Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – In case you missed it, Fox News recently published an article featuring a letter from Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, requesting information on California’s decision to continue imposing a de-facto EV mandate. In Case You Missed It: “In a sharp rebuke, a Kentucky congressman is pressing California’s top environmental agency for answers after learning the state may be ignoring Congress’ reversal of three key electric vehicle standards. “The House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote to Sacramento that it is ‘concerned about reports that California, and other jurisdictions who have adopted California standards for which waivers of preemption have been granted, are enforcing preempted vehicle emission regulations in violation of the Clean Air Act.’ “Earlier this year, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to nullify Biden-era waivers granted by the Biden EPA to California, allowing them to implement stricter standards than the federal government. “Several states, including Pennsylvania and Delaware, along with the District of Columbia, have adopted California’s low-emissions standards as well. “The Committee has been made aware that CARB staff is denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations,’ the committee continued. “Rep. Brett Guthrie, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a Republican, told Fox News Digital that the law is clear that the Golden State must end its ‘de-facto EV mandate.’ “Enforcing a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles would have dire consequences for American families and businesses,’ Guthrie said. “Forcing Americans to buy these vehicles would strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on China. Our investigation will look into whether California is continuing to enforce an EV mandate in violation of federal law.’ Joining Guthrie on the letter were Reps. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., and John Joyce, R-Pa., chairmen of the environment and oversight subcommittees, respectively. “The committee acknowledged a lawsuit against the recissions from California Attorney General Robert Bonta remains ongoing, but that the intermission does not allow the state to continue enforcing mandates under the nixed waivers. In a June statement announcing the lawsuit, Bonta called the situation ‘reckless, politically motivated and illegal.’ “The letter, addressed to Dr. Steven Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, said the committee had been purportedly made aware of CARB staff denying auto manufacturers’ approval to bring vehicles to market in the state ‘unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations.’ “These efforts include CARB staff indicating that the agency would deny California Executive Orders (EO) for model year 2026 vehicles that meet all of CARB’s enforceable regulatory requirements and which California allowed for sale in model year 2025, on the basis that these vehicles do not meet the additional requirements in one set of the preempted regulations: ACC-II.’ “The committee further alleges that CARB’s online ‘repository’ spreadsheet of model year 2026 vehicles showed the board has ‘exclusively approved’ vehicles that would certify under the ACC-II green regulations. “They closed by demanding documents showing whether CARB is continuing to enforce the car, truck or omnibus regulations Congress undid, and all records from the first of the year onward germane to the regulations and Biden-era waivers. “Fox News Digital reached out to CARB and Gov. Gavin Newsom for comment on accusations that the board is discriminating against certain vehicles.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board, requesting information on California’s decision to continue imposing a de-facto EV mandate. “The law is clear California must put an end to its de-facto EV mandate. Enforcing a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles would have dire consequences for American families and businesses,” said Chairman Guthrie. “Forcing Americans to buy these vehicles would strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on China. Our investigation will look into whether California is continuing to enforce an EV mandate in violation of federal law.” Read more about the letter from Fox News here . Key excerpts from the letter: “The Committee is concerned about reports that California, and other jurisdictions who have adopted California standards for which waivers of preemption have been granted, are enforcing preempted vehicle emission regulations in violation of the Clean Air Act.” “The Committee has been made aware that CARB staff is denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations.” Background: On June 12, 2025, President Trump signed three resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res 89, which collectively disapproved California’s waiver of preemption allowing the state to impose emission standards that effectively ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. The CRA’s passed Congress with bipartisan support. The Clean Air Act clearly bans states from issuing their own emission standards unless EPA grants a waiver of federal preemption. Because the EPA’s waivers have been disapproved under the CRA, the California EV mandates are not allowed under the Clean Air Act. Despite three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions being signed into law this year that block California from implementing vehicle standards that ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks through its Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II regulations, Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulations, and Omnibus Low NOx programs (the Omnibus) regulations, Committee staff have learned that California and other states are continuing to implement the preempted rules. Specifically, following formal disapproval of previously granted waivers due to the CRAs, California is reportedly refusing to certify automobiles that don’t meet the now-preempted standards, contrary to federal law, i.e., the Clean Air Act. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

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.  – 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.