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  The Fiscal Year 2026 Environmental Protection Agency Budget. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “I’m glad to have Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, a friend and former colleague, back in the House today to testify before the Subcommittee on Environment on President Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request. “This is certainly an important time for the EPA. “After four years of economically disastrous, legally questionable, and expensive policies of the Biden-Harris Administration, it is a welcome sight to see President Trump and Administrator Zeldin focused on rebuilding the American economy and fixing the problems of the previous administration.  “I remember when Administrator Zeldin was in the House, representing the eastern part of Long Island, he was willing to work across the aisle in a pragmatic way to try and address environmental issues like protecting the Long Island sound or addressing emerging contaminants like PFAS. “It is great to see him bringing these same problem-solving skills to EPA, and to be frank, there are a lot of problems there to solve. “I’m pleased to see that the Administrator recognizes that there is a middle ground to tread, where environmental protection does not need to come at the expense of good jobs and a strong economy. “I know that the Administrator is already working to closely examine the previous EPA’s spending spree on Green New Deal-style programs that provided unprecedented levels of taxpayer funds to environmental groups and consultants and to undo burdensome regulations that increased energy costs and made it more difficult to make things in America. “The reconciliation bill passed out of this Committee last week is an important step in saving taxpayer money and redirecting EPA to focus on its core mission of cleaning up the environment and protecting human health. “In February, Administrator Zeldin announced the broad pillars that the Agency will focus on under his “Powering the Great American Comeback” plan. “In March, Administrator Zeldin announced 31 regulatory actions to support greater energy production, a more robust auto manufacturing sector, a more predictable permitting process, and a more state-based enforcement system. “I’m glad to see that EPA is taking another look at a lot of the rulemakings from the last Administration, particularly those regarding air pollution. “As many of those rulemakings didn’t take into account industry’s ability to meet compliance timelines or which pollution mitigation technologies were able to be installed. “EPA has a duty to enforce the statutes that Congress passed, though I do believe encouraging co-operative compliance with industry will lead to better environmental outcomes and less economic disruption. “In recent years, EPA’s budget has been about $10 billion per year. “However, under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act EPA received an astounding $41.5 billion, or more than four times its historical budget, to spend on electric vehicles, environmental justice, and renewable energy programs. “From its founding and up until the past few years, EPA mostly operated as a scientific investigator and regulatory agency, and with the exception of the water infrastructure and Superfund programs, it did not administer lots of large grants. “President Trump’s proposed budget would reduce EPA spending to a more sustainable level after years of out-of-control spending on programs and rules that bore little relation to EPA’s traditional mission of regulating pollution, setting science-based standards for potentially hazardous substances, and cleaning up waste sites. “It seems that the goals of EPA in the last few years were an attempt to force a change that Americans are not buying. “I look forward to hearing more details from Administrator Zeldin about the reorganization and reform efforts he is making at EPA. “The Environment Subcommittee stands ready to work with you, Administrator Zeldin, to help get EPA back on track. “At this Subcommittee’s first hearing of the Congress, we examined the implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, often referred to as the TOS-CA law. “We heard how the process for reviewing new and existing chemicals are in need of reform, particularly the ways in which EPA evaluates potential chemical risks. “We also held a hearing in March on ways to maximize brownfield cleanups to support economic development. “As we work on brownfield reauthorization, I hope to collaborate with EPA on ways to possibly setup some sort of pre-clearance permitting pilot program. “Our national security, our economic competitiveness, the health of our families, and strength of our communities all depend on an EPA that is working hard and efficiently for the American people.  “Thank you again for appearing before us today, Administrator Zeldin, I look forward to your testimony.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2026 Environmental Protection Agency Budget .  “ Our national security, our economic competitiveness, the health of our families, and strength of our communities all depend on an EPA that is working hard and efficiently for the American people ,” said Chairman Griffith. “After four years of economically disastrous, legally questionable, and expensive policies of the Biden-Harris Administration, it is a welcome sight to see President Trump and Administrator Zeldin focused on rebuilding the American economy and fixing the problems of the previous administration .”   Watch the full hearing here .   Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05): “For far too long, the EPA has ballooned well beyond its original scope. Over time, the agency has amassed sweeping regulatory powers that increasingly bypass legislative oversight. What does that leave us with? High costs for the taxpayer, burdensome, unworkable regulatory conditions for industry, stifled innovation and manufacturing, and energy insecurity with decreased domestic production, high costs, and federal overreach for our energy mix. We had heard extensive testimony from industrial leaders across the board that the Biden Administration’s EPA stands for is technologically unfeasible. President Trump proposed a discretionary budget that decreases the EPA budget by over half of last year's budget, making many commonsense reforms to spend American taxpayer dollars in thoughtful ways to effectively improve our environment. What are your thoughts, especially when we hear from the industry that the Biden-Harris Administration’s EPA would come up with some kind of a standard—that there was no existing technology to even meet—but they were demanding that it be done? In a lot of cases, it was just going to put businesses out of business, because they couldn't meet these standards. So, how do you see the EPA dealing in with issues like this in the future?” Administrator Zeldin: “We inherited a lot of regulations that were enacted in 2023, 2024 seeking to strangulate the economy, choosing to suffocate the economy as if it's a binary choice between protecting the environment and growing the economy. The Trump EPA chooses both.” Congressman Jay Obernolte (CA-23): “I wanted to ask you specifically about a concern I have about some of the reductions in force that have been occurring at the EPA, and I understand this is out of desire to right size the agency – that’s something I certainly am very supportive of that. However, many agencies rely on the EPA to do things like issue permits or issue approvals or review plans, and there has been concern expressed that the reductions in force, even though we're transforming the EPA into a more streamlined organization, will result in delays in those approvals and permits getting issued. Can you give us some assurances that that is not the intention?” Administrator Zeldin: “ Congressman, yes, we are going to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, and the way that the reorganization was proposed a couple of weeks ago allows us to better focus on those statutory obligations and reduce the backlogs. So, for example, as I referenced earlier with a couple of your colleagues, we inherited a massive backlog with the pesticide review, a massive backlog with chemical review with state implementation plans with small refinery exemptions, and much more. We are putting resources into getting through those backlogs we inherited as quickly as possible. And, with the pesticide review backlog as one of the examples, we have already worked through over 2,300 of those backlogged cases. We'll continue at that pace, and we're taking measures to increase the pace of working through the backlog we inherited.” Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak (ND-AL): “One of the first actions I took in this role was to write to President Trump and Secretary Burgum to ask them to repeal 20 burdensome rules and regulations from the previous administration – and you're well on your way to doing that. You have outlined a number of grave abuses from the last administration, and I would say one of the gravest abuses was the impact the past administration had on our power sector. I come from the regulatory side of things. I was the most recently the president of the National Utility regulators Association, and in that role, I worked hard to get the last administration to be reasonable on their 111D rules. They completely ignored everything we said. They ignored the power grid operators, and that rule was completely disconnected from reality. Even though it's being pulled back, it had grave consequences on our power grid, and today we are short or dangerously short of having enough power to meet demand because of that agency's overreach in the last administration. So, thank you for your commitment to correcting that and getting us back on track.” Administrator Zeldin: “I often get asked what the biggest surprise or what was most shocking. Once I was confirmed as administrator, and I would say it was surprising how much we were able to do at once. We've heard your calls for action at the agency and we want to tackle it all at the same time. We don't want to pace ourselves.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, announced a hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2026 Environmental Protection Agency Budget.   “Under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin the EPA has worked to rein in wasteful spending, support American innovation, and protect our nation’s air, soil, and water,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Griffith . “This hearing will be a chance to discuss the important work the EPA is doing to achieve its core mission to protect human health and safeguard our environment.”   Subcommittee on Environment Hearing titled The Fiscal Year 2026 Environmental Protection Agency Budget.   WHAT : Subcommittee on Environment Hearing to discuss the FY2026 Environmental Protection Agency Budget.  DATE : Tuesday, May 20, 2025    TIME : 10:00 AM ET  LOCATION : 2123 Rayburn House Office Building  This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Calvin Huggins at Calvin.Huggins1@mail.hosue.gov If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov . ###

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.