Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
This bill prohibits Federal agencies from considering or using the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or any social cost of greenhouse gases in any cost-benefit analysis, rulemaking, guidance, or other agency action. It requires agencies to report to Congress on past uses since 2009, restricts agencies to environmental considerations explicitly required by statute, and directs agencies to follow OMB Circular A-4 methodological guidance for greenhouse-gas valuation where applicable.
Progressives emphasize climate-policy weakening; conservatives emphasize preventing regulatory overreach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition on Federal agencies’ use of monetized 'social cost' metrics and defines the covered terms in detail.
This bill prohibits Federal agencies from considering or using the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or any social cost of greenhouse gases in any cost-benefit analysis, rulemaking, guidance, or other agency action.
It requires agencies to report to Congress on past uses since 2009, restricts agencies to environmental considerations explicitly required by statute, and directs agencies to follow OMB Circular A-4 methodological guidance for greenhouse-gas valuation where applicable.
Technically targeted but ideologically charged; lacks compromise features and would face strong opposition and procedural hurdles in Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition on Federal agencies’ use of monetized 'social cost' metrics and defines the covered terms in detail. It includes a single reporting requirement and directs agencies toward OMB Circular A–4 for analytic consistency, but it provides limited implementation, enforcement, and resourcing detail.
Progressives emphasize climate-policy weakening; conservatives emphasize preventing regulatory overreach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate-policy weakening; conservatives emphasize preventing regulatory overreach.
Likely strongly opposed.
The persona would view the bill as an effort to remove an established economic tool that incorporates climate damages into regulatory analysis, thereby weakening environmental protection and executive branch ability to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Mixed and cautious.
This persona sees value in methodological rigor and transparency but is concerned a categorical ban removes an analytic tool rather than reforming it.
They would favor narrow, evidence-based fixes over blanket prohibitions.
Likely supportive.
This persona would view the bill as preventing agencies from using contested, potentially globalized cost estimates to justify burdensome regulations, and as returning authority and clarity to statutes and OMB guidance.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically targeted but ideologically charged; lacks compromise features and would face strong opposition and procedural hurdles in Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate-policy weakening; conservatives emphasize preventing regulatory overreach.
Technically targeted but ideologically charged; lacks compromise features and would face strong opposition and procedural hurdles in Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive prohibition on Federal agencies’ use of monetized 'social cost' metrics and defines the covered terms in detail. It includes a singl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.