Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, released a statement following the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s (EPA) proposal to roll back Obama and Biden-era regulations that have limited motor vehicle manufacturing and created a de-facto EV mandate for consumers for over a decade. “During the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations, one-size-fits-all regulations were weaponized to create an EV mandate that limited consumer choice and increased costs for American businesses and consumers. “Over the past year, our Committee has led the way in Congress to address these issues including three Resolutions of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act which ensured California could not impose an EV mandate on consumers across the country and force automakers and consumers to align with their radical green policies,”  said Chairman Guthrie. “No country has reduced its emissions more than the United States over the course of the 21st century. That accomplishment came from innovation and investments, not federal mandates. Today’s decision by the EPA to reconsider impractical and unworkable vehicle standards is a victory for American families who want to choose the car or truck that is right for them—not what’s mandated by Washington bureaucrats.” Background: The so-called “endangerment finding” was issued in 2009 by the Obama-Biden Administration and is the basis for the vehicle emission rules issued by both the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations that imposed costly EV mandates that limited consumer choice and increased costs of newer vehicles. EPA’s proposal is based on recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the scope of regulatory agencies like EPA in accordance with Congressional authorities.

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today's hearing titled Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth . Subcommittee Chairman Palmer's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing entitled Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth. “Before we begin, I’d like to thank Chairman Guthrie for the opportunity to lead the Environment Subcommittee. I’d also like to thank Chairman Griffith for his excellent leadership of the Subcommittee and wish him the best as the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. And to Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, I look forward to working with you. “As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I focused on the importance of critical minerals to our national security and holding the Environmental Protection Agency accountable. I look forward to continuing that important work in this new role. “Waste and recycling are generally considered to be regional issues, regulated at the state and local level. However, we will hear testimony today about the national and economic security implications of recycling policy. “In his first days in office, President Trump emphasized the need to secure our critical mineral and material supply chains. We must use an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to ensuring our ability to access these critical minerals and materials, which is why electronic waste (e-waste) is so important for our future. “With the growth of data centers and use of technology, e-waste is accumulating at higher rates every year, with billions of dollars in losses as this technology reaches its end of life. E-waste is a commodity that can be repurposed in our fight to not only be energy independent, but energy dominant. “Let me be clear – we will not recycle our way out of these issues. However, as we look to build out our mining capacities, e-waste recycling innovation provides vital short and long-term support for our needs as a nation. “The President also issued an executive order on the importance of Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements. “As part of the negotiations for the global plastics treaty, the Biden-Harris administration announced support for bans on plastics and a cap on plastic production. That would not be in America’s interest. “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the role that American businesses can play in innovating and developing technologies to take advantage of the opportunities in the recycling industry. “The threat China poses to the United States and our allies cannot be overstated. We will hear from our witnesses today on how we can use recycling as a tool to compete with China and protect our communities. “Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. It is my understanding we have not had a hearing on this topic in some time, and I appreciate my colleagues engaging on this important issue. I look forward to our discussion.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth. “It’s time to ensure that government red tape isn’t preventing investments in new technologies and methods that can help support recycling here at home. Today’s hearing was an opportunity to discuss these issues and look at long term solutions that support both mechanical and advanced recycling here in the United States,” said Chairman Palmer. “Finding ways to harness e-waste recycling will be critical as we look to find new sources of critical materials to support our economy and national security, and we cannot afford to let these vital materials go to waste.”   Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02): “I think we’re on the same page we want to strive to build a more innovative economy that incorporates advanced recycling and revitalizes American manufacturing. We need two key elements: clear rules at home and strong leadership abroad. First, we have to provide regulatory clarity and certainty, this is essential for innovation for investment and for scaling domestic recycling infrastructure. You can’t build the future on a regulatory framework that is often shaped by climate alarmism and instead of commonsense.”   Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “It’s an economic and a national security imperative, as well as an environmental issue. Iowa’s manufacturing sector depends on recycled materials as feedstocks, yet we're watching China and other competitors purchase our scrap at above market prices while our own factory struggled to source domestic materials. The data shows we're landfilling millions of tons of valuable manufactured materials every year — materials that should be creating jobs and strengthening supply chains right here in America. In Iowa alone, we're capturing less than half of our aluminum cans and only 15% of our steel cans — despite having to deposit on aluminum cans. That's not just waste, it's a lost economic opportunity for our manufacturers and increased dependence on foreign suppliers.” Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger (TN-01): “We use plastic in everything. We store our food that way. We use it in medicine. You can't walk into my pharmacy and not see syringes. We use a lot of plastic, but when we're talking about the future of plastics, we need to work towards making a more circular economy. My district is home to Eastman Chemical Company and it's the largest dedicated advanced recycling facility in the world. In Kingsport, Eastman’s been taking plastics that normally would go into the landfill and then instead use the materials for the recycling process, and they can convert them and create new plastic materials that have the same quality and integrity as plastics that were made directly from petrochemicals.” ###

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.