News

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) requested information related to rescheduling of marijuana.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “We write to express our concerns with the recent notice of proposed rulemaking titled ‘Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana,’ to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The circumstances surrounding this proposed rule are unusual, and we are concerned by the process that led to this determination.”  [...]  “We support research into innovative therapies to improve patient outcomes, but we are concerned with how the normal process was circumvented to achieve a result for political purposes and we have a number of unanswered questions.”  BACKGROUND :  History:   Marijuana is a psychoactive substance that has been listed in Schedule I since the CSA was enacted in 1970.  All substances in Schedule I are classified as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.  This means that the manufacturing, possession, and distribution of marijuana is illegal at the federal level, except for certain research approved by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  During the Obama administration in 2016, the DEA and HHS, acting through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), conducted a multi-year review of whether to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to a lesser schedule. Both the DEA and HHS agreed that marijuana continued to meet the criteria to be considered a Schedule I substance.  HHS concluded that “[…] marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision.”  President Biden made a public statement on October 6, 2022, issuing pardons for all simple possession federal offenses of marijuana, requesting all Governors do the same with state level offenses, and requiring HHS and DOJ to begin the administrative process to quickly review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.  While the administration has the authority to alter a substance’s scheduling status, it is bound by the CSA to consider factors, including whether a substance has a medical use and to determine its potential for abuse and dependence, prior to changing its scheduling status.  Process:   The DEA typically determines whether a substance has a medical use if it has been approved for marketing under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and by conducting a five-part test, which considers the following:  (1) there were adequate safety studies,  (2) the drug’s chemistry is known and reproducible,  (3) there are adequate and controlled studies,  (4) the drug is accepted by qualified experts, and  (5) there is widely available scientific evidence.  However, this proposed rule indicates that HHS notified the DEA that HHS disagreed with the existing process and decided to develop its own test to determine whether a substance has medical use under the CSA.  This test is comprised of two considerations:  (1) if there is widespread medical use of such a substance under the supervision of a licensed health care practitioner operating within a State-authorized program and,  (2) if so, there is credible scientific evidence to support medical use of such substance.  HHS analyzed marijuana by utilizing its own two-part test, determined it has a medical use, and therefore recommended to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA.  DOJ received HHS’s recommendation and declared that this new two-part test is sufficient to establish medical use, which is an unusual deviation from the typical process.  It is notable that the proposed rule states, “DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” seeming to indicate that the DEA is not yet convinced of the merits of this review.  Additionally, most of the professional organizations listed in the HHS “Basis for the Recommendation to Reschedule Marijuana into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act” have released position statements that either request more evidence or oppose using marijuana as medicine for their specialties.  Further Considerations:   To date, the FDA has not approved a New Drug Application (NDA) necessary to have satisfied the criteria required under the previous five-factor analysis, such as adequate and well-controlled studies proving safety and efficacy, for a drug product containing botanical marijuana to treat any medical condition(s); thus, it has remained a Schedule I drug without a currently accepted medical use.  This is misaligned from typical practice, as the presence of a marketing application approved to treat a certain condition or disease has been central to the FDA's determinations.  The Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potency in marijuana is also continuing to increase.  According to the proposed rule, THC potency has spiked from about three percent in 1991 to 17 percent in 2017 and it notes, “[…] DEA anticipates that additional data on public safety risks, risks from acute and chronic marijuana use via oral and inhaled administration routes, and the impact of THC potency may be appropriate for consideration.”  The proposed rule also states, “the vast majority of professional organizations did not recommend the use of marijuana in their respective specialties; however, none specifically recommended against it, with the exception of the American Psychiatric Association, which states that marijuana is known to worsen certain psychiatric conditions.”  Further, HHS’s own report to Congress titled “Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids and Barriers to Research” states that “[m]ore research is needed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids as a means of safely and effectively treating various indications […] it is also worth noting that the U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized the use of cannabis products for medicinal purposes have often done so with inadequate scientific research to support all allowable uses.”  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Monica Bertagnolli, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) requested documents and transcribed interviews related to an approved MPVX experiment.  The letter comes after the Committee released an interim staff report on the experiment as well as an NIH reform framework . It notes that a failure to produce the requested documents by August 8, 2024, may lead to issuance of a subpoena to compel compliance. HHS and the NIH continue to withhold critical documents requested by the Committee last year.  