Home » NEWS » Bill introduced requiring EPA to analyze economic impact of Clean Air Act

Bill introduced requiring EPA to analyze economic impact of Clean Air Act

Sen. Roger Wicker

Sen. Roger Wicker

Sen. Thad Cochran

Sen. Thad Cochran

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss) are cosponsoring legislation that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing any major Clean Air Act regulation without considering its economic impact.

The EPA Employment Impact Analysis Act (S.2161) was introduced by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). It would force the EPA to adhere to Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss of jobs that result from enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

“Federal regulations have real consequences including the jobs lost and costly compliance burdens on businesses,” Cochran said. “Unfortunately, it is needed because of the Obama administration’s belief that it has free rein to implement the Clean Air Act in ways that are extraordinarily costly. We have experienced this first-hand in Mississippi when the administration failed to give adequate consideration to the economic impact of the nonattainment ozone designation in DeSoto County.”

Inhofe, a senior member on the EPW Committee, included in the legislation examples of instances where the EPA did not follow Clean Air Act requirements for ongoing reviews of regulations it initially indicated would create increase employment but ended up eliminating jobs. Some of these examples include the agency’s rules on cross state air pollution and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations for boilers and utilities.

In recent years, Cochran and Wicker have been critical of EPA regulatory efforts regarding ozone rulings affecting DeSoto County, as well as Boiler MACT regulations for fossil fuel and biomass-fueled boilers.

About Wally Northway


  1. What about the economic impact of wiping out most species, including homo sapiens (sic)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *