News

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Garney Companies, Inc., a contractor that was under consideration for an Emergency Master Service Agreement with DC Water to rehabilitate the Potomac Interceptor (PI) sewer line prior to its collapse on January 19, 2026.  “The collapsed portion of DC Water’s PI sewer line has resulted in what has been called ‘one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history.’ The consequences of this spill continue to be evaluated, and the Committee remains concerned by the potential impacts to public health, safe drinking water, the environment, interstate commerce, and tourism,”  said Chairmen Guthrie, Joyce, and Palmer.  “The resilience of our wastewater infrastructure systems remains critical, and the Committee aims to understand what risks were determined prior to this incident and how future incidents may be prevented.”   Key excerpt from the letter:   “As part of its investigation, the Committee continues to obtain information from entities and individuals with knowledge that is relevant to this incident. According to the DC Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, Garney Companies, Inc (Garney) was under consideration for a potential Emergency Master Service Agreement for the PI rehabilitation, which was anticipated to begin on May 15, 2025. However, the contract was never finalized. The Committee is requesting information related to this contract and any additional information that your company may have related to the site of the PI wastewater collapse prior to the incident.   “It is the Committee’s understanding that the potential agreement between DC Water and   Garney would have covered a period of two years. The purpose of this contract was stated to   ‘[p]rovide program management, preconstruction and emergency construction services to   rehabilitate and provide redundancy for the Potomac Interceptor.’ Additionally, the project   scope included a number of repairs and upgrades to improve the reliability of this critical   Infrastructure.”   CLICK HERE   to read the full letter.  Background:   The Committee launched its investigation into the Potomac Interceptor collapse on February 20, 2026. Today’s letter to Garney represents the next step in uncovering what went wrong.   DC Water was considering an Emergency Master Service Agreement with Garney to “provide program management, preconstruction and emergency construction services to rehabilitate and provide redundancy” for the PI. That contract was anticipated to begin May 15, 2025, but the contract was never finalized.   The January 19, 2026, collapse of the PI sewer line has been called one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history, with consequences for public health, safe drinking water, the environment, interstate commerce, and tourism still being evaluated.   The Committee is requesting all documents and communications related to Garney’s proposal, the unimplemented emergency contract, and information related to the collapse site prior to the incident—seeking to understand what risks were known beforehand and how future incidents can be prevented.  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), demanding answers and documents that the Committee previously requested from CARB on California’s refusal to follow the law and implement the Clean Air Act as written by Congress. The Committee also requested transcribed interviews of six individuals if CARB fails to provide the previously requested information by December 5, 2025.    “The Committee’s August 11, 2025, letter requested information and documents from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) about California’s enforcement of state vehicle emission standards that disregard recent Congressional actions to disapprove waivers of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act,” said Chairmen Guthrie, Joyce, and Palmer. “Unfortunately, CARB’s responses to date have been woefully inadequate and do not satisfy the Committee’s important oversight interests in this matter.” Key excerpt from the letter: “Clean Air Act section 209(a) preempts states from adopting or attempting to enforce any emissions control standard for new motor vehicles or engines, or any condition precedent to the initial retail sale, registration or inspection of such vehicle or engine. Under section 209(b), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may waive federal preemption, allowing California to establish state motor vehicle emission standards. However, Congress passed with bipartisan support, and President Trump signed, three resolutions under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproving three waivers of preemption that the Biden-Harris Administration previously granted.” “Due to CARB’s failure to make a good faith effort to provide the requested information and documents, the Committee requests transcribed interviews with the following individuals if CARB fails to provide the requested information and documents by December 5, 2025: Lauren Sanchez, CARB Chair (from September 2025 to present); Liane Randolph, Former CARB Chair (from December 2021 to September 2025); Steven Cliff, CARB Executive Officer; Shannon Dilley, CARB Chief Counsel; Christopher Grundler, CARB Deputy Executive Officer – Mobile Sources & Incentives; and Robin Lang, Division Chief, CARB Emissions Certification & Compliance Division. “The Committee requests that these transcribed interviews be completed no later than December 12, 2025.” Background: Since President Trump signed the three Congressional Review Act resolutions into law, revoking California’s ability to set state emission standards that mandate the sale of EVs, the state cannot move forward with plans to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles. The Committee’s August 11, 2025, request sought answers about California’s apparent enforcement of the preempted standards and requested copies of related documents, such as internal guidance CARB provided to its staff, communications with other states, internal correspondence between CARB officials and the Governor’s Office and the Office of Attorney General, and other internal documents concerning CARB’s response to the disapproval of the waivers of federal preemption. The requested information and documents will help the Committee understand how California is implementing the Clean Air Act in light of the federal preemption of state emission standards, and whether the waiver authority in Clean Air Act section 209(b) should be eliminated or otherwise modified. 