Bill Overview
Title: Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits specified federal entities (e.g., the Department of Energy) from considering the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or greenhouse gas as part of any cost-benefit analysis required under any law or specified Executive Orders. In addition, such social costs must not be considered by such entities (1) in rulemaking, (2) in the issuance of guidance, (3) in taking other agency action, (4) or as a justification for any rulemaking, guidance document, or agency action.
Sponsors: Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8]
Target Audience
Population: Global population affected by energy regulatory changes
Estimated Size: 331000000
- This bill affects how energy regulations consider environmental and societal impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
- Industries related to energy production, such as oil, gas, and coal, will be directly impacted as their cost-benefit analyses will no longer need to include social costs related to carbon emissions.
- Environmental policy and regulatory stakeholders will need to adjust their frameworks and approaches since traditional metrics involving the social cost of greenhouse gases will not be used for federal analyses.
- Populations living in areas heavily influenced by energy production or pollution could be indirectly impacted by changes in environmental regulations and potential increases in pollution.
- The bill impacts international environmental and climate change stakeholders who engage with the U.S. on policy matters concerning greenhouse gases.
Reasoning
- The policy restricts federal entities from considering the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases, which may benefit industries like oil and gas due to reduced regulatory costs. However, this may negatively impact the environment and those living in heavily polluted areas.
- Given the policy's financial constraints, it won't address all possible negative externalities related to greenhouse gas emissions. It may lead to adverse health and environmental consequences if pollution increases.
- The interviews cover a diverse sample from directly to indirectly impacted individuals, including those who see no direct change. Consideration is given to individuals living near energy production sites and environmental advocates.
Simulated Interviews
Oil & Gas Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could bring economic benefits to the company I work for since it reduces regulatory burdens.
- I'm concerned, however, about the long-term environmental impacts and health issues that may arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Environmental Research Scientist (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy undermines efforts to address climate change effectively.
- By neglecting the social cost of emissions, we are ignoring the broader impacts on society.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased pollution could deter customers who are sensitive to air quality, affecting my business.
- I worry about my children's health with possibly increased air pollution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Coal Miner (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may extend the lifetime of coal jobs in our area, which is good for my family.
- I am concerned about the environment but also about putting food on the table.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
College Student (Rural West Virginia)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ignoring the social cost of carbon is shortsighted and harmful.
- I fear that continuing this practice harms our future and the planet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 4 |
Federal Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing social costs from consideration simplifies certain regulatory processes.
- My concern is that it leads to lack of accountability for environmental harm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Topeka, KS)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about what this policy means for future generations.
- Teaching students about the importance of considering broader impacts becomes more challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Agricultural Worker (Fargo, ND)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ignoring the social costs of emissions can affect climate patterns, directly impacting agriculture.
- Policies need to balance economic and environmental considerations for sustainable farming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step back in tackling climate change issues strategically.
- I don't see immediate personal impacts, but I worry about global environmental consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
President of a Natural Gas Company (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my belief that too much focus on social costs hinders business growth.
- I am optimistic about the economic potential it unlocks for the energy sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $3100000, High: $8100000)
Year 3: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $8200000)
Year 5: $5300000 (Low: $3300000, High: $8300000)
Year 10: $5500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $8500000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental and health costs not captured by excluding social costs could lead to future regulatory and health expenditure increases.
- Impact on relationships with international partners committed to combating climate change who might disapprove of the change in U.S. regulatory policy.
- Potential increase in legal challenges regarding energy projects, possibly offsetting some of the administrative savings.