Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Short-Circuiting Progress: How The Clean Air Act Impacts Building Necessary Infrastructure And Onshoring American Innovation. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Today, this Subcommittee begins its efforts to modernize the Clean Air Act.  “The Act was last amended in a consequential way in 1990 with Energy and Commerce Chair, John Dingell, being a driving force in that bicameral compromise.  “The Clean Air Act has already been effective.  “According to EPA’s 2023 Air Quality statistics report, since the Clean Air Act amendments were passed in 1990, there has been a 79 percent reduction in Carbon Monoxide, a 92 percent reduction in Sulfur Dioxide or SOx, and a 55 percent reduction in Nitrogen Dioxide or NOx.  “Since 2000, we’ve seen a 42 percent reduction in Particulate Matter 2.5, which are inhalable particles measuring less than two and a half micrometers. “The Clean Air Act’s National Attainment Air Quality Standards standard setting and permitting programs, with each new review, EPA generally sets new lower pollution allowances, over time, these newer standards have had the tendency to pass the point of diminishing returns. “Accordingly, If you’re an industrial plant wanting to build in this country, you may have to wait until another plant goes out of business and you can take over their permit.  “That is not a path to economic prosperity. “Additionally, I don’t believe that banning new industrial activity in the United States was what the authors of the Clean Air Act were aiming for. “It was a tough compromise bill meant to have each state scrutinize major sources and think about air permit planning, industry concentration, and air quality in unfavorable geographic settings. “The Act was written to get industry to reexamine its operations and control pollution by investing in, and implementing, innovative technologies. “It worked, but now we need to examine the law in light of little additional public health gain at the expense of paralyzing nationally important industries.  “We need to begin a modernization effort by examining draft legislative proposals to reform the out-of-date NAAQS process.  “As we heard in our recent full Committee hearing, overly restrictive air regulations have curtailed some domestic investment in semiconductor plants and data centers, which in turn could jeopardize America’s ability to compete in the global Artificial Intelligence race. “One of the draft bills we are discussing today would improve the processes EPA uses to identify NAAQS pollutants and ceilings. “And then, for states to implement those new standards.  “Under the Clean Air Act’s NAAQS program, the EPA sets standards for six criteria pollutants like ground-level ozone and particulate matter.  “Historically, the Clean Air Act required EPA to review NAAQS standards and if appropriate, issue new limits, at five-year intervals.  “The EPA has consistently missed statutory deadlines for both reviewing standards and for providing implementation guidance to states which has led to litigation in some cases. “These proposals will enable more reasonable requirements that states can actually implement. “This is why the Clean Air Act and Economic Advancement Reform Act that we are talking about today would lengthen that interval to 10 years and allow the EPA Administrator to consider whether it was likely the standard can actually be attained.  “Additionally, the bill would require the EPA to consider the economic feasibility of these standards.  “The bill would also allow for naturally occurring air pollution events, such as wildfires, to not count against NAAQS emission averages for a state.  “The other bill, the Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvements Act has to do more specifically with the most recent PM 2.5 rule that really would cripple a lot of industry by reducing that limit from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air. “Further, it allows for an easier preconstruction permitting process. “Protecting our environment and our economy do not have to be mutually exclusive goals, but in order to achieve both, we must rethink how our country classifies pollution levels outside our control.  “The EPA is still in the process of updating various air quality standards. “As that work continues, Congress must ensure states and employers aren’t unfairly penalized by impractical or burdensome new rules which could hurt our national security and our economic competitiveness. “I look forward to learning more from our expert witnesses who have extensive experience in implementing, and complying with NAAQS standards under the Clean Air Act.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing titled Short-Circuiting Progress: How the Clean Air Act Impacts Building Necessary Infrastructure and Onshoring American Innovation. “Today’s hearing made it clear that bureaucratic red tape has limited our ability to expand American manufacturing,” said Chairman Griffith. “As we heard from our witnesses, Congress needs to take commonsense actions to ensure the Clean Air Act works as intended while not hampering our country’s retention of steady, well-paying jobs, or limiting our ability to lead in manufacturing innovation.” Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Buddy Carter (GA-01): “Balancing America's air quality with economic development begins with implementing common sense legislation. I think we would all agree on that. The EPA reviews the national ambient air quality standards, and on, on a five-year interval after establishing a national ambient air quality standard states assumed the primary responsibility for implementing it and enforcing these rules. This is an extremely time-consuming process, one that takes years and years. I've got a bill. It's called the CLEAR Act. Now we give states the time needed to implement standards without rushing the process, and I think that's very important. This bill also allows states the opportunity to correct deficiencies found by EPA and state implementation plans for NAAQS before EPA can issue a federal implementation plan. The CLEAR Act offers common sense solutions to make containing clean air standards realistic while giving states the time necessary to comply. Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “Important context for this hearing is understanding that America's air quality is among the best in the world, and that the U.S. emissions have steadily decreased over the past several decades, even as economic input and output has changed. We observed this trend because of the fact that reasonable clean air standards lead to economic growth and that this economic growth spurs innovation and investment in technology that ultimately reduces emissions without sacrificing output. We need to balance public health and clean air goals with the reality that unattainable standards will not only hurt the American economy, but also disincentivize development of the more efficient technologies necessary to continue to lower U.S. emissions.” Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “The United States has proven that environmental progress and economic growth aren't mutually exclusive. We've dramatically improved air quality while expanding energy output in Iowa, our farmers and manufacturers rely on stable smart policy to keep innovating and growing and also to compete economically around the globe. As we look to the future. any new regulations must support, not stifle, the backbone industries of our heartland.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, released the following statement following the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement to address harmful regulations for power plants, commonly known as “Clean Power Plan 2.0” and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). “I was proud to stand with Administrator Zeldin today as he announced these measures which are a victory for reliable and affordable energy. Enacted by the Biden-Harris Administration, these are just two of the burdensome rules that were part of a far-left regulatory agenda that jeopardized grid reliability and drove up prices for American families and businesses.” said Chairman Guthrie. “Attempting to push baseload power sources, including coal, oil, and natural gas, offline puts our national security at risk and threatens the US economy. By addressing these regulations, President Trump and his administration are working to once again unleash American energy to secure our grid and help provide the power we will need to win the race for AI."