KEY EXCERPT :  “For nearly a year and a half, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH, and NIAID misled the Committee. Both HHS and the NIH told us a risky MPXV research proposal at the NIAID had not been “'formally proposed' or 'planned' when in fact this project was submitted and received approval before the NIH’s Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) on June 30, 2015, as documented in written meeting minutes. The misleading statements were included in the following communications to the Committee:  Letter from the HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation dated April 26, 2023.  Letter from Dr. Bernard Moss to Chair Rodgers, dated June 30, 2023.  Written statements presented at the September 21, 2023, meeting between Committee staff and NIH/NIAID officials from Dr. Bernard Moss, Dr. Steven Holland, NIAID Director of the Division of Intramural Research, and Jeffery Potts, Chief of the Biorisk Management Branch within the NIH Division of Occupational Health and Safety.  “This deception is unacceptable and has led the Committee to conclude that NIAID cannot be trusted to oversee its own research of pathogens or determine whether an experiment poses enhanced risks of a potential pandemic or other serious public health outbreak.”  [...] “NIAID’s lack of candor to this point suggests that it cannot be trusted to oversee the research projects that it funds. Therefore, this Committee will explore policy options to address this inherent conflict of interest and lack of transparency.”  ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND :  A new strain of MPXV has recently emerged that increases the risk of this disease causing a major public health outbreak or a potential pandemic. Since January, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported more than 4,500 suspected mpox cases and nearly 300 deaths, numbers that have roughly tripled from the same period last year, according to the World Health Organization.  Congo recently declared the outbreak across the country a health emergency. An analysis of hospitalized patients suggests recent genetic mutations are the result of continued transmissions in humans.  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Letter comes on the eve of athletes competing in the Paris Olympics and after WADA’s President refused to attend an Energy and Commerce Committee oversight hearing Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) President Witold Banka, bipartisan House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders pressed for answers regarding WADA’s handling of positive doping cases within China’s national swimming team ahead of the Tokyo Olympics. The letter contains questions that bipartisan Committee Members would have asked during a recent Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing , which Mr. Banka was invited to attend but refused to appear. Witnesses that did testify at the hearing included: Michael Phelps, American swimmer and Olympic gold medalist   Allison Schmitt, American swimmer and Olympic gold medalist   Travis Tygart , Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) KEY EXCERPTS:   “We write today to express our sincere disappointment at your refusal to accept our invitation to attend and provide testimony at our recent Subcommittee hearing. Members of Congress have important questions for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and are especially concerned about recent reports of your handling of dozens of cases of doping within the Chinese swimming team.  “WADA purports to maintain the integrity of sports by creating a fair and competitive sporting environment free from doping. As a U.S. taxpayer supported entity, WADA has a responsibility to the American people to ensure this integrity by enforcing international testing requirements. We believe WADA has fallen short of this important mission. ”  [...]   “ We are particularly concerned with the excessive deference being extended toward CHINADA—a state-funded operation with leadership deeply intertwined with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as current [Chinese Anti-Doping Agency] CHINADA director Li Zhiquan also serves as a Committee Secretary for the CCP. At a meeting in 2023, Zhiquan called on CHINADA employees to be 'loyal to the party' and to 'hold high the great banner of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.' Furthermore, WADA’s reported sponsorship arrangement with ANTA Sports—the Chinese athletic company sponsoring the Chinese Olympic Committee and China’s national swimming federation—could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Since WADA is expected to uphold and maintain international anti-doping standards, WADA’s apparent lack of skepticism and failure to enforce the rules against CHINADA is troubling. While we are aware that WADA has opened an investigation, we are concerned that international scrutiny was necessary to force due diligence that should be routine .”  [...]  “This incident unfortunately reinforces our concern that WADA appears to be reverting to its previous poor management practices.”  [...]  “With the Paris Summer Olympic Games Opening Ceremony just a day away , the Committee seeks to better understand the circumstances surrounding WADA’s decision not to appeal the decision to clear the twenty-three swimmers who tested positive for trimetazidine.”   BACKGROUND :  In January 2021, 23 Chinese swimmers (“23 swimmers”) tested positive for trimetazidine, or TMZ, a banned substance improperly used to increase stamina and hasten recovery times.  Three months after the positive tests, CHINADA initiated an investigation into the source of the TMZ and by June 2021 claimed the athletes ingested the banned substance through food tainted in a hotel kitchen.  According to reporting, Chinese investigators “offered no explanation […] for how a prescription drug available only in pill form had contaminated an entire kitchen.”  In reliance on “external legal advice” and its science department, WADA determined that CHINADA’s claims were “plausible” and chose not to appeal the decision or further investigate the matter.  Three of these Chinese swimmers went on to win gold medals at the Tokyo Olympic Games in July of 2021.  China has selected 11 swimmers that tested positive for TMZ before the Tokyo Games to compete in the upcoming Paris Games.  