Environment

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. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, announced the Committee’s new Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Environment, Byron Brown.   Subcommittee on Environment   Chief Counsel – Byron Brown    Byron Brown will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Environment. Most recently, Byron served as Assistant General Counsel at the American Chemistry Council and has extensive Capitol Hill and Executive Branch experience, including as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the Environmental Protection Agency. He also served as Senior Counsel for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works under Chairman Jim Inhofe, where he worked on issues involving contaminated sites, waste, recycling and mining and was the lead author of the coal ash provisions included in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (PL 114-322). Byron has also served as Senior Counsel and Director of Oversight for the House Committee on Natural Resources under Chairman Doc Hastings, as an attorney in private practice at a law firm in Washington, D.C., and a career attorney at EPA.    Byron is a graduate of the University of Iowa College of Law and has a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Iowa and a bachelor’s degree from the University of New Hampshire.  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The following op-ed by Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce (PA-13), Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John James (MI-10), and Congressman Jay Obernolte (CA-23), appeared in the Washington Examiner this week.  “In the final days of his presidency, former President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency made a decision that would effectively implement a nationwide electric vehicle mandate as soon as 2035. Before Biden left office, the EPA approved waivers sought by the state of California to impose stricter state emissions standards on automobiles than the existing federal limitations, resulting in a de facto EV mandate that would prevent the sale of gas-powered cars, heavy-duty trucks, diesel engines, and SUVs.   “In 1968, the Clean Air Act granted California a carveout to implement stricter emissions standards to address Los Angeles smog. In December, after more than 50 years of liberal policies expanding the use of this carveout, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom authorized a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles in California by 2035.  “To rectify this misinterpretation of congressional intent, the House of Representatives will soon vote on resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that claw back the Biden EPA’s decision to approve the waivers submitted by California and preserve the availability of gas-powered vehicles and trucks for families and businesses.   “We believe that people should be empowered to decide for themselves which vehicles are best for their families and not have the government decide for them. Our constituents tell us that EVs often cannot fulfill their needs. They frequently can’t drive the distances needed, maintain their charge at extreme temperatures, or recharge fast enough to keep hardworking people on the move.  “Let’s be clear: Outlawing the sale of gas-powered vehicles is a blatant power grab by California Democrats to dictate policy across the country. More than a dozen states have adopted California’s emissions standards, meaning that more than 40% of the vehicle market will be affected by the Biden EPA’s decision. American auto manufacturers cannot afford to make separate vehicles for different states.    “For decades, emissions have been reduced through investments and innovations, not government mandates. With such a short time span between enactment and implementation, our infrastructure is not prepared to meet the demand that a massive EV fleet would put on our electric grid.   “Individual families, gas stations, and highway rest stops are not in a position to install expensive EV chargers at the speed this mandate would require. An EV mandate is also an abandonment of the free-market principles that have enabled Americans to have the most mobility of any nation in the world. This policy will harm working- and middle-class families by making cars more expensive and less capable.    “Only by taking the government’s thumb off the scale and letting the free market decide will the public get the efficient and affordable transportation it needs.    “The EPA’s decision to grant California’s waivers has produced shocking downstream consequences, confirming once again that the Biden-Harris administration prioritized implementing far-left policies over serving the people in its final days.  “There are a number of downstream consequences associated with the implementation of these rules. For instance, electric heavy-duty trucks come with an increased weight and diminished towing power that will require more trucks on the road now and in the future.    “Further, the critical materials necessary for the production of EV batteries are nearly universally mined and produced under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. A complete transition to EVs in the next decade would make our nation deeply reliant on the CCP, which currently produces more than 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals.    “The mining that occurs in China is also among the most environmentally damaging in the world. When regulations exist at all to produce EV batteries, they are often not enforced, leading to toxic chemicals entering the soil, water, and air. The pollution created in the Chinese mining process, which is estimated to be twice as emissions-intensive as mining in the United States, effectively cancels out any perceived gains of an EV compared to a gas-powered car or truck manufactured here at home.    “Passing these resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act is not an attempt to ban the sale of EVs. Anyone who wants to buy an EV should be able to do so. But no person should be forced to buy a car that isn’t right for them.    “Now, with President Donald Trump in the White House and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s commitment to undoing harmful regulations, we have the opportunity to prevent this disastrous rule from going into effect, putting a stop to California’s onerous EV mandate.”  Background:    H.J.Res. 88, led by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), vice chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, will repeal California’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver, allowing the state to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035.   H.J.Res. 87, led by Rep. John James (R-MI), will repeal California’s Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, which currently would allow the state to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.  H.J.Res. 89, led by Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), will put an end to California’s implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty on-road engines.  ###

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.