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, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin requesting information on how far-left organizations received billions of dollars in the final days of the previous administration through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).  “In the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration, the EPA put their far-left allies ahead of the American people, giving away Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants worth nearly $30 billion to recipients who were not equipped to receive such large amounts of funding,” said Chairmen Guthrie, Joyce, and Palmer. “By requesting documentation about this grant process from the EPA, Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce are continuing our work to root out waste, fraud, and abuse while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”  This letter follows requests sent to eight nonprofits who were awarded more than $20 billion earlier this year through the GGRF. Key excerpt from the letter: “The Committee finds the potential for financial mismanagement particularly worrisome, as some of the grantees’ previous revenues were only a small fraction of the GGRF funds they received, which raises questions about whether the grant recipients can adequately manage grant amounts that are significantly larger than their previously documented revenue.” “The Committee seeks to ensure that the federal government is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and to continue supporting EPA’s efforts in combatting waste, fraud, and abuse within the GGRF program. To assist with the Subcommittee’s investigation of GGRF and support the Administration’s efforts, the Committee requests the following documents no later than November 19, 2025: The complete grant file for the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees, including the application submitted by the organization with all supporting documentation and appendices, any additional information requested by EPA, and any memos on changes to the grant terms and conditions. The scoring breakdown and rational for each score for all the NCIF and CCIA applicants included in the final rankings lists for the top-ranked applications, including any changes to scoring or rescores and rationale for why those changes occurred. Any checklist or guidance for EPA grants employees on what steps they should be taking to conduct appropriate pre-award due diligence and to ensure all required paperwork and documentation is submitted and verified. This should include briefing materials used to advise the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Chief of Staff, General Counsel, Associate Administrator for Mission Support, and Associate Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation about the selection of NCIF grantees and CCIA grantees. Any reports received from Citibank or the U.S. Treasury regarding the account balances or transactions histories of the GGRF accounts for the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees and any of their sub-awardees. Any progress reports received from the three NCIF grantees and the five CCIA grantees. The names of all panel chairs, senior review panels, selection officials, and all individuals involved in the review panels for all the NCIF and CCIA applicants included in the final rankings lists for the top-ranked applications.” Background: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. Read More About this Ongoing Investigation: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” –   Fox News “EXCLUSIVE: Key Committee Demands Docs in Biden ‘Gold Bars’ Probe” – Daily Caller ###

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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Reagan, House Energy and Commerce 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 Buddy Carter (R-GA), on behalf of the Oversight and Environment Subcommittee Republicans, are pressing for answers about the recently-awarded Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grants.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “As you know, the Committee has questioned how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to distribute the $20 billion available to selected recipients under the new GGRF program, including the $14 billion for the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF). Specifically, the Committee cited warnings that the EPA could use these large awards to subsidize favored organizations. At a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing, Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers highlighted examples of former Biden administration officials and Democratic campaign staff in leadership roles of organizations vying for NCIF funding. Predictably, the EPA’s April 4, 2024, announcement of NCIF recipients confirmed our fears that this program would funnel taxpayer dollars to political allies.” [...] “Other individuals with ties to Democratic politics also lead organizations partnering with these recipients. While the EPA insists it had ethics rules and a fair competition policy in place, doling out billions of dollars to organizations led by politically connected individuals undermines public trust in the legitimacy of the federal financial awards process. It also furthers the concern that this program was created as an excuse to hand out funding to political allies.” The Chairs cited more than a dozen examples of politically connected leaders of organizations to which EPA plans to distribute billions of taxpayer dollars, and have requested a list of all of the nearly two dozen stakeholder meetings the EPA held in