In a strikingly similar case, Kamila Valieva, a Russian figure skater, also tested positive for the banned substance TMZ during the 2022 Beijing Olympics.  The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) issued a provisional suspension but was quickly cleared by RUSADA’s discipline board, since Valieva claimed she ingested the substance by mistake through a contaminated source.  Rather than simply accept RUSADA’s contamination explanation, WADA appealed the decision and ultimately, Valieva received a four-year ban from competition and was retroactively stripped of her gold medal. The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ), Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chair Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL). CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) requested information about the agency’s internet domain name registry agreement with Verisign, Inc. (Verisign). BACKGROUND :  The NTIA represents the United States government on the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the multi-stakeholder, not-for-profit entity that was founded in 1998 to coordinate the Internet domain name system, among other Internet management-related activities. Since 2001, Verisign has operated the .com and .net domain name registries.   Verisign manages the .com registry under two agreements—a .com Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign and a Cooperative Agreement between the NTIA and Verisign.  Both of these agreements are in place through November 30, 2024.  As the expiration dates of these agreements approach, some have suggested that the NTIA should reassess certain aspects of both agreements.   Under the Cooperative Agreement’s terms, it will automatically renew on November 30, 2024, unless Verisign provides written notice of non-renewal within 120 days of its expiration.   The Department of Justice has previously recommended ICANN hold a competitive bidding process for renewals of registry agreements.   The current agreement, as amended, has allowed Verisign, with ICANN’s agreement, in each of the last four years of every six-year contract period, to increase the maximum price Verisign charges for yearly registration or renewal of a .com name by up to seven percent over the maximum price it charged in the previous year.   Verisign has since instituted a price increase of the maximum amount in every year it was allowed to do so.   KEY LETTER EXCERPT :  “With both a role in advising ICANN and as a party to the Cooperative Agreement, the NTIA bears responsibility for supporting a domain name system that enables the growth of online commerce. Both individual consumers and businesses depend on responsible management of the .com system. Monopolistic elements and excessive domain name price increases stifle the ability of potential .com registrants to conduct business online.  “As such, we seek more information about the NTIA’s process in considering the renewal of both the Registry Agreement and the Cooperative Agreement.”  CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) today sent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Administrator Alan Davidson a letter demanding an explanation for the Agency’s repeated failures to respond to questions for the record (QFRs) in a timely manner. Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and the NTIA’s failure to be responsive and transparent undermines our system of checks and balances. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We expect NTIA to take seriously our oversight efforts and respond to QFRs and letters promptly. After the hearing on December 5, 2023, it took you 107 days to submit your answers to the QFRs, far exceeding the 2-week deadline. “We received answers to QFRs from the December oversight hearing on the same day that we announced the May NTIA oversight hearing. It is unacceptable that in order to receive responses to QFRs from an oversight hearing, we must introduce more oversight activity.” The Chairs requested answers to the following questions:   During our May 15, 2024, oversight hearing, when questioned about the untimeliness of NTIA’s responses, you said, “I don't know all the details about why each of those took so long, and I would be happy to get back to you. I think the process of writing the QFRs were quite lengthy.” Please describe the process of drafting QFR responses. During that same hearing, you also said “We have to get them [(responses to QFRs)] all cleared through a complex internal interagency process, and that often slows us down.” Please explain each of the steps in this process. How can this interagency process be adjusted to ensure that NTIA responds promptly to the Committee’s requests? CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Oversight and Acoountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) sent letters to eight federal agencies today following the recent Supreme Court decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , in which the court overruled Chevron deference. Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) and House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-PA) joined Chairs Rodgers and Comer on an additional letter sent to the Environmental Protection Agency. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We write to call to your attention Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a recent Supreme Court decision that precludes courts from deferring to agency interpretations when the statutes are ambiguous. In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which required deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. By allowing such deference, the Court in Chevron enabled the ‘Administrative State’ to usurp the legislative authority that the Constitution grants exclusively to Congress in Article I. The Chevron decision led to broader, more costly and more invasive agency regulation of Americans’ lives, liberty, and property.   “Perhaps no administration has gone as far as President Biden’s in issuing sweeping Executive edicts based on questionable assertions of agency authority. The Biden administration has promulgated far more major rules, imposing vast costs and paperwork burdens, than either its most recent predecessors. Many of these rules...have been based on overreaching interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress years ago, before the issues now regulated were even imagined.   “The expansive Chevron deference has undermined our system of government, creating an unaccountable Administrative State. Thankfully, the Court has now corrected this pattern, reaffirming that ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Given the Biden administration’s record of agency overreach, we are compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.”   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Environmental Protection Agency. CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Communications Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Trade Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to Department of Commerce.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Department of Energy.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) sent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan a letter demanding additional details regarding the agency’s efforts to designate additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We are particularly concerned with the scope of any new designations made by EPA, including the EPA’s ability to obtain and use the data necessary to understand the technical and economic feasibility of such a designation. “The Agency’s purposeful cooperation with scientific experts, who know these substances, is relevant to the cleanup levels for which those sites might be subject and will, ultimately, determine how quickly these sites will be cleaned up under CERCLA’s strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability scheme. For these reasons, it is imperative this Committee follow up with you and seek additional information about the potential scope of additional actions under CERCLA to address PFAS releases.”   BACKGROUND: PFAS are not a single chemical, but rather an entire group of 14,000 synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications.   On April 17, 2024, the EPA designated two PFAS substances, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA.   During Administrator Regan’s appearance before the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, he was asked if the EPA would designate PFAS substances beyond PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances.” In response, he stated, “We will.” Later, the EPA stated the agency “will go through a rulemaking process” for the designation of additional PFAS chemicals as CERCLA hazardous substances.  Given that PFOA and PFOS are just a fraction of the entire PFAS class, the Chairs are demanding details regarding the EPA’s efforts to designate additional PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA, and whether they will be transparent with the public regarding those efforts. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington D.C. — In a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC) are pressing for more information on FERC’s ability to address the growth in electricity demand, particularly from the rapid growth of AI data centers. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “After years of minimal growth, electricity demand in the United States is projected to grow nationally at a significant pace through the end of the decade. It is anticipated that much of this demand growth will come from a surge in the number of data centers and the growing uses of artificial intelligence (AI) by data centers, onshoring of industry and manufacturing, and increased electrification. Estimates show annual growth of 5 to 6 percent through the end of the decade, a tenfold increase in the growth rate from current levels. By the end of the decade, data centers, which are driving increases in electricity demand, could consume as much as 9.1 percent of all electricity in the United States. "Unlike many sources of demand that consume electricity at a lower energy density, data centers consume large quantities of power at a near constant level throughout the year. This surge in demand for reliable and dispatchable baseload generation comes at a time when the NERC has repeatedly raised concerns over the adequacy and reliability of the grid. These risks are due to a confluence of factors, including state and federal policies that have forced premature retirements of reliable generation without adequate replacement generation resources and electric infrastructure. FERC’s recent summer assessment lists data center demand growth as a driver for increased demand while acknowledging that supply shortages are possible this summer.” BACKGROUND: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security held a hearing on June 4, 2024 to discuss the energy demands of emerging technologies, like Artificial Intelligence, and how to ensure that America continues to be a technological leader. Some experts project a ten-fold increase in the growth rate of new power demand, compared with the past decade. Data centers that process AI and digital transactions are a major driver of this increase in demand. Biden Administration actions, like the Clean Power Plan (CPP) 2.0, are accelerating the retirement of baseload power sources, which are essential for providing the 24/7/365 energy needed to power our technological future. E&C Republicans led a join resolution of disapproval on June 5, 2024 to halt President Biden’s CPP 2.0 which will shut down critical baseload energy generation. Chair Rodgers and Carter released a statement on April 25, 2024 blasting the EPA’s devastating power plant rules that would shut down American energy. The Chair requested the FERC Commissioners provide the following information by July 30, 2024: Explain what FERC is doing to assess the challenges of this new demand growth from data centers and industrial sectors. Explain what options FERC is considering to address this new demand growth to assure reliable, affordable delivery of power in the FERC regulated markets. What effect will demand growth have on capacity prices? Are the FERC jurisdictional wholesale markets prepared to withstand retirement projections and coinciding demand increase projections? The potential for co-locating data centers or industrial loads presents the risks of taking baseload, reliable generation off the grid at the expense of ratepayers. Is FERC monitoring the potential for merchant generators to enter into behind-the-meter agreements with data centers? What actions is FERC considering to address the incentives and impacts of any loss of load due to out-of-market financial arrangements? If state and federal policies do not adjust to preserve adequate baseload generation, how will the growing demand for reliable energy add additional costs and strain to our grid? CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC) today sent a letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Willie Phillips and the FERC Commissioners demanding information on how FERC is preparing for the devastating impacts that will be caused by EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP2.0) on the electric grid.