[House Report 115-999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { REPT. 115-999
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY IN ENERGY REGULATIONS ACT OF 2017
_______
November 2, 2018.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3117]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3117) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality from considering the social cost of
carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost of
nitrous oxide, in taking any action, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
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 and Honesty in Energy
Regulations Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) as a tool to justify Federal actions by the Secretary of
Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality to address greenhouse gas
emissions, including the regulation or prohibition of the
exploration, mining, production, and use of coal and other
fossil fuels as energy sources, the social cost of carbon, the
social cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous oxide
represent the hypothetical cost of 1 incremental ton of carbon
dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions in a given year;
(2) the document of the Office of Management and Budget
entitled ``Circular A-4'' and dated September 17, 2003--
(A) guides Federal agencies on the development of
regulatory impact analysis required under Executive
Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to regulatory
planning and review) and other authorities; and
(B) instructs Federal agencies to include discount
rates of 3 and 7 percent and evaluate the costs and
benefits of the regulatory action that accrue to
citizens and residents of the United States;
(3) first developed in 2009 by an interagency working group
that included the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Council on Environmental Quality,
the estimates for the social cost of carbon, as well as the
subsequently developed estimates of the social cost of methane,
and the social cost of nitrous oxide fail to comply with the 3-
and 7-percent discount rates prescribed by the document of the
Office of Management and Budget entitled ``Circular A-4'' and
dated September 17, 2003;
(4) while the document of the Office of Management and Budget
entitled ``Circular A-4'' and dated September 17, 2003,
specifies that, in carrying out an evaluation of the global
effects of a rule, regulation, or action, the evaluation shall
be reported separately from domestic costs and benefits of that
rule, regulation, or action, the social cost of carbon instead
calculates the global benefits in lieu of, not in addition to,
the domestic costs of a rule, regulation, or action;
(5) the use of the estimates for the social cost of carbon,
the social cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous
oxide, in the rulemakings of the Department of Energy, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality without
public notice and an adequate opportunity for comment violates
scientific peer review requirements;
(6) the Environmental Protection Agency relied upon the
social cost of methane, without appropriate peer review or
opportunity for public notice and comment, in justifying the
costs and benefits of the September 2015 proposed and the June
2016 finalized rules under the Clean Air Act for methane
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the
oil and gas sector;
(7) the Department of the Interior used the social cost of
methane estimate to justify the costs and benefits of the final
rule entitled ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject to
Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' (81 Fed. Reg. 83008
(November 18, 2016));
(8) the Council on Environmental Quality issued final
guidance on August 1, 2016, that, with respect to a monetary
cost-benefit analysis for an evaluation of a proposed Federal
action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), directed the head of each Federal agency
to include the social cost of carbon in any consideration of
the effect of greenhouse gas emissions;
(9) the regulations of the Department of Energy, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality are costing
families of the United States billions of dollars each year and
are justified, in large part, by the social cost of carbon, the
social cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous oxide;
(10) continued use of the social cost of carbon, the social
cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous oxide by the
Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of the Interior, and the Council on Environmental
Quality ignores sound science for the purpose of eliminating
the exploration, mining, production, and use of the abundant
domestic sources of fossil fuel energy of the United States;
(11) Executive Order 13777 (82 Fed. Reg. 12285 (March 1,
2017)) states that the policy of the United States is to
alleviate any unnecessary regulatory burden on the people of
the United States; and
(12) Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg.
16093 (March 31, 2017))--
(A) disbands the interagency working group referred
to in paragraph (3);
(B) withdraws the social cost of carbon, the social
cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous oxide;
and
(C) directs Federal agencies, in monetizing the value
of changes in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of a
regulation, to follow the document of the Office of
Management and Budget entitled ``Circular A-4'' and
dated September 17, 2003, by using the discount rates
specified in that document and evaluating only the
domestic effects of the regulation.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Social cost of carbon.--The term ``social cost of
carbon'' means--
(A) the estimate of the social cost of carbon
described in--
(i) the document entitled ``Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Carbon, United States
Government, in February 2010; or
(ii)(I) the document entitled ``Technical
Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Carbon, United States
Government, in May 2013 and revised in November
2013 and July 2015, and published and revised
by the Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government, in August 2016; or
(II) any successor or substantially related
document; and
(B) any other estimate of the monetized damages
associated with an incremental increase in carbon
dioxide emissions in a given year.
