
broadly defined to include any rule that ``regulates any aspect 
of the production, supply, distribution, or use of energy or 
provides for such regulation by States or other governmental 
entities.'' Any public health rule focused on air pollution 
likely would be an ``energy-related rule'' under this broad 
definition. This definition also could apply to rules issued 
under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water 
Act, Superfund, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
pertaining to pollution and waste from energy-related 
activities such as electricity generation, coal mining, and oil 
and gas drilling.
    The bill applies to energy-related rules with an estimated 
cost of more than $1 billion but is silent on the time period 
associated with such costs. It is unclear whether the bill 
refers to annual costs of $1 billion or cumulative costs of $1 
billion over some unspecified period of time. If it applies to 
rules with annual costs of more than $1 billion, it would have 
affected about a dozen major rules promulgated during the last 
decade. If it applies to rules with cumulative costs of more 
than $1 billion, it would have applied to a much larger number 
of rules over the last decade and could apply to a significant 
percentage of EPA rules going forward.

                              B. SECTION 3

    Section 3 prevents EPA from issuing a final energy-related 
rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion until three 
actions are taken. The legislation does not establish deadlines 
for the completion of any of these actions.
    First, EPA is required to submit a report to Congress that 
contains an estimate of the costs of the rule (both direct and 
indirect) and a description of potential negative effects of 
the rule, including increased energy prices or potential job 
losses. During the Subcommittee on Energy and Power markup of 
the bill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) offered an amendment to 
provide that this report to Congress includes an estimate of 
the total benefits of the rule, as well as a description of the 
modeling, assumptions, and speculation associated with those 
benefits. The amendment passed by voice vote.
    Second, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Administrator of 
the Energy Information Administration, is required to prepare 
an ``independent analysis'' to determine whether the rule will 
cause any increase in energy prices, any impact on fuel 
diversity of the nation's electricity generation portfolio or 
on national, regional, or local electric reliability, or any 
other adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. It 
is unclear what would constitute an impact on fuel diversity. 
Mr. Barton's subcommittee amendment did not expand the scope of 
this analysis to include any benefits of EPA rules on energy 
prices, reliability, or energy supply and use, such as 
increased electricity generation from renewable sources or 
improvements in energy efficiency that lower costs for 
consumers.
    Third, if the Secretary of Energy determines that the rule 
will cause any such increase, impact, or effect, then the 
Secretary must determine whether such increase, impact, or 
effect will cause ``significant adverse effects to the 
economy.'' In making this determination, the Secretary of 
Energy is required to consider impacts on gross domestic 
product, unemployment, wages, consumer prices, and business and 
manufacturing activity.
    During the Subcommittee on Energy and Power markup of the 
bill, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) offered an amendment to ensure 
that the Secretary of Energy considers the benefits of the EPA 
rule when conducting the independent analysis and when making 
the determination about the rule's impact on the economy. As 
part of the independent analysis, the Secretary would have to 
examine potential benefits such as prevention of premature 
deaths, asthma attacks, and other respiratory disease; a 
decline in lost school and work days and hospital visits due to 
pollution-induced health effects; a decrease in greenhouse gas 
emissions and toxic air pollutants; any increase in energy 
efficiency for consumers or deployment of renewable energy; and 
any increase in employment related to upgrading power plants 
and industrial facilities or installing pollution control 
equipment. The Secretary of Energy also would be required to 
consider the rule's positive impacts on economic indicators, in 
addition to any negative impacts, when making his determination 
about the overall impact of the rule on the economy. Rep. 
Rush's amendment was defeated.
    During the full Committee markup of the bill, Rep. Joe 
Barton (R-TX) offered another amendment that addressed some but 
not all of the concerns raised by Rep. Rush during the 
subcommittee markup. The amendment passed by voice vote. Rep. 
Barton's amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to look at 
the costs and benefits of the EPA rule--as well as the 
uncertainty inherent in those estimates--when determining the 
rule's macroeconomic impact. Rep. Barton's amendment does not 
require the Secretary of Energy to include an examination of 
the EPA rule's benefits in the independent analysis, leaving it 
to focus exclusively on the rule's potential adverse effects on 
energy costs, energy supply, and electric reliability. This 
will result in a skewed Department of Energy analysis that 
ignores important benefits of EPA rules.

