For almost every
regulatory issue there is a regulatory status quo, the current laws, statutes,
maximum allowable levels, and other cutoffs and limits arrived at by agreement or
recommendation by regulators that is presumably based on the best available
science and analysis. This is true for any public health or environmental
health issue. The question for any new administration, federal or state, is
whether to keep the status quo, regulate more, or regulate less.
In arguments
about public health and environmental health, the question is always where to
put the boundary between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. More regulation
is almost always associated with higher costs. It is also often but not always associated
with a better level of protection. When doing cost-benefit analysis one goal is
to determine willingness to accept a certain level of protection and willingness
to pay for a certain level of protection.
Conservatives, especially Libertarians, usually favor lower levels of regulation. Liberals and
especially Progressives usually favor higher levels of regulations. Liberals
are accused of hurting business and conservatives are accused of eroding public
health and hurting the environment. Such arguments would best be resolved by
some level of compromise. That is generally the case when Congress or states
debate and come to conclusions. Of course, a certain level of power to change
regulations is reserved for the executive branch and executive orders are the
method used to increase and decrease regulations that are not ordained by
Congress.
Trump is
obviously most concerned about the costs of regulations. Most businesses and
companies are also concerned about these costs but also realize that there are
state regulations that may exceed federal ones and that policies change with
new administrations. They have already invested heavily in compliance and will
continue to do so regardless of de-regulatory moves. For example, though Trump
desires to de-regulate oil & gas, drill more wells, and produce more oil &
gas, there are economic considerations that prevent that from happening.
Without additional pipeline, storage, and export capacity up and running, which
takes time in years, that will not happen. Companies have stated goals about
pollution reduction, GHG emissions reduction, and efficiency that will remain
regardless of who is leading the country.
Regulatory Reform
There is abundant
evidence that we need some regulatory reform. Mainly, this has to do with making
required environmental reviews less time-consuming, less comprehensive, and
less duplicatory. Add to that the position of environmentalists who sue as much
as they can, making most projects more costly and more time-consuming. In fact,
delay is often their goal. I agree that they have abused the system to the point
where the system should be changed to limit their ability to affect projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one of the main delay mechanisms
that is abused most often.
Congress has been
exploring regulatory reform for a few years now but with no success thus far.
There have been some decent bipartisan proposals to streamline permitting and
reduce review times considerably. These reforms are generally sensible and very
much needed in order to advance projects clearly in the public’s interest.
Regulatory Overreach and Deregulatory Overreach
In politics, one
side will inevitably accuse the other side of overreach. In fact, perceived
overreach of one sort or another is often why new leaders are voted in to
replace previous ones. I believe that was the case in the recent Presidential
and Congressional elections. Regulations overreach when they put undue or unnecessary
burdens on businesses that can’t afford them. Of course, whether regulatory
levels are necessary or not is a matter of debate.
Before the recent
SCOTUS decision regarding the so-called Chevron Doctrine, where there was sufficient
uncertainty about regulatory actions, there was a precedent for deference to
agency expertise. After the decision, that will still be the case if the
uncertainty is insufficient, but where there is enough uncertainty, the deference
will be to the courts or Congress to decide cases.
In the case of energy
deregulation, particularly electricity deregulation by states, the results are
decidedly unimpressive. When it happened in California the power companies began
to spend less money on power line maintenance and tree cutting which resulted
in some blackouts due to tree damage and later led to starting wildfires. Effects
in other states have included energy supplier deals that are slightly better
for a year and then revert to higher costs for consumers than would have been the
case if they hadn’t chosen that supplier. In some states like Maryland, consumers were quite obviously scammed by these deals. An Ohio study recently
showed that people were slightly better off before going with an energy
supplier. There are also spam texts, junk mail, and the energy supplier
salespeople that block your way at the local Walmart (I just avoided that aisle
today).
