Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce (PA-13), Congressman Jay Obernolte (CA-23), and Congressman John James (MI-10), along with Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, California Republicans, and Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, introduced three Congressional Review Act resolutions that would undo harmful rules created under President Biden’s EPA. These three Congressional Review Act resolutions would reverse radical regulations that established a de facto ban on the use of gas-powered vehicles, heavy trucks, and diesel engines over the next decade. “The American people should choose what vehicle is right for them, not California bureaucrats. By submitting the three California waivers to Congress, Administrator Zeldin is ensuring that Congress has oversight of these major rules that impact every American,” said Chairman Guthrie . “The Committee has been committed to addressing this issue since California first attempted to create a de facto EV mandate. Energy and Commerce Republicans will continue to fight against far-left policies that would harm consumers and will now work to ensure that the Congressional Review Act process finally puts these issues to rest. Thank you to Congressman Joyce, Congressman Obernolte, and Congressman James for your work to ensure that families and businesses can continue to choose the vehicles they need.” “Since arriving in Washington, I have fought to protect consumer freedom and allow American families to choose the vehicle that best fits their budget and needs,” said Vice Chairman John Joyce, M.D. “The introduction of this resolution to overturn California’s ban on gas-powered vehicles is long overdue. Thank you to Chairman Guthrie and Chairman Capito for their leadership on this issue, and I look forward to seeing this legislation swiftly pass through Congress so President Trump can permanently protect the freedom of the open road for all Americans.” “As a representative of California, I’ve seen firsthand how burdensome regulations from the California Air Resources Board have hurt businesses and hardworking Americans by imposing costly mandates instead of allowing the market to drive innovation,” said Congressman Obernolte. “Congress must exercise its oversight authority to ensure these policies do not become the national standard. It is critical we protect jobs, supply chains, and the ability of consumers to choose what is best for them and their families.” “The Biden administration left behind comply-or-die Green New Deal mandates that threaten to crush our trucking industry and drive up costs for hardworking Americans,” said Congressman James. “I know — my family has a trucking company. Republicans are working hard to implement President Trump’s America First agenda, and the first step is repealing the rules and waivers that contributed to Bideninflation!”  “During the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed a series of stringent, environmentally charged regulations on vehicles that would effectively overhaul the marketplace and steer consumers toward purchasing electric vehicles,” said Congressman Fulcher. “I am honored to join my colleagues in introducing a legislative package to repeal these overreaching federal mandates and preserve consumer freedom and choice in the automotive and heavy-duty truck markets,”  “California’s sweeping and unachievable emissions mandates are a direct assault on everyone who lives, works, or does business in our state,” said Congressman LaMalfa . “These regulations drive up costs, limit consumer choice, and force trucking and automotive industries into an impossible transition timeline. Californians are already paying some of the highest fuel and energy costs in the country. These rules are causing the cost of new and used cars and trucks to increase for everyone. If you want to buy an electric vehicle, buy one, but everybody else shouldn’t be forced into this mandate. The Federal Government cannot allow one state to destroy the American car and truck market. Instead of making life even more expensive, we should focus on what consumers want. I’m pleased to support this effort to stop California’s insanity and protect drivers and consumers across my state and the country.”  “The Newsom Administration’s irrational plan to ban gas-powered cars and trucks is an affront to the freedom of Californians and an economic burden to the whole country,” said Congressman Kiley. “ The Biden Administration aided and abetted this insanity with special waivers. With the Congressional Review Act resolutions introduced today, we have an opportunity to return to economic reality and restore common sense.”  “Biden’s EPA waivers effectively allowed one state’s woke agenda to dictate national policy. It’s not the government’s role to decide what vehicle Americans must drive,” said Chairwoman McClain. “These waivers bypass Congress and ignore millions of Americans who rely on affordable, reliable transportation. Instead, we should have a little more faith in the American people to choose what’s best for them. It’s time we end this regulatory overreach.”  Background:  Making these changes at a time when the United States is unprepared for a full transition to electric vehicles would have massive consequences for American communities. With states making up more than 40% of the auto market following California’s emissions standards, implementing Californias EV mandate would result in a nation-wide shift in the vehicles that are available for purchase, and in fact could lead to a shortage of the vehicles consumers need.   H.J. Res. 88 , introduced by Congressman Joyce (PA-13), would reverse the EPA’s decision to approve a waiver granted to California allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035. H.J. Res. 89 , introduced by Congressman Obernolte (CA-23), would put an end to the EPA’s decision to allow California to implement its most recent nitrogen oxide (NOx) engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty on-road engines. H.J. Res. 87 , introduced by Congressman James (MI-10), would reverse the EPA’s decision to approve a waiver granted to California allowing the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Maximizing Opportunities for Redeveloping Brownfields Sites: Assessing the Potential for New American Innovation. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith's opening statement as prepared for delivery: "Today, this Subcommittee will examine the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields grant program.  "Brownfields are generally described as properties that contain or may contain a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, which in turn complicates efforts to expand, redevelop, or reuse the site.  "Often, these contaminated sites are not redeveloped, because prospective new owners are worried about becoming responsible for potential liability as the original company that is liable for the contamination no longer exists. "Through this program, EPA provides grant funding to states, Tribes, economic development agencies, and other entities who are then able to study the extent of contamination, clean up the site, and find a way to redevelop it. "Since 1993, EPA has administered efforts to clean up these sites. Congress first formally established the Brownfields program in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, and codified it under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. "The brownfields program has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, and the last statutory authorization expired last September, at the end of Fiscal Year 2023.  "Reauthorizing this program will provide us with an opportunity to examine the program and find out what aspects are working well and what aspects need improvement. I believe taking testimony from our witnesses today will help us to inform our efforts.  "Additionally, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided an unprecedented supplemental appropriation of $1.5 billion for brownfields. The awards funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act were exempted from some of the traditional statutory limitations, such as certain maximum grant amounts and state and local cost share requirements. We will need to examine these changes and understand their advantages and disadvantages. "EPA estimates there are more than 450,000 brownfields properties in the United States. This amounts to a lot of unused or underutilized land with economic potential. "Broadly we also know that we will need additional infrastructure and facilities to support our growing economy and process the materials and components needed for new innovative technologies.  "The Brownfields program may also be a good tool to help secure American leadership in emerging industries and traditional manufacturing.  "For example, ABI Research, an industry analysis firm, estimates that by the end of 2025, there will be over 6,000 data centers built worldwide as artificial intelligence continues to take off. "Over the next five years, our country’s electricity demand is expected to grow by almost 16 percent. This growing demand will entail construction of additional energy resources. "So, today we will examine opportunities to bring those industries to Brownfields sites in our communities and explore existing barriers to putting these sites to good use. "In my district in Southwest Virginia, counties, state agencies, regional organizations, and public-private partnerships have already been hard at work revitalizing former mine land for economic development. "I hope we can learn more today about how the Brownfields Program can support these endeavors and similar ones around the country.  "Thank you to our witnesses for being here and contributing to these efforts.  "First, we have the Honorable Jim Connaughton, Chief Executive Officer of James L. ConnaughtonStrategies where he works on sustainable technology innovation and public policy.  "Mr. Connaughton recently served as CEO of Nautilus Data Technologies, a company producing data center components with minimal environmental impacts. He also served as Chairman of the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality under President Bush.  "As you all know, this Committee has been engaged in robust discussion over the past few years on ways to improve the permitting process generally, so we welcome his extensive experience in this area. "We also welcome back Mayor Christian Bollwagefrom the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey.  "The Committee greatly appreciates him lending his knowledge and expertise to our efforts to reauthorize the Brownfields Program. "We will also hear from Christa Stoneham, President and CEO of the Houston Land Bank. Thank you for being here to share your insights on the program and efforts to revitalize the areas your organization serves.  "Last but not least, I am excited to welcome my constituent Duane Miller, Executive Director of the LENOWISCO Planning District Commission. My staff and I have had the privilege of working with the Commission for years. They’ve played an integral role in attracting emerging industries to our region, creating jobs, and cleaning up abandoned sites in Southwest Virginia. "Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to a good discussion. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for his opening statement."  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing titled Maximizing Opportunities for Redeveloping Brownfields Sites: Assessing the Potential for New American Innovation . “The Brownfields Program supports communities impacted by prior industrial activity, offering them a new opportunity to spur growth and innovation. As the program continues to work to clean up areas that have been contaminated, we can leverage these sites to construct, among other things, data centers critical to advancing Artificial Intelligence,” said Chairman Griffith. “Today's hearing was an important step toward ensuring that the Brownfields Program continues to serve the American people by assessing and cleaning up potential contamination and supporting new and emerging industries.” Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Representative Bob Latta (OH-05): “What do we need to be doing on permitting to move things along and get things moving faster? This a great thing about this Committee, the broad jurisdiction we have. I've never heard anybody ever testify before saying that they're against our regulations. Just give us regulations so we can live with. But what do you see on the permitting side that we ought to be doing right now?”  Hon. James L. Connaughton: “You know, what's interesting is we had all the big infrastructure projects, data centers, semiconductors, by the way, even shipbuilding. They actually don't have a big outward environmental footprint. There's a lot of things to comply with, OK, but all the methods of controlling to prevent environmental contamination are well known and in place. And so, if we could simply change the default to yes. With inspection and enforcement of noncompliance, which almost never occurs, that solves the problem. And you do it in site assessment, you do it in permitting, and you do it with interconnection. You have to create an automated system.” Representative John Joyce (PA-13): “In Pennsylvania, we are proud of our industries. The coal, the steel, and allied industries that were mined and forged in our cities and in our towns. Sadly, many of these legacy industries have fallen on hard times and gone out of business, leaving behind land in need of environmental cleanup and communities with limited resources. to invest in that necessary redevelopment. This is where EPA's Brownfields Program has been useful to ensure that these are areas that are not left behind, and economic development can occur. Across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, counties like Cambria and Blair have used brownfields to leverage public and private funding to create family sustaining jobs. This program is a great example of how instead of federal government getting in the way with burdensome regulations, it can work with local stakeholders to spur lasting redevelopment.” Representative August Pfluger (TX-11): “I represent a very rural district but one that has a tremendous amount of energy. One that could benefit very greatly, but we see more of an urge to show some or to do urban projects rather than rural. So maybe talk to me a little bit about some of the barriers that have impacted us in the rural community.” Mr. Duane Miller: “I'm a big believer in our rural areas. We kind of view them as a blank canvas… I really think a concise effort should be put on the recruitment of data centers to rural areas through this brownfield funding.” ###

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.