                   III. Potential Impact of H.R. 1582

    The bill will broadly undermine important public health and 
environmental protections by indefinitely delaying or blocking 
critical EPA rules and establishing a costly and duplicative 
regulatory review process.

 A. THE BILL GIVES THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY UNPRECEDENTED AUTHORITY TO 
                             VETO EPA RULES

    The bill provides the Secretary of Energy with 
unprecedented authority to effectively veto EPA public health 
rules. If the Secretary of Energy determines that a rule would 
cause any ``significant adverse effects to the economy,'' EPA 
would be blocked from finalizing the rule. Because 
``significant'' is not defined, the Secretary of Energy's 
authority is unbounded and the determination will be 
subjective. This bill gives the Secretary of Energy's opinion 
more weight than the requirements of the Clean Air Act, Clean 
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other cornerstone 
environmental statutes.
    Moreover, the bill requires the Secretary of Energy to base 
this determination on two fundamentally flawed analyses. The 
Secretary first must complete an ``independent analysis'' that 
looks only at any negative impacts of the EPA rule without 
considering the benefits. Using this skewed analysis as a 
guide, the Secretary must then determine whether or not the 
rule will cause a significant adverse effect on the economy--a 
macroeconomic analysis far afield from the Department of 
Energy's area of expertise.
    During the full Committee markup of H.R. 1582, Ranking 
Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment to strike this 
section of the bill, eliminating the Department of Energy's 
authority to veto EPA rules. During debate on the amendment, 
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) acknowledged that this is the heart of 
the bill, stating that if his colleagues ``accept the Waxman 
amendment, there's no reason for the bill.''\1\ Ranking Member 
Waxman's amendment was defeated, with all Republican members of 
the Committee who were present voting against it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Statement of the Honorable Joe 
Barton, Chairman Emeritus, Markup of H.R. 698, H.R. 1900, H.R. 2094, 
H.R. 2052, H.R. 83, and H.R. 1582, 113th Cong. (Jul. 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. THE BILL COULD INDEFINITELY DELAY OR BLOCK CRITICAL EPA RULES