The Trump-Biden-Trump,
dereg-reg-dereg cycle has been predictable. Biden tried in vain to enact new regulatory
executive orders at the end of his turn that were immediately rescinded by
Trump. They were symbolic but why waste the effort? Biden had some legislative successes:
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the IRA, involving decarbonization that can
be seen as a regulatory goal. Biden’s LNG Pause was not needed, can probably be
called overreach, and was rescinded by Trump. More to come, although I thought
I read that SCOTUS failed to rule against Biden’s Clean Power rules. Congress
may have to intervene. They are likely undoable anyway – evidence: one day last
week 93% of PJM’s power came from fossil fuels and nuclear, which strongly
suggests we need all we have. According to Washington Examiner’s Paul Bredard
Biden’s regulatory costs were very high, a “striking escalation.” According to
American Action Forum Director of Regulatory Policy Dan Goldbeck, the grand
total is a $1.8 trillion increase in cumulative regulatory costs. I do not
think that is a realistic assessment. Bredard noted, citing Goldbeck:
“Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency leveled the most
costly regulations at $1.3 trillion, largely due to programs targeting
emissions.”
However, Goldbeck suggested that Biden’s regulations may
stick around for a while:
“While the past year’s rulemaking activity may have
pushed this sum way over the top, it was built on a steady foundation of agency
action in the early years, and although initial details are somewhat scarce,
one expects the incoming Trump administration to head in a very different
direction. As such, the Biden ‘record’ is likely secure for at least the next
few years — and given its sheer scale, for some time thereafter,” Goldbeck said.
The Trump administration scrapped a pending EPA rule setting
limits on PFAS chemicals that would have been very expensive to mitigate with
costs passed on to water consumers. However, the evidence suggests we should
begin to address these chemicals at some level. Environmental Working Group notes
that the delay in setting limits will delay mitigation as these chemicals
continue to accumulate:
“State regulators have waited for the federal government
to lead on this issue so they can incorporate effective monitoring and
treatment requirements into their discharge permits. Without federal limits,
those efforts remain stalled.”
According to Dr.
Rhett Larson, a water law professor at Arizona State University:
“Getting PFAS out of drinking water is really expensive
and those costs are going to get passed on to consumers, making your water
bills a lot higher. And your drinking water is not where most of your exposure
to PFAS is coming from,” said Larson.”
“It’s a stark difference from President Trump’s first
presidential term, where the Environmental Protection Agency blocked, rolled
back or reversed controls of PFAS.”
“There are signs the Trump EPA will continue that
pattern. This week, it already withdrew regulations and studies related to the
chemicals.”
“The biggest impact of what the Trump administration is
pulling back from is information, not regulation,” Larson clarified. “The
studies that were coming out about the presence of PFAS in biosolids and sewage
sludge that would have helped us know whether or not that was a good place for
us to spend money regulating.”
“Getting PFAS out of drinking water is really expensive
and those costs are going to get passed on to consumers, making your water
bills a lot higher. And your drinking water is not where most of your exposure
to PFAS is coming from,” said Larson.
“It’s a stark difference from President Trump’s first
presidential term, where the Environmental Protection Agency blocked, rolled
back or reversed controls of PFAS.
“There are signs the Trump EPA will continue that
pattern. This week, it already withdrew regulations and studies related to the
chemicals.”
“The biggest impact of what the Trump administration is
pulling back from is information, not regulation,” Larson clarified. “The
studies that were coming out about the presence of PFAS in biosolids and sewage
sludge that would have helped us know whether or not that was a good place for
us to spend money regulating.”
The Trump people do
not seem to be concerned about the reasons for regulations, rather they are concerned
mostly with clawing back Biden’s regulatory moves, which is expected. They are
also not in a mode to enact any new regulations. In some cases, I agree with
them and in others not.
I think that
Congress should enact regulatory reforms, including NEPA limitations on time
and scope of analysis. It should have happened several years ago. It should be interesting
to see what happens.
References:
Biden
launches ‘striking escalation’ in costly regulations. Paul Bedard. Washington
Examiner. December 17, 2024. Biden launches ‘striking escalation’
in costly regulations
New
record: Biden’s swamp uncorked $1.8 trillion in regulations. Paul Bedard,
Washington Examiner. January 29, 2025. New
record: Biden’s swamp uncorked $1.8 trillion in regulations
EPA
withdraws plan to regulate harmful ‘PFAS’ chemicals in drinking water. Alexis
Dominguez. Arizona’s Family. January 24, 2025. EPA
withdraws plan to regulate harmful ‘PFAS’ chemicals in drinking water
Trump
EPA withdrawal of PFAS effluent limits is setback for public health, EWG warns.
Environmental Working Group. January 2025. Trump
EPA withdrawal of PFAS effluent limits is setback for public health, EWG warns
| Environmental Working Group
No comments:
Post a Comment