Skip to content

March 26, 2014

Inhofe Introduces Bill to Enforce EPA to Report Job Losses Caused by Rules

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today introduced the EPA Employment Impact Analysis Act, a bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from finalizing any major regulation until the agency analyzes the economic impact of its current air regulations as required under Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. This bill is cosponsored by 29 additional senators, which include Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), David Vitter (R-La.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

 "The EPA does not know the full cost of its existing regulations, yet it continues to create and implement new ones to the detriment of job creation and economic opportunity in the U.S.," said Inhofe. "While various federal requirements force the EPA to disclose the impact of its regulations, the agency has systematically distorted their findings. One way it has been doing this is by failing to comply with Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act signed into law in 1977. Under this law, the EPA is required to report how its air regulations are affecting job creation across the entire economy. The EPA has not once abided by this provision and failed to complete a single analysis on its air rules to date. Today, 29 of my Senate colleagues have joined me in introducing legislation that will prohibit the EPA from finalizing any major regulation under the Clean Air Act until the EPA completes the mandated analysis for its air rules currently being enforced. Throughout this year and with the help of many of my colleagues, I will be pursuing every possible avenue to enforce accountability and transparency in the EPA for the sake of our nation's future prosperity and energy security."

Inhofe's legislation cites a number of examples where the EPA concluded that a regulation would result in the creation of jobs, yet the National Economic Research Associates (NERA)  Economic Consulting firm, using a "whole economy" model, reported that the same regulation would result in thousands of job losses. Below are the following examples: 

  • Utility MACT rule (77 Fed. Reg. 9301): EPA's analysis of the Utility MACT rule estimated that implementation of the final rule would result in the creation of 46,000 temporary construction jobs and 8,000 net new permanent jobs. NERA's whole economy analysis found that the rule would have a negative impact on the income of workers in an amount equivalent to 180,000 to 215,00 lost jobs in 2014, and 50,000 to 85,000 lost jobs each year thereafter. 
  • Cross State Air Pollution rule (76 Fed. Reg. 48208): The EPA's analysis of the Cross State Air Pollution rule estimated that implementation of the final rule would result in the creation of 700 jobs per year. NERA 's whole economy analysis found that the rule would result in the elimination of a total of 34,000 jobs from 2013 to 2037.
  • Boiler MACT rule (76 Fed. Reg. 15608): EPA's analysis of the Boiler MACT rule estimated that implementation of the final rule would result in the creation of 2,200 jobs per year. NERA's whole economy analysis found that the rule would result in the elimination of 28,000 jobs per year from 2013 to 2037. 


# # # 



Next Article » « Previous Article