(3) Social cost of methane.--The term ``social cost of
methane'' means--
(A) the estimate of the social cost of methane
described in--
(i) the proposed rule entitled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New
and Modified Sources'' (80 Fed. Reg. 56593
(September 18, 2015));
(ii) the final rule entitled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources'' (81 Fed.
Reg. 35824 (June 3, 2016));
(iii) the regulatory impact analysis entitled
``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Oil
and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources'',
prepared by the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, in May
2016 and identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505-7630; or
(iv)(I) the document entitled ``Addendum to
Technical Support Document on Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under
Executive Order 12866: Application of the
Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government, in August 2016; or
(II) any successor or substantially related
document; and
(B) any other estimate of the monetized damages
associated with an incremental increase in methane
emissions in a given year.
(4) Social cost of nitrous oxide.--The term ``social cost of
nitrous oxide'' means--
(A) the estimate of the social cost of nitrous oxide
described in--
(i) the document entitled ``Addendum to
Technical Support Document on Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under
Executive Order 12866: Application of the
Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide'',
published by the Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government, in August 2016; or
(ii) any other successor or substantially
related document; and
(B) any other estimate of the monetized damages
associated with an incremental increase in nitrous
oxide emissions in a given year.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL COST OF GREENHOUSE GAS,
INCLUDING THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, THE SOCIAL
COST OF METHANE, AND THE SOCIAL COST OF NITROUS
OXIDE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, under any authority, the
Administrator, under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the
Secretary of the Interior, under any authority, and the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality, under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), may not consider the
social cost of carbon, social cost of methane, or social cost of
nitrous oxide--
(1) as part of any cost-benefit analysis required under--
(A) any law;
(B) Executive Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note;
relating to regulatory planning and review); or
(C) Executive Order 13563 (5 U.S.C. 601 note;
relating to improving regulation and regulatory
review);
(2) in any rulemaking;
(3) in the issuance of any guidance;
(4) in taking any other agency action; or
(5) as a justification for any rulemaking, guidance document,
or agency action.
(b) Exception.--The Secretary of Energy, the Administrator, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality may consider the social cost of carbon, social
cost of methane, or social cost of nitrous oxide in carrying out an
activity described in subsection (a) only if, after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) a Federal law is enacted that explicitly authorizes the
consideration; or
(2) the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator, the Secretary
of the Interior, or the Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality uses an estimate for the social cost of carbon, social
cost of methane, or social cost of nitrous oxide that--
(A) complies with the requirements of the document of
the Office of Management and Budget entitled ``Circular
A-4'' and dated September 17, 2003;
(B) uses the discount rates of 3 and 7 percent
specified in that document;
(C) considers only the domestic costs and benefits of
the activity; and
(D) uses only--
(i) the most up to date and empirically
estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity
distributions; and
(ii) realistic time horizons.
(c) Restriction on Use of Estimates.--The Secretary of the Interior
and the Chair of the Council of Environmental Quality in carrying out
an activity described in subsection (a), may not use an estimate under
subsection (b)(2) for--
(1) the determination of indirect or cumulative effects;
(2) the determination of localized or regional impacts; and
(3) project-level review.
SEC. 5. REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator, in coordination and consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality, shall submit to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce and Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report describing the number of proposed and
final rulemakings, guidance documents, and agency actions that, since
January 2009, have used the social cost of carbon, the social cost of
methane, or the social cost of nitrous oxide, including the use of the
social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost
of nitrous oxide as part of any cost-benefit analysis required under
Executive Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to regulatory
planning and review) or other relevant authority.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3117 is to prohibit the Secretary of
Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality from considering the social
cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost
of nitrous oxide, in taking any action.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The ``social cost of carbon dioxide'' (SC-CO2) allows
agencies to compare the ``benefits'' of emission reductions
with the costs of mitigation.\1\ The SC-CO2 has been used by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies
for regulatory actions that are subject to Executive Order
12866.\2\ That Order directs agencies ``to assess both the
costs and benefits of the intended regulation. . . .''\3\ Prior
to 2009, multiple federal agencies, including the EPA, began
developing their own analyses of the SC-CO2 as part of the
rulemaking process because of a November 2007 Ninth Circuit
decision directing the Department of Transportation to consider
the SC-CO2 in a rulemaking process.\4\ The Ninth Circuit
premised this decision on an assumption that ``the value of
carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Jane A. Leggett, Social Costs of Carbon/Greenhouse Gas: Issues
for Congress (2017), http://www.crs.gov/Reports/
IF10625?source=search&guid=6e7f5979caa44d48bbd4928a85c5509b& index=0.
\2\Id.
\3\Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 FR 51735; October 4, (1993), https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf.
\4\Linda Tsang, Courts Evaluate How Federal Agencies Put a Price on
Carbon (2016), http://www.crs.gov/LegalSidebar/details/1684.
\5\Leggett, supra, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, an interagency working group was convened by the
Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to determine how best to monetize the net effects
(both positive and negative) of CO2 emissions and sought to
harmonize a range of different SC-CO2 values across multiple
federal agencies.\6\ The purpose of this process was to ensure
that agencies were using the best available information and to
promote consistency in the way agencies quantify the
``benefits'' of reducing CO2 emissions.\7\ The interagency
group was comprised of scientific and economic experts from the
White House and federal agencies, including: Council on
Environmental Quality, National Economic Council, Office of
Energy and Climate Change, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, EPA, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Energy, Transportation, and Treasury.\8\ The interagency group
identified a variety of assumptions, which EPA then used to
estimate the SC-CO2.\9\ EPA relied on three integrated
assessment models, which combined climate processes, economic
growth, and interactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Exec. Office of the Pres. Council on Environmental Quality,
Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in the
National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (2016). https://obama
whitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/
nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf.
\7\Id.
\8\Id.
\9\Id.
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This metric, named the social cost of carbon (SCC), was
used to validate many Obama administration environmental
regulations that target direct and indirect carbon dioxide
emissions from various sources. However, the SCC did not follow
the specific, longstanding guidelines set forth by OMB in
developing and calculating the SCC figures.\11\ As a result,
the estimates were significantly higher than they would have
been had OMB's guidance been followed. This in turn led to
highly questionable--and often misleading--claims regarding the
purported economic benefits that new regulations would provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See Id..; Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (2003),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its first use, the SCC has been re-calculated
multiple times to inflate the supposed cost of small increases
of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus, the purported monetary
benefits derived from reducing those emissions.\12\ For
example, the SCC metric was used to claim that EPA's Clean
Power Plan (CPP) would ``lead to climate and health benefits
worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in
2030.''\13\ However, the assumptions and parameters used to
calculate SCC overwhelmingly skewed the estimates in favor of
cutting carbon emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Social Cost of
Carbon--Estimating the Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Climate Change (2017), https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/
climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html.
\13\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FACT SHEET: Clean Power
Plan Benefits--Why We Need a Cleaner, More Efficient Power Sector,
Clean Power Plan (2015), https://
archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-
benefits.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic costs versus global benefits
During applications of SCC used to calculate the costs and
benefits of U.S. climate regulations, the monetary benefits
presented were global, not domestic.\14\ That is, in these
cost/benefit calculations, domestic costs were compared with
worldwide benefits. Even if the estimated benefits are
correct--a problematic premise in and of itself for many
reasons--such a juxtaposition is misleading, far overstating
the true benefits to the United States relative to the costs
that the American economy will incur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See Exec. Office of the Pres. Council on Environmental Quality,
supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the implicit argument made in weighing global
benefits versus domestic costs is that any domestic regulation
may be justifiable regardless of cost to our economy, if the
benefits reaped by citizens of other nations around the globe
outweigh the costs to the United States. For precisely this
reason, OMB's Circular A-4--designed to ensure sound regulatory
analysis by federal agencies--explicitly states: ``Your
analysis should focus on benefits and costs that accrue to
citizens and residents of the United States.''\15\ Previous SCC
calculations ignore this directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (2003), https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rates
Prior SCC calculations used favorable discount rates to
make the case for greater benefits. Discount rates are used to
estimate the value of actions taken today on the economy of the
future. Because of inflation and other factors, one dollar's
worth of benefit today is worth less. The higher the discount
rate, the lower the projected benefit's value in the future.