designing the program, including the dates, names of the individuals and organizations participating as well as any related minutes or memoranda by May 28, 2024. CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) led 26 of their colleagues in filing a bicameral amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in support of state and industry challengers to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) so-called “Good Neighbor” air rule that targets American power production and burdens states with misguided air regulations. “Acting well beyond its delegated powers under the [Clean Air Act], EPA’s Rule proposes to remake the energy sector in the affected states toward the Agency’s preferred ends. The Rule is part of the broader joint EPA-White House Strategy that oversteps the Agency’s authority by concurrently developing regulations under three separate environmental statutes. It does so not to meet any of the statutes’ individual ends but to transform the power sector. "The group of regulations—including the Rule—are designed to hurriedly rid the U.S. power sector of fossil fuels by sharply increasing the operating costs for fossil fuel-fired power plant operators, forcing the plants’ premature retirement,” the brief reads in part. BACKGROUND: The so-called “Good Neighbor” rule imposes overreaching emissions requirements on power plants, natural gas pipeline assets, and industrial plants, like steel, cement, and paper production facilities in 23 states. Other federal courts have already frozen implementation of the rule in 12 states. Despite active Supreme Court proceedings that may halt implementation of the rule nationwide, the EPA has remained committed to the illegal rule and recently proposed to add five more states to the program.  In June 2023 , Capito joined Wicker in introducing a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2023, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) also introduced H.J.Res. 69, a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2022 , Ranking Member Capito sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan outlining serious concerns with the proposed “Good Neighbor Plan.”  Ranking Member Capito has criticized the EPA’s proposed “Good Neighbor Plan” during EPW hearings in March 2023 , July 2022 , and May 2022 , and in an op-ed .  In November 2023 , Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Johnson sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expressing concerns with the impact of EPA’s suite of rules, including the “Good Neighbor” Rule (or Interstate Transport Rule), on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid. In addition to Capito and Wicker, senators who signed on to brief include, John Barrasso, (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman (R-AR), Mike Braun (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Hoeven (R-ND), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and John Thune (R-SD). In addition to Rodgers, House members who signed on to the brief include, Rick Allen (R-GA), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), John Curtis (R-UT), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Richard Hudson (R-NC), John James (R-MI), John Joyce (R-PA), Bob Latta (R-OH), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Greg Pence (R-IN), August Pfluger (R-TX), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Randy Weber (R-TX).  Full text of the brief is available here .

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) today sent a letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan calling on the EPA to withdraw the overreaching and unworkable Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal, which would make electricity less reliable and more expensive for Americans. The letter, sent on behalf of the Republicans on the Oversight and Environment subcommittees, also requests additional information regarding the EPA’s rule development process, which appeared to be riddled with misleading and defective analyses. EXCERPTS FROM THE LETTER: "Like its predecessor, the Clean Power Plan, the CPP2.0 Proposal aims to transform the nation’s electric generation, causing Americans’ utility service to be less reliable and more expensive. In this way, both the Clean Power Plan, which was stayed and later vacated by the Supreme Court, and this CPP2.0 Proposal, vastly exceed the limited authority Congress granted EPA under Clean Air Act Section 111, thereby violating the “major questions” doctrine." […] “ In addition to our concerns with the legality of the EPA’s CPP2.0 Proposal, the EPA’s promulgation of proposals with misleading and defective analyses undermines public trust and creates costly regulatory and legal uncertainty that harms the orderly planning for power generation that is essential to public welfare. The plainly inaccurate discussion about CO2 pipelines adds to serious questions about the analytical quality of the proposed rule. There are myriad other defects. For example, there are widespread concerns about the accuracy of the EPA’s claim that Boundary Dam, the coal fired EGU in Saskatchewan, Canada, has been adequately demonstrated to capture 90 percent of CO2. Even though the plant’s owner filed comments that the EPA was wrong about this assertion.”   BACKGROUND: Under the Clean Power Plan 2.0, the EPA has introduced policy proposals to set strict, costly, and untested standards on both new and existing natural gas and remaining coal generators.  These changes will have a chilling effect on American natural gas and coal—which account for about 60 percent of U.S. electricity generation—making life unaffordable for Americans and increasing risks for blackouts. The EPA’s proposals are legally dubious, scientifically questionable, and pragmatically unworkable.  The letter was sent ahead of an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing today, where members will hear from state officials on how the EPA’s efforts are affecting their ability to provide affordable, reliable energy to power local economies, keep people safe, and preserve livelihoods in their communities. The Chairs requested Administrator Regan provide the following information by November 28, 2023: Describe in detail your Action Development Process (ADP) for developing the regulatory proposals for GHG standards and guidelines for fossil fuel EGUs, including, but not limited to: The date you or your staff initiated the process and the timeline for each step of the process including the options selection briefing package, draft actions, and final drafts at the conclusion of the process; How you developed your regulatory options, including assessment of alternative approaches, the entities with which you consulted, including federal agencies and non-governmental entities, such as utilities, electric generators, pipeline operators, electric grid operators, and electric reliability entities, etc.; Your evaluation of the full costs of infrastructure development and deployment necessary to support your proposed emissions controls technologies and systems, and if you did not conduct such as evaluation, explain why not; How you validate the accuracy of the information in the proposals; How you determined that CCUS for the power sector has been adequately demonstrated based upon the limited performance of cited power plants; Whether any element of your proposal was not subject to the ADP and identify the element; The role of the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Management and Budget, National Climate Advisors, and any other member of the White House staff, in developing the CPP2.0 Proposal, including after completion of the ADP. Provide all documents the EPA prepared to initiate this regulatory development process, including all preliminary and final Analytic Blueprints and any other planning or guidance documents covering the approach, scope, underlying technical criteria, legal criteria, and review mechanisms the EPA would follow for developing these GHG regulatory proposals, regulatory impact analyses, and Technical Support Documents. Describe why information supplied in the rulemaking docket was not complete at the time of the initial release of the CPP2.0 Proposal. CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Administrator Regan. CLICK HERE to read the statement from Chairs Rodgers and Johnson following the CPP2.0 Proposal announcement. CLICK HERE for information from the June 6th hearing about the Clean Power Plan 2.0. CLICK HERE to read about a recent letter to FERC regarding the risks posed to the grid by CPP 2.0.

Members concerned about conflicts of interest; risk of waste, fraud, and abuse; and an increased reliance on China Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), on behalf of the Oversight and Environment subcommittees’ Republicans, wrote to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan. The letter outlines the following concerns with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), established by the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act”:  Possible conflicts of interest with funding recipients  Speed at which $27 billion in grants must be awarded opens door to waste, fraud, and abuse  Challenges to program implementation given China’s control over solar market  The letter requests answers to the following questions by November 1, 2023.  1. Possible Conflicts of Interest with Fund Recipients   KEY FACTS :  Earlier this year, the EPA released its plan for implementing the GGRF, which includes three competitions through which it plans to administer $27 billion in grant funding:  A $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) competition will fund two to three national non-profits that would partner with private capital providers to deliver financing to businesses, communities, community lenders, and others for clean energy projects.  A $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) competition will fund two to seven non-profits that will build financing capacity across specific networks of community lenders for clean technology projects.  A $7 billion Solar for All (SFA) competition aims to expand access to residential solar investment among low-income and disadvantaged communities.  The GGRF program is a completely new undertaking for the EPA, according to the agency’s inspector general, and includes provisions associated with entities often referred to as “ green banks .”  According to the EPA, the program will “leverage public investment with private capital” to finance clean energy projects, despite the agency having no experience administering such a funding vehicle, referring to it as “a first-of-its-kind” program.  KEY EXCERPT :  “[…] [S]ome have flagged that the EPA could use this program to subsidize favored special interest organizations. Others have alleged that current EPA appointees have ties to potential recipients of these sizeable awards, raising ethical concerns.”   READ :  AEI : Response to Request for Information from the Environmental Protection Agency: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund  Protect the Public’s Trust : Greendoggle? EPA Privately Discussed How to Spend $20B With a Few Favorite Environmental Groups  2. Speed at Which $27 Billion in Grants Must be Awarded Opens Door to Waste, Fraud, and Abuse   KEY FACTS :  The SFA notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) was announced in June 2023, with an application deadline of October 12, 2023.  According to the NOFO, the EPA anticipates notifying selectees in March 2024 and making awards in July 2024.  The EPA released NOFOs for the $14 billion CCIA and the $6 billion NCIF on July 14, 2023, with applications closing on October 12, 2023.  For these competitions, the EPA anticipates notifying selectees in March 2024 and plans for them to start administering the funds by July 2024.  The EPA has a statutory deadline to obligate funds by September 2024.  Under this timeline, the EPA has just over a year to obligate $27 billion.  KEY EXCERPT :  “The GGRF implicates many oversight concerns. For example, the EPA’s Inspector General recently testified before the Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations that newly created programs providing funding to new recipients on short timelines possess an increased vulnerability to fraud and execution errors.”   READ :   EPA IG’s Testimony at E&C OI Hearing Titled “Follow the Money: Oversight of President Biden’s Massive Spending Spree”  3. China’s Control over Solar Market Presents Challenges to Implementation   KEY FACTS:  China’s control of key materials in renewable energy extends “across the board.”  China controls almost half of the U.S. solar panel market share, making it incredibly difficult to supplant Chinese producers with domestic suppliers.   Certain projects under all three competitions are subject to the Buy America domestic sourcing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).   The EPA also claims it will provide future guidance on which projects are subject to the BABA requirements.  KEY EXCERPT :  “If there will be domestic sourcing requirements through BABA on the various GGRF programs—and we know that China has a significant stranglehold on the availability of solar panels, among other green energy technologies—we are unsure how the EPA and program participants will ensure that the GGRF programs are not supporting Chinese products.”   CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH), and Health Subcommittee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) sent a letter to the White House today on the potential consequences of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulations on the availability of ethylene oxide (EtO), which is needed for medical supply sterilization. BACKGROUND   EtO is used as a gaseous sterilant to sterilize approximately half of all medical devices and 95 percent of all surgical kits in the United States.   On April 13, 2023, EPA published a number of proposals that would apply new restrictions for the use of EtO as a sterilant under the Clean Air Act and new air emissions standards for commercial sterilizers of EtO under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).   The subsequent comment period generated hundreds of submissions raising serious concerns about EPA’s proposals and how they would threaten to interfere with patient safety and disrupt our nation’s health care system.    According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approximately 20 billion medical devices are sterilized each year using EtO and for most of these devices, EtO is the only validated and viable sterilization method.  Furthermore, the FDA has publicly reported that a significant share of medical devices in the U.S. exclusively rely on EtO as their primary sterilant and that the proposed EPA actions will disrupt the U.S. medical device supply chain.  KEY QUOTE ON RISKS FOR PATIENTS   “The FDA attests to the high scientific standards of EtO use as a sterilizer in preventing the growth of harmful microorganisms relative to other sterilization methods and acknowledges that inadequate sterilization can lead to life-threatening infections and poor health outcomes in patients seeking medical care. Furthermore, we share FDA’s concerns that EPA’s proposed actions will cause significant disruptions in patient access to emergency care, including surgery instrumentation and pacemakers, and threaten patient safety with increasing hospital-borne infections.”  […]  “On June 27, 2023, the American Society for Health Care Engineering, the American Society for Health Care Risk Management, the Association for Health Care Resource and Materials Management, and the American Hospital Association wrote to the EPA to: 'Urge caution and thoughtfulness in EPA’s approach to avoid disrupting health care delivery through the unintentional fracturing of the already fragile medical device supply chain. Such fracturing could put patients at risk of serious harm . . . [s]pecifically, we are concerned that moving too quickly to implement and enforce new standards will result in the unexpected consequence of reducing EtO sterilization capacity, ultimately leading to delays in patient care.'"  The members asked the White House to answer the following questions by October 13, 2023: How do the National Economic Council (NEC) and the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) plan on ensuring that statutorily requirements for cost-benefit analysis are incorporated into the PID and NESHAP proposed rule?   Are the EPA’s proposed interim decision and proposed rule consistent with the President’s economic policy objectives/domestic policy agenda as it relates to public health?    Please identify how NEC/DPC plans to ensure that patient access to care will not be compromised by EPA’s proposed rules.   How do you plan on fulfilling NEC/DPC’s role in implementing the President’s agenda as you consider these two EPA proposals?     Will NEC/DPC commit to meeting directly with surgeons, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, and domestic sterilization facility manufacturers to understand better the feasibility of EPA’s proposed rules?   Will you ensure domestic manufacturers have the necessary time to build compliance equipment for medical device sterilization, get it certified, and have it installed so as not to disrupt domestic medical device availability?   What other roles will NEC/DPC play in mediating these proposed regulatory actions and preventing the damage they could cause?    Is it the Biden administration’s position that one medical risk in just a few communities should be prioritized over greater medical risks for all Americans?   Based on the number of devices that FDA has identified as requiring sterilization with EtO, and the potential need for revalidation for their treatment at a different level or with other substances, will the Biden administration need to shift resources away from products that are waiting to come to market to revalidate the existing medical product supply chain?   We understand that the EPA recently settled a lawsuit from several plaintiffs, alleging that the EPA failed to review and revise as needed the NESHAP for EtO every eight years. How will this settlement impact the EPA’s proposed NESHAP rule? CLICK HERE to read the full letter.