Administration Delaying Rules At EPA & Energy Department

What’s the story?

In pursuit of the administration’s deregulation agenda, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Department are reported to be delaying rules with consumer, environmental and public health implications.

The Washington Post reports that the Energy Department is delaying updating rules that are part of the appliance standards program, which regulates efficiency standards for common household appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers and washing machines.

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 created the standards program, and the Obama administration kicked into overdrive in response to concerns about energy usage and climate change. Updating of the standards every six years, or some official decision not to do so, is required by law.

Energy efficiency also helps consumers. Advocates who are suing to unfreeze rules that were introduced late in the last administration and put on ice indefinitely by the current administration could save consumers as much as $24 billion over the next three decades.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the EPA has delayed final formulation of rules banning certain uses of three common consumer chemicals. The proposed bans concern methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), ingredients in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene (TCE), used as a spot cleaner in dry-cleaning and as a degreasing agent.

A 21-year old died recently stripping a bathtub using the chemicals.

The bans were allowed to be fast tracked through updates in 2016 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the EPA under the Trump administration has resisted using the regulatory powers afforded them by the bipartisan legislation.

The EPA has not made official comments on the bans, but stated earlier in December that the agency maintains a, "commonsense, balanced approach [which] carefully protects both public health and the environment while curbing unnecessary regulatory burdens that stifle economic growth for communities across the country."

What do you think?

Is the administration throwing the baby out with the bathwater, threatening consumers, public health and the environment, in pursuit of smaller government? Or are they benefitting the country long term by reducing the federal government, allowing the economy to flourish? Or is there some middle way that prioritizes some regulatory functions of government over others?

Tell us in the comments what you think, then use the Take Action button to tell your reps!

Take Action

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Texas Climate News)