Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled From Gridlock to Growth: Permitting Reform Under the Clean Air Act. Subcommittee Chairman Palmer’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Good afternoon, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled ‘From Gridlock to Growth: Permitting Reform Under the Clean Air Act.’ “This hearing takes place at a critical moment for our country and the Committee. If we want to remain globally competitive, we need meaningful permitting reform. That cannot happen without modernizing the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act now accounts for some of the most expensive and significant barriers in the modern permitting process. What’s worse, and what we will hear from the witnesses today, these outdated regulations fail to address the most significant sources of pollution and disincentivize companies from investing in cost-efficient and effective technology. “At the core of the Clean Air Act is the idea that we can protect our environment without sacrificing economic growth. In the decades since it passed, the Act was largely successful in accomplishing this goal. But that success is threatened by outdated provisions that do not function well today. “The Clean Air Act as it stands holds outdated provisions that punish American job creators for emissions they have no control over. “It discourages wildfire mitigation measures, threatening this country’s air quality. “It risks our economy and national security because of pollution that comes from outside of the U.S. “It threatens our ability to stay competitive in the global AI race. “Most importantly, it inhibits the United States’ ability to meet our domestic energy needs. “Americans care about clean air. They also care about rising electricity costs and our economy. They understand that excessive regulation and outdated statutes do not equate to good or effective regulation. They care about technological advancement and not punishing American companies who lead that advancement. “The witnesses we will hear from today have extensive experience with the challenges presented by these outdated provisions and are well suited to explain their impact. I look forward to their testimony and their feedback on the discussion drafts. “In June, we held our first hearing on the need to update the Clean Air Act. At that hearing, we heard testimony about the billion-dollar price tag from Clean Air Act regulations doing little to improve air quality and the state of our economy. “At that hearing, my colleagues across the aisle were critical of the proposals discussed because the reforms were discussed in prior Congresses. They challenged us to introduce novel ideas to reform the Clean Air Act. “It’s feedback we took seriously. “I encourage the panel of witnesses before us today to give us their best solutions for modernizing the Clean Air Act. Both novel and previously discussed. “Some of these solutions may not be novel. But our permitting problem isn’t novel either, and it is not getting better.”  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled  From Gridlock to Growth: Permitting Reform Under the Clean Air Act . “This was a vital opportunity for our Subcommittee to examine the issues surrounding the Clean Air Act and our nation’s critical infrastructure,”  said Chairman Palmer .  “During the hearing, we spoke with key witnesses who have seen the impact that overreaching regulations, which have become disconnected from the Clean Air Act, can have on American communities. Addressing these outdated and ineffective regulations through commonsense legislation will help onshore American jobs, reduce unreasonable regulatory burdens, and safeguard our environment.” Watch the full hearing  here .  Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02):  “If we want to beat China in the AI and advanced manufacturing race, we can’t regulate ourselves into industrial decline. The Clean Air Act permitting system is outdated, and projects that should be greenlit in months take years — if they happen at all — and companies that go beyond compliance to cut emissions, they get punished with additional red tape. Energy, like natural gas that has lowered emissions, becomes a boogeyman for the radical left. None of this overregulation makes our air cleaner. It kills investment, it delays cleaner technology, and it drives industry overseas, stifling American job growth in these vital sectors — and really just passing along pollution somewhere else.” Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13):  “The need for permitting reform has never been more pressing. I think you know that across the country, projects are stalled due to burdensome and unworkable regulations. Economic growth has been stunted by outdated provisions. It’s costing American jobs. It’s costing American energy, and it’s certainly threatening our national security. We continue to face the consequences of tightening regulations, despite the fact that U.S. emissions have consistently decreased over the past ten years, resulting in America’s air quality rating absolutely being among the best in the world. To keep America globally competitive, we must ensure that common sense, attainable standards prevail.” Congressman Gabe Evans (CO-08):  “In Colorado, we know that roughly 70% of the emissions in the state don’t originate from the state of Colorado. And so, through things like the Clean Air Act, we heavily regulate the economy — but we’re not actually getting to the root of the problem—which is where these emissions are coming from. And what we end up doing is regulating the economy, losing jobs, losing the cost of living... And so, if you were in our position, what reforms would you prioritize in the permitting process so that our economy isn’t strangled by events outside of the control of?” Mr. Woods : “I think [this question] is a really timely one and one that is not limited to Colorado. And I think there are national solutions that already exist within the Clean Air Act, but also could be invigorated with action by this body.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – This week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding four Subcommittee Hearings and one Full Committee Markup. Read more below. SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy is holding a hearing to discuss building and appliance policies that could strengthen consumer choice, lower costs for American families, and make our electric grid more reliable. DATE: Tuesday, September 16, 2025  TIME: 10:15 AM ET  LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment is holding a hearing to discuss permitting reform under the Clean Air Act. DATE: Tuesday, September 16, 2025  TIME: 2:00 PM ET  LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP: The Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a markup of seven bills. DATE: Wednesday, September 17, 2025  TIME: 10:00 AM ET  LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Heath is holding a hearing to discuss legislation that improves seniors’ access to cutting-edge health innovation. DATE: Thursday, September 18, 2025  TIME: 9:30 AM ET  LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a hearing to discuss permitting reform for enhanced connectivity. DATE: Thursday, September 18, 2025  TIME: 2:00 PM ET  LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building  ###

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.