Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
The bill bars Federal agencies from considering the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or any social cost of greenhouse gases in rulemakings, guidance, agency actions, or cost‑benefit analyses, including under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
It defines those social cost terms by reference to several Interagency Working Group and EPA technical documents and any successor documents.
Agencies must report to specified Congressional committees within 120 days on rulemakings and actions since January 2009 that used those social cost metrics.
Contentious, ideologically loaded federal constraint on regulatory analysis with weak compromise features — plausible in one chamber but unlikely to clear both without major changes.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition across Federal agencies on using specified social cost metrics and provides detailed definitions and a specific, one-time reporting requirement. It is specific about covered documents and contexts where consideration is barred but offers limited implementation and enforcement detail.
Progressives stress climate and public‑health harms from banning monetized damages.
Progressives stress climate and public‑health harms from banning monetized damages.
This persona would view the bill as a substantive weakening of agencies' ability to account for climate damages.
They would see it as removing a standardized tool for incorporating long‑term and societal harms into regulatory analysis.
They would likely argue it undermines evidence‑based environmental and public health protections.
A centrist would have mixed views: they would appreciate clearer limits and added congressional reporting, but worry this bans an analytic tool used for decades.
They would be concerned about removing standardized methods that inform efficient regulation and invite legal uncertainty.
They would likely seek compromise language preserving transparent, standardized valuation methods.
This persona would generally support the bill as restoring limits on agency discretion and stopping reliance on uncertain, politicized social cost estimates.
They would argue it prevents agencies from using speculative monetized damages to justify burdensome regulations.
They would welcome the reporting requirement as oversight and evidence for reform.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious, ideologically loaded federal constraint on regulatory analysis with weak compromise features — plausible in one chamber but unlikely to clear both without major changes.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress climate and public‑health harms from banning monetized damages.
Contentious, ideologically loaded federal constraint on regulatory analysis with weak compromise features — plausible in one chamber but un…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition across Federal agencies on using specified social cost metrics and provides detailed definitions and a specific, one-tim…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.