OMB's Circular A-4 explicitly states that ``a real discount
rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory
analysis.''\16\ Previous calculations of the SCC, however,
ignored this directive and instead opted to use the lower
discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent.\17\ The reason is
simple: using a 7 percent discount rate, as directed by OMB,
would lead to far smaller--or even negative--values for the
SCC, greatly diminishing the calculated ``benefits'' of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Office of Management and Budget, supra, note 15.
\17\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional concerns
There are other problems inherent to historical
applications of SCC as well, including the use of climate
modeling that likely misinterprets the sensitivity of the
earth's climate to increased carbon dioxide emissions; the use
of ``co-benefits'' of reductions of criteria pollutants such as
ozone and particulate matter in climate policies; the
projection of benefits over timelines that are decades longer
than any other time horizons used in federal cost/benefit
estimates; and failure to account for the economic benefits
resulting from the use of the energy leading to the governed
CO2 emissions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See Exec. Office of the Pres. Council on Environmental Quality,
supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3117
H.R. 3117 would require certain federal agencies to use
certain assumptions as part of their analysis if they consider
the social cost of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxide) as part of any rulemaking, guidance issuance
or justification for an agency action. Specifically, the
agencies are required to comply with OMB Circular A-4
(including discount rates), consider only domestic rather than
international costs and benefits; and use the most up-to-date
and empirically estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity
distributions and realistic time horizons for climate change
scenarios. As ordered reported, the bill places further
restrictions on the use of social cost of greenhouse gases
estimates by the Secretary of the Interior and Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality. The bill would also require
EPA to submit a report to Congress describing the number of
agency actions that have used estimates of the social costs of
greenhouse gases since 2009.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3117 was introduced on June 29, 2017, by Congressman
Evan H. Jenkins (R-WV). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and additionally referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources. Within the Committee on Natural
Resources, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources. On July 27, 2017, the Subcommittee held
a hearing on the bill. On November 29, 2017, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee
was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Greg Gianforte (R-MT) offered an amendment
designated 003; it was adopted by a roll call vote of 18 yeas
to 15 noes, as follows:
No other amendments were offered, and the bill, as amended,
was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives
by a roll call vote of 18 ayes to 15 noes on November 30, 2017,
as follows:
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 3117--Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2017
H.R. 3117 would require federal agencies to use certain
assumptions as part of their analysis when they consider the
social cost of greenhouse gases as part of any rulemaking or
justification for an agency action.\1\ For regulatory analysis,
federal agencies currently may use estimates of the social
costs of greenhouse gases as a way to quantify the costs or
benefits of regulations that increase or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; agencies consider those effects along with other
costs or benefits arising from proposed regulations. If federal
agencies continue to use estimates of the social costs of
greenhouse gases to evaluate a proposed rule or action, the
bill would require them to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, and the
social cost of nitrous oxide are estimates of the net present value of
economic and other damages caused by the climate change resulting from
one ton of each of those greenhouse gases being emitted into the
atmosphere in a given year. The estimates are expressed in terms of
dollars per ton of each gas and use discount rates to combine the cost
of damage incurred over long periods into a single, net-present-value
estimate of the costs of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use discount rates consistent with the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Circular A-4
guidance to federal agencies;\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Discount rates are used in cost-benefit analysis to account for
differences between cost and benefits over time, allowing for all
benefits and costs to be considered in equivalent units at the present
time. OMB's Circular A-4 instructs federal agencies to use discount
rates of both 3 percent and 7 percent as a default, base-case scenario
when performing cost-benefit analysis of all regulatory actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider only domestic, rather than
international, costs and benefits of the activity; and
Use only the most up-to-date and empirically
estimated climate sensitivity distributions and
realistic time horizons for climate change scenarios.