    The bill bars EPA from issuing a final rule before EPA 
submits its report to Congress and the Department of Energy 
completes its independent analysis and, if applicable, makes 
its determination as to whether the rule would cause 
significant adverse effects to the economy. The bill, however, 
establishes no deadline for EPA to submit the report or the 
Department of Energy to complete the study or to make the 
determination. This appears to eliminate any statutory or 
judicial deadlines for rules covered by the bill, allowing for 
indefinite delay of these rules. Even if the Secretary 
ultimately determines that the EPA rule will not cause 
significant adverse effects to the economy, thereby allowing 
the EPA rule to proceed, the EPA rule could have been delayed 
by months or years. The Department of Energy's lack of 
expertise in macroeconomic analysis, the required consultations 
with six other agencies, and the absence of additional funding 
to complete the newly required analysis could lengthen the time 
it takes to complete the analysis and therefore lengthen the 
delay of important public health rules.
    This indefinite delay--and potential veto--would have real-
life, tangible impacts on human health and the environment in 
the United States. In his opening statement for the full 
Committee markup of the bill, Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield 
(R-KY) explained that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
(MATS) rule was a good example of the type of rule this 
legislation was developed to address.\2\ If this bill had been 
law in 2011, EPA could have been delayed or blocked from 
finalizing the MATS rule, which set emissions limits for new 
coal- and oil-fired power plants for mercury and other toxic 
air pollutants. EPA estimates that these new standards will 
save up to 11,000 lives, prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, and 
avert 540,000 missed work or sick days, each year. In addition, 
it will reduce children's exposure to mercury, which is a 
powerful neurological toxin that can cause developmental delays 
and loss of IQ.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Statement of the Honorable Ed 
Whitfield, Markup of H.R. 698, H.R. 1900, H.R. 2094, H.R. 2052, H.R. 
83, and H.R. 1582, 113th Cong. (Jul. 16, 2013).
    \3\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Benefits and 
Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants (Dec. 21, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill would certainly apply to EPA's recently proposed 
Tier 3 vehicle emissions and fuel standards program. More than 
150 million Americans still breathe unhealthy levels of air 
pollution. Motor vehicles are a significant source of this 
pollution, especially in urban areas. EPA has proposed to lower 
the permissible sulfur content of gasoline, which would allow 
vehicles to operate more efficiently and pollute less. EPA 
estimates that this rule will prevent 22,000 asthma attacks, 
2,400 premature deaths, and 1.8 million lost school days, work 
days, and restricted-activity days each year.\4\ These are 
human health benefits that could be delayed or perhaps 
permanently lost if this bill becomes law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Announcement: 
EPA Proposes Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (Mar. 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the full Committee markup of H.R. 1582, Rep. Paul 
Tonko (D-NY) offered an amendment providing that the bill would 
not apply to EPA rules that will reduce the incidence of 
cancer, premature death, asthma attacks, or respiratory disease 
in children. Rep. Tonko's amendment was defeated, with all 
Republican members of the Committee who were present voting 
against it.
    If this bill had been law in 2012, EPA and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may have been 
delayed or blocked from finalizing rules to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions and improve the fuel economy of passenger 
vehicles and light duty trucks for model years 2017 through 
2025. Combined with the first phase of the program, which 
applied standards for model years 2012 through 2016, the joint 
EPA and NHTSA rule will result in model year 2025 vehicles 
emitting one-half of the greenhouse emissions of a model year 
2010 vehicle.\5\ Consumers that buy the more efficient vehicles 
also will save thousands of dollars at the gasoline pump over 
the lifetime of those vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: EPA and NHTSA 
Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for 
Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks (Aug. 2012).
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the full Committee markup of H.R. 1582, Rep. Bobby 
Rush (D-IL) offered an amendment providing that the bill would 
not apply to EPA rules that will result in consumers saving at 
the gasoline pump. Rep. Rush's amendment was defeated, with all 
Republican members of the Committee who were present voting 
against it.

  C. THE BILL CREATES A DUPLICATIVE BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS THAT IS LESS 
                              TRANSPARENT

