Press "Enter" to skip to content

LaMalfa Opposes Resolution to Increase Energy Costs for Families

(Washington, DC) – Congressman Doug LaMalfa issued the following statement after voting against S.J. Res. 14.  In 2020, the EPA issued two final rules to make it simpler and less burdensome for the oil and natural gas industry to comply with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air Act. Combined, the two final rules were estimated to yield net benefits of $750 to $850 million dollars to consumers from 2021 to 2030. S.J. Res. 14 uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn these rules.

Rep. LaMalfa said, “We are already facing a huge increase in inflation because of President Biden’s policies, now American families will pay even more at the gas pump and more on their utility bills because of this legislation. Rescinding this rule will not prevent emissions, those are already regulated under the Clean Air Act, instead it reestablishes duplicative and overly burdensome bureaucratic regulations that will lead to job losses and higher energy prices for Americans. The Biden Administration is continuing its war on American energy independence which puts our national security at risk and will make us dependent on energy produced in foreign countries that lack stringent environmental protections, resulting in making our world more polluted.”

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a tool that Congress may use to pass legislation overturning a final rule issued by a federal agency. Enactment of a CRA joint resolution disapproving a rule has two primary effects. First, a disapproved rule will not take effect or, if a rule has already taken effect, it is not to continue in effect and “shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.” Second, the CRA provides that an agency may not reissue the rule in “substantially the same form” or issue a “new rule that is substantially the same” as the disapproved rule “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.”

Go to Source
Author: