HR-5482-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 755.
Sponsored by Harriet Hageman (R-WY)
What it does
This bill would require federal agencies to certify that any new "energy rule" — covering regulations that could affect electricity, heating, gasoline, natural gas, motor vehicle, or appliance prices — will not cause energy poverty in defined at-risk communities (low-income, minority, rural, elderly, and Native communities). It would also require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct and publish an energy poverty impact study before the President or designated agency heads can impose moratoria or delays on oil, gas, coal, or mineral leasing and permitting on federal lands. Additionally, it would direct the GAO to analyze how existing federal energy laws and state renewable portfolio standards affect at-risk communities, and require the CBO to include energy cost estimates for at-risk communities in its scoring of relevant legislation.
Who benefits
Low-income households, elderly residents on fixed incomes, rural communities, minority communities, and Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian communities who spend a disproportionate share of income on energy. Energy and mineral development companies seeking to operate on federal lands, who would gain a formal study process that could support their projects. Fossil fuel producers and pipeline operators who would benefit from procedural requirements that could slow or constrain executive moratoria on federal land leasing. Members of Congress who would receive new CBO cost estimates and GAO reports to inform energy-related legislation.
Who is hurt
Environmental advocacy organizations and communities seeking stricter emissions regulations, which could face new procedural hurdles that slow or block energy rules. Renewable energy developers who may face indirect disadvantages if state renewable portfolio standards are scrutinized as contributors to energy poverty. Federal agencies (EPA, Interior, Agriculture, Energy) that would bear new administrative burdens of conducting studies and certifications before acting. Future administrations seeking to restrict fossil fuel activity on federal lands via executive action, who would face mandatory study requirements before acting. Taxpayers who would fund GAO studies, CBO estimates, and Interior Department impact analyses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that low-income, rural, elderly, and minority communities already spend a disproportionately high share of their income on energy — a burden that federal regulations can worsen without adequate scrutiny. They contend that requiring agencies to certify energy poverty impacts before issuing rules is a straightforward accountability measure, similar to existing environmental justice requirements, and that the GAO and CBO reporting provisions give Congress the data it needs to make informed decisions. They point to documented cases where energy price increases following regulatory changes hit vulnerable communities hardest, and argue this bill ensures those communities are not overlooked in the rulemaking process.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad definition of "energy rule" — covering virtually any regulation that could affect energy prices — would create sweeping new procedural requirements that could be used to delay or block health, safety, and environmental regulations well beyond their intended scope. They contend that requiring the Secretary of the Interior to complete an energy poverty study before any executive action on federal land leasing effectively gives fossil fuel interests a veto tool over presidential authority, and that the certification requirement for agencies lacks an enforcement mechanism or independent review, making it a paperwork exercise that could still be weaponized in litigation to stall rules. They also argue that state renewable portfolio standards are included in the GAO review despite being state-level policy choices outside normal federal regulatory purview.
Constitutional context
The bill's requirement that the Secretary of the Interior complete a study before the President may carry out certain executive actions on federal lands raises separation of powers questions — Congress may condition executive action on procedural steps, but requirements that effectively constrain core presidential authority over federal land management could be challenged. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency certification or study requirement that courts must interpret will receive independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference to agency readings, potentially making the bill's broad "energy rule" definition a source of litigation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (agencies and the President) would face new procedural constraints imposed by Congress; checks on those constraints include judicial review of whether the study and certification requirements are met, OMB implementation guidance, and GAO and CBO oversight reporting back to Congress.
Historical precedent
The National Environmental Policy Act (1970) established a similar precedent of requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major federal actions before proceeding, creating a procedural review framework that this bill mirrors for energy cost impacts.