    During the full Committee markup of the bill, Chairman Fred 
Upton claimed that this legislation will ``finally put some 
interagency checks and balances on the EPA, an agency whose 
transparency in recent years has been woefully inadequate.''\7\ 
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) stated, ``EPA has almost unchecked 
authority under current law to propose and implement these 
rules with no real requirement that they conduct any kind of a 
cost benefit analysis.''\8\ These statements overlook the 
exhaustive, transparent process EPA must undertake for every 
major rule it proposes. In fact, the bill would make the 
regulatory process less transparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Statement of the Honorable 
Fred Upton, Chairman, Markup of H.R. 698, H.R. 1900, H.R. 2094, H.R. 
2052, H.R. 83, and H.R. 1582, 113th Cong. (Jul. 16, 2013).
    \8\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Statement of the Honorable Joe 
Barton, Chairman Emeritus, Markup of H.R. 698, H.R. 1900, H.R. 2094, 
H.R. 2052, H.R. 83, and H.R. 1582, 113th Cong. (Jul. 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under current law and practice, EPA must meet numerous 
statutory and administrative requirements for economic impact 
analysis and public review of proposed rules before they are 
finalized.
    Executive Order 12866 states, as one of the principles of 
regulation, that agencies ``shall assess both the costs and the 
benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some 
costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt 
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the 
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.''\9\ 
Executive Order 12866 also grants the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and 
Budget the authority to review any new rule deemed 
``significant,'' defined in part as a rule that may have ``an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments 
or communities.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Exec. Order No. 12866, at section 1(b)(6), 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 
(Jan. 21, 2011).
    \10\Id. at section 3(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these economically significant rules, EPA must provide 
OIRA with an assessment and, to the extent possible, a 
quantification of the benefits of the proposed rule, such as 
benefits to human health and the environment, and the costs of 
the proposed rule, such as costs of complying with the 
regulation and adverse effects on economic productivity, 
employment, and competitiveness. EPA also must assess the costs 
and benefits of potential alternatives to the proposed rule and 
explain why the proposal is the preferred alternative.\11\ EPA 
compiles this information into a Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
which is issued for public comment as part of the proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id. at section 6(a)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1582 requires the Department of Energy to examine the 
potential impact of the EPA rule on energy supply, use, 
reliability, and prices. EPA noted that Executive Order 13211 
already requires the agency to examine energy effects, 
including ``impacts on energy prices and output, changes in 
electricity generation mix, impacts on reserve margins for 
reliability, and other energy-related metrics where relevant 
for regulations.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Statement for the Record, 
Hearing on H.R. __, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, 113th Cong. (Apr. 
12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other statutes that apply to EPA rulemakings include the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, requiring federal agencies to collect 
information from entities in the least burdensome way; the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, requiring federal agencies to assess 
and minimize the impact of a proposed rule on small businesses 
and other small entities; the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 
requiring federal agencies to assess the effects of their 
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector; numerous executive orders pertaining to the 
impacts of federal rules on particular populations; and other 
statutes.\13\ According to the Government Accountability 
Office, these requirements are ``clearly voluminous and require 
a wide range of procedural, consultative, and analytical action 
on the part of the agencies.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Congressional Research Service, The Federal Rulemaking Process: 
An Overview (Feb. 22, 2011) (RL32240).
    \14\Government Accountability Office, Testimony of Victor Rezendes 
before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of 
Representatives, Federal Rulemaking: Procedural and Analytical 
Requirements at OSHA and Other Agencies (Jun. 14, 2001) (GAO-01-852T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA also must submit its rules for broader public comment, 
giving key stakeholders and concerned citizens the opportunity 
to weigh in. EPA then has to respond to those comments when 
finalizing the rule.
    In addition, OIRA manages an extensive interagency review 
process to allow other agencies to comment on EPA rules prior 
to their proposal and finalization. H.R. 1582 would require the 
Department of Energy, which already has the opportunity to 
review EPA rules as part of the interagency review process, to 
conduct another analysis of the EPA rule. The bill also 
requires the Department of Energy to consult with other federal 
agencies when conducting this new analysis, even though these 
agencies already have the opportunity to review and comment on 
EPA rules as part of the interagency review process.
    H.R. 1582 creates a parallel and cumbersome regulatory 
process that duplicates the transparent and rigorous process 
that already exists. EPA commented that the bill ``would waste 
limited analytical resources on duplicative analysis that could 
needlessly delay important public health protections at an 
additional cost to taxpayers.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Statement for the Record, 
Hearing on H.R. __, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, 113th Cong. (Apr. 
12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill actually makes the regulatory process less 
transparent, contrary to the stated intentions of the majority. 
H.R. 1582 requires the Secretary of Energy to complete an 
independent analysis of the EPA rule's potential impact on 
energy supply, use, prices, and reliability, but the bill does 
not require the Secretary to disclose the methodology he uses 
to complete this analysis. The bill also does not require the 
Secretary to solicit public comment on the analysis and respond 
to those comments.
    The Secretary then must use this analysis, which was not 
subject to public comment, to determine whether or not the rule 
would be blocked because it will have a significant adverse 
effect on the economy. This Secretary's veto determination also 
is not subject to public comment.
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.
                                   Henry A. Waxman,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Bobby L. Rush,
                                           Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
                                               on Energy and Power.
                             
                                               