H.R. 3117 also would require the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to submit a report to the Congress describing the
number of agency actions that have used estimates of the social
costs of greenhouse gases since 2009.
The costs of implementing the bill would depend on the
extent to which federal agencies use estimates of the social
costs of greenhouse gases as part of the analysis of agency
actions. Based on a review of regulatory actions by federal
agencies in 2017 and using information from EPA, CBO expects
that federal agencies will continue to use estimates of the
social costs of greenhouse gases in the analysis of rules
during the 2018-2022 period. Executive Order 13783, issued in
2017, already requires federal agencies to use OMB's discount
rates and to quantify only the domestic costs and benefits when
using such social cost analysis.
To comply with the bill's requirement that estimates of the
social costs of greenhouse gases incorporate current
assumptions about climate sensitivity and realistic time
horizons, CBO expects that federal agencies would need to
update estimates at least once over the 2018-2022 period to
account for changes reported in the climate change literature.
An interagency estimate of the social cost of greenhouse gases
was first issued in 2010, and estimates were updated in 2013,
2015, and 2016. Based on information from EPA about the process
for past updates of the social costs of greenhouse gases, CBO
estimates that the update would cost $1 million over the 2018-
2022 period.
Enacting H.R. 3117 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3117 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 3117 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to prohibit the Secretary of Energy,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality from considering the social cost of
carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost of
nitrous oxide, in taking any action.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 3117 because it is counterproductive to
efforts to address climate change, one of the most pressing
environmental, economic, public health, and national security
issues of our time. Congressional Republicans have gotten used
to failing to act to either mitigate or prepare for the harmful
impacts of a changing climate, but with this bill they are
attempting to go backwards, and take away a scientifically-
derived and scientifically-endorsed tool for federal agencies
to measure the impacts of their actions on future generations.
Responding to disasters such as storms, floods, and fires
is a massive expense for the federal government: over $350
billion in the past decade, not including the responses to the
2017 hurricanes that battered Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Climate change will make these costs
rise through stronger storms and more intense fires, while
adding new costs for infrastructure replacement from rising sea
levels, additional health care due to worsening air quality,
new efforts to combat invasive species, and considerably more.
The Rhodium Group has estimated that by 2040, these costs could
add up to $316 billion each year, increasing to over 1 trillion
dollars annually by 2080.\1\ It will be up to our
grandchildren, and their grandchildren, to bear this burden
that we are placing on their shoulders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S Government Accountability Office, GAO-17-720, CLIMATE
CHANGE: Information on Potential Economic Effects Could Help Guide
Federal Efforts to Reduce Fiscal Exposure, September 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the social cost of carbon allows us to understand the
impacts that our decisions today will have on these generations
to come. To avoid doing so is morally unjustifiable. The lack
of certainty about the specific impacts of a single ton of
carbon dioxide emissions, which the Majority uses to excuse
complete inaction on the issue, is both a cop-out and
completely irrelevant. No one knows exactly how many years they
can add to their lives if they quit smoking, but that doesn't
keep people from making the effort. Climate change is already
occurring, and blithely ignoring how much worse we are making
it by refusing to consider the social cost of carbon is nothing
more than whistling past the graveyard.
While the underlying bill is bad in its own right, during
markup the Majority adopted an amendment that even eliminates
the ability to use outdated estimates of the social cost of
carbon for indirect effects, cumulative effects, localized
impacts, regional impacts, and project-level review.
Understanding cumulative effects of decisions is a bedrock
principle of federal environmental review, and ``project-level
review'' would appear to eliminate the ability to do any sort
of analysis whatsoever. The amendment simply digs the hole in
the sand even deeper for Republicans to hide their heads in.
For these reasons, and to protect the health and economic
well-being of future generations, we oppose H.R. 3117.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Alan Lowenthal.
Nanette Barragan.
A. Donald McEachin.
Jared Huffman.
Colleen Hanabusa.
Darren Soto.
[all]