A journalistic trope is to call any new and far-reaching regulation "ambitious." Yet when one speaks of the full panoply of federal regulations, "ambitious" seems somehow underwhelming. What's better? Audacious? Outré?
Or how about anti-growth?
Last week the Obama Administration in a Friday, pre-holiday news dump announced its semi-annual regulatory agenda, summarizing the rules administrative agencies intend to act upon in the year ahead. Nothing surprising, really, but that doesn't mean the expansive agenda isn't dismaying. With the Commerce Department due to announce tomorrow an actual economic retraction in the first quarter 2014, the imposition of more regulatory burdens demonstrates that growth -- and the associated jobs -- is giving way to other, misdirected priorities.
E&E Publishing had the best summary of the administration's agenda we've seen, "White House releases sweeping regulatory agenda":
The White House on Friday released its latest regulatory agenda, a sweeping plan that includes rules on power plants, renewable fuels, ozone pollution, Clean Water Act jurisdiction and disclosure of payments by oil and gas companies. ...
The most notable goals include timelines for the release of greenhouse gas emission standards, proposed 2015 renewable fuel standard targets, a controversial stream protection rule, crude-by-rail safety standards, and methane and hydraulic fracturing regulations.
The U.S. Chamber is drawing attention to the potential costs of the EPA's rule, anticipated June 2, to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. A new study reports that the rule impose as much as $50 billion a year in compliance costs on the economy. (Strange timing: President Obama plans to travel this month to North Dakota, a major coal state.)
The CO2 rule will dominate the headlines, but there's plenty more in the agenda to be concerned about. Here's a specific example of another economy-throttling regulation, this time with respect to SEC regulation of the energy industry, again via E&E:
According to the plan, the Securities and Exchange Commission is aiming for a spring rollout of a new proposal to require oil and mining companies to disclose the money they pay to U.S. foreign governments.
Human rights advocates and Democrats in Congress have called for a speedy release of the rule after a federal court struck down the agency's first attempt last year. The rule called on publicly listed extraction companies to report to the SEC, on a project-by-project basis, the money they pay to governments. It allowed for no exemptions in countries that have forbidden such disclosure.
Oil industry and business groups successfully challenged the rule, which was required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. They argued that it would saddle companies with heavy compliance costs and put them at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned companies in places like Russia and China.
In 2012, the Obama Administration asked Business Roundtable for suggestions about streamlining regulations. The BRT's response prominently featured the proposed SEC rule.
The final rules adopted by the SEC require project level disclosures of payments to governments and fail to capture payments made by non-SEC registrants which have significant influence on the global industry. Furthermore, the rules do not require host governments to disclose revenues received while imposing reporting rules on companies without seeking participation by or input from host governments. In addition, in its final rule, the SEC declined to define “project,” providing only guidance regarding the meaning of the term. The SEC, in its final rule, estimated the initial cost of the rule could be up to $1 billion, with ongoing annual compliance costs of between $200 million and $400 million. Importantly, the SEC acknowledged that the rule will not “generate measurable, direct economic benefits to investors or issuers.”
The energy sector is perhaps the greatest contributor to an otherwise underperforming U.S. economy, yet the SEC proposes burdening it with $1 billion in upfront costs, with up to $400 million in annual compliance costs. For no direct economic benefits to investors or issuers.
Business Roundtable strongly supports pursuing an economic growth agenda, policies needed to bring the country out of the economic doldrums of 2 percent annual growth. Adopting a policy of "smart regulation" would be a key step toward encouraging the growth. Unfortunately, the Administration's latest unified regulatory agenda appears headed in the other direction.