Organisation Name
US Chamber of Commerce
InfluenceMap Query
Need for Climate Regulation
Data Source
Legislative Consultations
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-2.0

InfluenceMap has researched and collated the following pieces of evidence associated with the data source and query indicated above. Extraordinary information is indicated by a coloured flag in the upper right corner. Evidence items in order of data inputted with exceptional items first.

 

Opposing climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Has organized multi-assoication letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan in support of a bill that could make regulating for environmental and climate protection harder to implement in future (US Chamber of Commerce, letter to the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, December 2016)

Extract from Source:

Dear Speaker Ryan: The undersigned groups urge you to make consideration of the “Regulatory Accountability Act” an early priority for the 115th Congress. We believe that federal regulations should be narrowly tailored, supported by strong and credible data and evidence, and impose the least burden possible, while still implementing congressional intent. These are the very same principles embodied in your June 2016 report, A Better Way: A Vision for A Confident America. When agencies produce regulations that diverge from these key principles, there must be a way of holding agencies accountable. Your report points to the Regulatory Accountability Act as an effective tool to achieve this goal. The Regulatory Accountability Act would allow Congress and the public to reassert control over a federal regulatory bureaucracy that is opaque, unaccountable, and often unfair.

Created: 12/12/2016 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing 'social cost of carbon' considerations in US regulatory decision making (US Chamber of Commerce, Letter to The Hon. Even Jenkins, US House of Representatives, July 2016)

Extract from Source:

On behalf of a broad range of businesses and industries, the undersigned commend you on the introduction of H.R. 5668, the “Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2016,” which ultimately would bring greater transparency, public input, and accountability to the calculation and use of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) and the “social cost of methane” (SCM) in rulemakings and policymaking by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.  [...] The EPA defines the SCM—a calculation based in part on the SCC—as “a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year.” Both the SCC and the SCM have been used by DOE and EPA in justifying various regulations and policies. [...] In addition to lacking the hallmarks of the regulatory process and the Administrative Procedure Act—transparency, public notice, stakeholder input and meaningful review—the SCC and the SCM fail to comply with OMB guidelines and the Information Quality Act. Before DOE or EPA bases a regulation or policy upon the SCC or the SCM, they should be subject to a valid rulemaking process based on public input, sound science, quality data, and transparency.

Created: 31/03/2017 Last edited: 08/01/2018

 

Opposing climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Petitioning members of the US House of Representatives in support of a bill that a bill that could make regulating for environmental and climate protection harder to implement in future (US Chamber of Commerce, Senior Vice President Jack Howard, letter to the US House of Representitves, January 2017)

Extract from Source:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 5, which includes the Regulatory Accountability Act, and may consider including votes on, or in relation to, H.R. 5 in our annual How They Voted scorecard. [...] The Regulatory Accountability Act is a long-standing priority for the Chamber and would update the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to improve how federal agencies promulgate those rules with the most significant impact on jobs and economic growth.Modernization of APA is long overdue. While there has been a dramatic increase in high impact, transformative rules that are slowing economic growth and inhibiting job creation, APA rulemaking provisions have remained virtually unchanged since 1946 when the law was established.H.R. 5 would target only the most expensive and burdensome of these rules for increased scrutiny by providing greater transparency, by holding agencies accountable, and by making sure the data behind the decisions of regulators are made publicly available.

Created: 10/01/2017 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Generally opposing regulatory action taken by US EPA and emphasizing costs to industry and supporting reform of 'excess regulatory overreach'. (US Chamber, consultation response, EPA's Request for Comments on Evaluation of Existing Regulations, May 2017)

Extract from Source:

Although EPA has never conducted a proper  evaluation of job losses from its regulations, in recent years it has routinely claimed that its regulations actually create new jobs. EPA accomplishes this sleight of hand “jobs analysis” by focusing on only one specific portion of the analysis while ignoring most of the impacts. Specifically, EPA consistently conducts only a partial equilibrium economic analysis so that it can assert that each regulation creates more jobs than it eliminates. [...] EPA to claim that jobs within the regulated industry will not be lost, because it simply assumes that regulated firms can and will pay the costs of the regulation without changing how they conduct business [...] Reforming EPA’s Excessive Regulatory Overreach Will Result in Major Regulatory Reform. In April 2017 the Chamber released its report Taming the Administrative State: Identifying Regulations that Impact Jobs and the Economy. 16 The study analyzed the number and type of regulations that impose the greatest cost on the business community, consumers, and ultimately the U.S. economy. The analysis examined federal rules finalized from 2008 to 2016 and found that only 140 regulations out of more than 32,000 had costs exceeding $100 million annually. The report identifies the most costly and transformative regulations so that Congress and federal agencies are better able to develop a process that will ensure future regulations achieve congressional intent and avoid agency overreach. [...] The burden imposed by the 140 $100 million plus rules over the period 2008 through 2016 is $130 billion in annual cost. However, that cost is not evenly spread across all 140 rules, or across all of the issuing regulatory agencies. EPA produced the greatest number of costly rules, resulting in EPA being responsible for $73 billion in cost each year, or 56% of the total cost imposed. [...] For its regulatory review and reform efforts, EPA should give priority attention to the 13 rules imposing over $1 billion in annual costs.

Created: 02/12/2017 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly advocating in support of a bill that a bill that could make regulating for environmental and climate protection harder to implement in future (US Chamber of Commerce, Thomas M. Sullivan Vice President, Small Business, 'Modernizing Environmental Laws',  Before the Energy & Commerce Committee Environment Subcommittee U.S. House of Representatives, February 2017)

Extract from Source:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to satisfy certain requirements when they plan new regulations, including (1) identifying the small entities that will be affected, (2) analyzing and understanding the economic impacts that will be imposed on those entities, and (3) considering alternative ways to achieve the agency’s regulatory goal while reducing the economic burden on those entities. [...] There are three basic reasons for the Regulatory Flexibility Act.(1) One-size-fits-all federal mandates do not work when applied to small business; (2) Regulations disproportionately harm small businesses; and(3) Small businesses are critically important to the American economy.

Created: 31/03/2017 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing the need for climate change regulation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Directly advocating for the repeal of a rule that mandated the US Department of Energy to consider the social cost of carbon emissions (US Chamber, Comment, Request for Information on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost, July 2017)

Extract from Source:

The Chamber has identified regulations that it believes the Department of Energy should repeal or modify. These regulations are particularly onerous to the business community, reducing investment and curtailing economic growth and job creation. In addition, the Chamber has identified regulatory policy at DOE that should be reformed in order to ensure that the associated regulatory provisions achieve their original intent. [...] DOE should discontinue the use of the social cost of carbon. [...] Perhaps as important as identifying bad regulations that should be modified or repealed is identifying bad regulatory policy that is embedded in agency programs. Once established, bad regulatory policy continues to affect future rulemakings and stacks the deck against the possibility of producing a good regulation by undermining open, transparent, careful, and wellinformed regulatory processes. DOE’s use of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) to justify energy efficiency regulations is one such bad regulatory policy. [...] The SCC calculation should not be used in any rulemaking or policymaking until it undergoes a more rigorous notice, review and comment process.

Created: 02/12/2017 Last edited: 02/12/2017