Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act
Summary
HB3147, titled the “Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act,” would bar federal agencies from considering the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or any other greenhouse gas when conducting cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses, issuing guidance, making rules, or taking other agency actions. The bill defines these social-cost terms broadly by reference to prior federal technical support documents and related successor documents, as well as any other monetized estimate of greenhouse-gas damages.
In addition to the prohibition, the bill would require each federal agency head to report to specified congressional committees within 120 days of enactment on the number of proposed and final rulemakings, guidance documents, and agency actions since January 2009 that used these social-cost estimates. The report would also identify uses of these estimates in analyses under Executive Order 12866 and related authority.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly constrain how federal agencies evaluate the economic effects of greenhouse-gas emissions in regulatory decision-making. It would effectively eliminate a commonly used analytical tool in environmental and energy rulemaking, including EPA and other agency actions that rely on monetized climate-damage estimates to justify regulations. The reporting requirement would also create a retrospective inventory of past agency uses of these estimates, affecting agencies across the executive branch and potentially informing future oversight or legislative action.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill’s framing and title, the measure appears to be presented by its sponsors as a transparency and regulatory-reform bill aimed at limiting what they view as an improper or opaque metric in federal regulation. The absence of votes or hearing testimony means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the record provided.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether federal agencies should be allowed to use the social cost of greenhouse gases in regulatory analysis. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill prevents agencies from relying on contested, potentially speculative climate-damage estimates and improves regulatory accountability. Opponents would likely argue that the social cost of carbon and related measures are important tools for quantifying climate harms and comparing the benefits and costs of environmental rules, and that prohibiting their use would weaken climate and pollution regulation. The bill’s broad reach across rulemaking, guidance, and other agency actions is likely to be another source of dispute.
Local government: ordinances; implementation of certain taxes or regulations based on emissions and the climate or other energy-related metrics: prohibit. Creates new act.
Electronic motor vehicle registration and title transfer procedures modified, and electronic signatures for motor registration and vehicle title transfers authorized.