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT: "In addition to impermissibly infringing upon state responsibilities over electric generation, the EPA’s final rule imposes unrealistic standards with unproven compliance strategies on existing coal-fired power plants and new natural gas units. Despite widespread warnings from stakeholders over the reliability catastrophe that could ensue from the rule, the EPA failed to address these concerns in the final rule and did not amend the rule to reflect the formal input of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).”   “FERC is unique among federal regulators in having a mandate to ensure the reliability and affordability of the grid pursuant to the Federal Power Act. As Commissioners of FERC, you have the responsibility to carry out that mandate. As a result of this rule, FERC could be forced to intervene using available measures to prevent additional closures of dispatchable generators to prevent reliability and resource adequacy crises. How and when those measures are utilized could make the difference between maintaining an affordable and reliable electric grid or a future of rolling blackouts and unaffordable electric rates.”   BACKGROUND: Under the Clean Power Plan 2.0, the EPA has mandated strict, costly, and untested standards on both new and existing natural gas and remaining coal generators.  The Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on June 6, 2023 and November 14, 2023 to discuss the harmful impact of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP2.0) on America’s energy security and grid reliability.    On June 6, 2023, Chair Rodgers led a letter to EPA from all Energy and Commerce Republicans on the agency’s CPP2.0.  On July 31, 2023, Chair Rodgers and former Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) sent a letter calling on the EPA to extend the comment period for their new CPP2.0 proposal.   On November 7, 2023, Chair Rodgers, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and former Subcommittee Chair Johnson sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on how new EPA regulations, including CPP2.0, would be detrimental to the U.S. electric grid. On November 14, 2023, Chair Rodgers, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and former Subcommittee Chair Johnson sent a letter calling on EPA Administrator Michael Regan to withdraw the overreaching and unworkable CPP2.0 proposal. The Chairs requested Chairman Phillips provide responses to the following by July 30, 2024: 1. Please provide all communications between the Chairman, Commissioners, and FERC staff with the EPA administrator and EPA staff relating to the development of the proposed Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule. 2. Do any generators participating in the FERC-jurisdictional markets utilize carbon capture technology at a sustained capture rate of 90 percent? Do any generators participating in the FERC-jurisdictional markets use carbon dioxide pipelines to transport captured carbon dioxide? 3. Did FERC participate in the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs interagency review process to weigh in on EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule? a. If not, please explain why FERC did not participate in this process. 4. What plans does FERC have in place to work with jurisdictional organizations and stakeholders to prevent grid disruptions stemming from the Clean Power Plan 2.0? Please provide a detailed explanation of your plans and the stakeholders with whom you are working. 5. Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act allows FERC, when it determines that an emergency exists, to “temporarily order connections of facilities, and generation, delivery, interchange, or transmission of electricity as determined to best meet the emergency and serve the public interest.” a. Do you expect that Section 202(c) will be needed to prevent blackouts and brownouts, as a result of the Clean Power Plan 2.0? b. Do you believe that Section 202(c) is an effective tool to prevent blackouts and brownouts? If not, what specifically about the 202(c) process would need to change in order to make it effective? c. What steps must you take to make the decision to trigger emergency measures under 202(c)? Please provide a detailed explanation of any requests or work pertaining to a 202(c) order, including with other federal, state, and private parties. d. Section 61002 of the FAST Act, “Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts,” amended Section 202(c) to clarify that an emergency order issued by FERC will override federal, state, and local environmental laws. i. Have you discussed Section 61002 with the EPA or the Department of Energy?   ii. Please explain the substance of any such discussions.  6. A waiver under Section 202(c) allows a resource to operate for 90 days. Given that the Clean Power Plan 2.0 could create reliability and compliance issues over multiple years and have considerable impacts on the viability of the markets you regulate, is a new longer-term mechanism needed to maintain resources for reliability? Is a new longer-term mechanism needed to maintain resource adequacy?  7. Has FERC assessed the market impacts of the final rule and, if not, when will FERC do so?   a. How will this rule affect capacity and energy market prices?  b. How will these rules affect investment signals for new dispatchable resources, like natural gas? Will resources be able to recover the necessary revenues through the FERC-jurisdictional markets? 8. How does FERC propose to allow resources affected by the rule to retain necessary revenues in the market?   a. If resources affected by the EPA’s rule are unable to compete in the relevant markets, what amount of resources will abruptly retire?  b. What impact(s) will this have on resource adequacy? c. What impact(s) will this have on reliability, especially during peak conditions during summer and winter? CLICK HERE to read the full letter. CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage from the Washington Examiner.