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Yesterday, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, penned a letter to Secretary Jennifer Granholm questioning the Department of Energy’s involvement in the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to prevent new offshore oil and gas production, leading to higher prices for consumers and harming U.S. energy security. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “Closing off swaths of U.S. offshore areas to energy production, as the Biden-Harris Administration reportedly intends to do, will lead to higher energy prices for American families, the loss of American jobs, and greatly diminish our country’s energy security. As the Secretary of Energy, you have an obligation to weigh in on this matter and insist on a full review of the energy security and economic impacts before any decisions are finalized. “The United States stands at an energy crossroads, facing mounting global security threats and soaring demand for power. Instead of leading the world in energy production, we’ve allowed misguided “green” policies to hamstring our potential. It’s time to unleash American energy dominance again—the federal government must become an ally, not an obstacle, to our nation’s energy security. We look forward to your prompt response to this request, no later than January 10, 2025.” Read the story  here . BACKGROUND: This morning, the Biden Administration announced that more than 625 million square miles of coastline would be off-limits for energy production. Republican Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have continuously called on the Biden-Harris Administration to end its attack on American energy production before leaving office on January 20th. The letter requests an explanation of the DOE’s involvement in the decision and whether the White House or the Department of Interior consulted with the DOE about the plans to close off access to offshore resources. Any decision to shut down access to significant American energy resources impacts U.S. energy policy and should be reviewed by the DOE. The Biden Administration’s energy policies have continued to create major harm to America’s energy production and workforce. A unilateral ban on energy production in large swaths of the U.S. coastline will have lasting impacts on American energy production and security.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) yesterday sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging the Department of Energy to prioritize the onshoring of our critical mineral supply chains following the Chinese Communist Party’s July 1 declaration that rare earth metals were the “property of the state.” CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage by E&E News. KEY QUOTE “Critical minerals are essential to America’s economy and to America’s capacity to manufacture goods and high-tech devices. Many critical minerals are essential to the energy sector, as they are needed to manufacture solar panels, batteries, and electrical equipment. As the DOE is aware, the CCP announced limitations on gallium, germanium, natural and synthetic graphite last October. These critical minerals are vital for our defense and energy technologies and are listed as critical and at high risk of supply disruption. On November 21, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter raising security concerns over the CCP limiting exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite. Your response to that letter failed to address these concerns and lacked basic information to help Members of Congress assess the risks of America’s increasing dependence on CCP controlled minerals.” [...] “The administration should prioritize the onshoring of domestic mining and processing industry for these critical minerals and materials. The answer to a lack of mining and processing is not to extend credits to companies using minerals from a major geopolitical adversary that relies on child labor and exploitation.” Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Carter asked Secretary Granholm to answer the following questions by August 13, 2024: Are you concerned by reports that the Chinese government has declared rare earth metals property of the government of China? What actions will the DOE take in response to the Chinese government’s announcement? Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of synthetic and natural graphite. Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of gallium and germanium. How will DOE work to expedite projects to ensure a secure and stable supply chain of these critical minerals and materials given these recent announcements? What actions will DOE take to mitigate potential domestic supply shortages of these minerals? Were you consulted about the Treasury Department’s decision to extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Did you advise or recommend that the White House extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Please explain. CLICK HERE to read the letter to Secretary Granholm. CLICK HERE to read the November 21, 2023, letter to Secretary Granholm raising concerns over the CCP’s decision to limit exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite.