Blog: The Impact of Excessive Federal Regulations on Jobs: A Case Study

Statement

Last week, a Dominion Power plant in Chesapeake, VA announced it is making plans to close its coal plant by 2016. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Dominion Power is closing the plant and laying off employees due to the excessive costs to upgrade the plant to meet new federal environmental standards.

Burdensome federal regulations are negatively impacting job growth and our economy, and we are seeing the effects of these regulations in the 4th district. We cannot afford the weight of these regulations on our already fragile economy. There is no doubt some regulations are necessary, but the federal government was not intended to be a barrier to economic growth and I believe we must closely examine federal regulations to identify and address those that hurt economic growth.

Recently, House Republican leadership circulated a memo outlining plans to bring up legislation to address excessive regulations that are costing Americans jobs. Below I've excerpted from this memo the regulations they are targeting for repeal. Weigh in below with your thoughts and read about the work I am doing to address excessive regulations that inhibit job here.

Top 10 Job-Destroying Regulations:

· NLRB's Boeing Ruling. On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against The Boeing Company for the alleged transfer of an assembly line from Washington to South Carolina. Yet, not one union employee at Boeing's Puget Sound facility has lost his or her job as a result of the proposed South Carolina plant. Still, the NLRB is pursuing a "restoration order" against Boeing that would cost South Carolina thousands of jobs and deter future investment in the United States. H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, sponsored by Rep. Tim Scott (SC), would take the common sense step of preventing the NLRB from restricting where an employer can create jobs in the United States.

· Utility MACT and CSAPR. The Administration's new maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) for utility plants will affect electricity prices for nearly all American consumers. In total, 1,000 power plants are expected to be affected. The result for middle class Americans? Annual electricity bill increases in many parts of the country of anywhere from 12 to 24 percent. H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would require a cumulative economic analysis for specific EPA rules, and specifically delay the final date for both the utility MACT and CSAPR rules until the full impact of the Obama Administration's regulatory agenda has been studied.

· Boiler MACT. From hospitals to factories to colleges, thousands of major American employers use boilers that will be impacted by the EPA's new "boiler MACT" rules. These new stringent rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs, increase the cost of many goods and services, and put over 200,000 jobs at risk. The American forest and paper industry, for example, will see an additional burden of at least $5-7 billion. H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA), would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated rules issued by the EPA in March of this year. The legislation would also provide the EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.

· Cement MACT. The "cement MACT" and two related rules are expected to affect approximately 100 cement plants in America, setting exceedingly stringent requirements that will be cost-prohibitive or technically infeasible to achieve. Increased costs and regulatory uncertainty for the American cement industry--the foundation of nearly all infrastructure projects--are likely to offshore thousands of American jobs. Ragland, Alabama, for example, recently saw the suspension of a $350 million cement production facility, putting 1,500 construction jobs on hold and additional permanent and high-paying plant operation jobs in limbo. H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (OK), would provide a legislative stay of these three rules and provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs, and provide employers with an extended compliance period.

· Coal Ash. These anti-infrastructure regulations, commonly referred to as the "coal ash" rules, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, affecting everything from concrete production to building products like wall board. The result is an estimated loss of well over 100,000 jobs. H.R. 2273, the Coals Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (WV), would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the states, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs.

· Grandfathered Health Plans. We all remember when President Obama promised Americans that if they liked their health care plan they could keep it. Now, the Obama Administration has been issuing further restrictions against those previously protected plans. The result, by the Administration's own estimates, will be a loss of 49 to 80 percent of small employer plans, 34 to 64 percent of large employer plans, and 40 to 67 percent of individual insurance plans. Meanwhile, employers losing their grandfathered status will face steep penalties, increasing their costs and negatively affecting wages and job growth. The Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce committees will soon be working on legislation to repeal these ObamaCare restrictions.

· Ozone Rule. This effective ban or restriction on construction and industrial growth for much of America is possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations. Consequences would reach far across the U.S. economy, resulting in an estimated cost of $1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs. Unlike her predecessors, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for a premature readjustment of the current ozone standards, dramatically increasing the number of "nonattainment" areas. The new readjustment rule is expected early this fall and I expect the Energy and Commerce Committee to act swiftly to prevent its implementation, in order to protect American jobs.

· Farm Dust. The EPA is expected to issue revised standards for particulate matter (PM) in the near future. Any downward revision to PM standards will significantly impact economic growth and jobs for businesses and people throughout rural America that create dust, like the farmer in Atkinson, Illinois, who raised his concerns with the President at a town hall earlier this month. While the President may have sent him on a bureaucratic wild goose chase, the House will act promptly on H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (SD). H.R. 1633 would protect American farmers and jobs by establishing a one year prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse PM and limiting federal regulation of dust where it is already regulated under state and local laws.

· Greenhouse Gas. The EPA's upcoming greenhouse gas new source performance standards (NSPS) will affect new and existing oil, natural gas, and coal-fired power plants, as well as oil refineries, nationwide. While the impact on the economy and jobs are likely to be severe, the rules are quickly moving forward, once again revealing the Administration's disregard for the consequences of their policies on our jobs crisis. Again, I expect Chairman Upton and the Energy and Commerce Committee to move swiftly in the coming months to protect American jobs and consumers.

· NLRB's Ambush Elections. This summer, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that could significantly alter current union representation election procedures, giving both employers and employees little time to react to union formations in the future. The result will increase labor costs and uncertainty for nearly all private employers in the U.S. The House will soon consider legislation that will bring common sense to union organizing procedures to protect the interests of both employers and their workers.

Source