News

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 Republicans, led by Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, wrote to Ford President and CEO James Farley regarding a new partnership with Chinese-owned Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) to build lithium iron phosphate batteries in the United States.  CLICK HERE to read FOX News's coverage: BACKGROUND :  Earlier this year, Ford announced it would invest $3.5 billion to construct a lithium iron phosphate battery plant in Marshall, Michigan.  According to Ford, its wholly-owned subsidiary will manufacture the battery cells using Chinese company CATL’s technology and services.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “While Ford has labeled this project a ‘commitment to American manufacturing’ and asserts it will create 2,500 new American jobs, we are concerned that Ford’s partnership with a Chinese company could aid China’s efforts to expand its control over United States electric vehicle supply chains and jeopardize national security by furthering dependence on China.”  […]  “Additionally, Members learned at this hearing that Chinese companies often supply their own workers to projects in Latin America and Africa, reinforcing fears that CATL will import workers for this facility rather that creating jobs for United States workers.”  […]  “We seek to learn more about whether this partnership, and others like it, will potentially exacerbate our reliance on China. Should China gain control of domestic electric vehicle production, the United States would be exposed to serious national security risks at a time of escalating geopolitical tensions.”  The Members requested information and answers to the following questions by September 18, 2023:  A copy of the complete licensing agreement between Ford and CATL, including any appendices, amendments, or addenda.  All documents and communications exchanged between Ford officers or employees and officials, appointees, employees, contractors, or consultants of the United States government referring or relating to Ford and CATL’s partnership and eligibility for tax credits and federal incentives.  Did Ford consider making a similar investment in a partnership with a non-Chinese company? If so, why did Ford ultimately decide to partner with CATL? If not, why did Ford not consider other partners?  How many CATL employees will CATL supply to the Facility?  What steps did Ford take to prevent or limit CATL’s ability to halt production unilaterally, such as at the direction of the Chinese government?  CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are examining the role of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations behind increasing risks of dangerous blackouts, which jeopardizes Americans’ safety and security. Americans are suffering enough from record high and unaffordable costs created by President Biden’s energy crisis. They deserve and need every assurance their air conditioning will come on this summer and heat will come on in the winter to keep their families safe. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and other grid authorities say these blackouts are likely this summer and warn of increasing risks in the future. These threats come as the Biden administration continues its rush-to-green agenda to shut down American fossil energy and leave the nation dependent upon intermittent and unreliable sources that strain the electrical grid. In the letter from the members to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, the members demand to know how the EPA’s regulatory actions are affecting America’s both immediate and long-term grid reliability. In particular, they question the Biden administration’s radical “EGU Strategy” in its climate agenda and how that will affect America’s energy reliability. This oversight letter follows letters sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) on June 6, 2022, where the members called on the agencies to “assure reliability in the bulk power system and the affordable, reliable delivery of electricity.” EXCERPT FROM LETTER TO EPA: “We believe the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should also account for its plans and actions to help us assess factors behind both the immediate and the long-term risks to electric reliability across the nation. “In recent months, you announced a suite of EPA actions to target fossil fueled electric generating units, an ‘EGU Strategy,’ to drive the Biden Administrations climate agenda. This ‘EGU strategy’ includes many major new regulations now under development or proposed – the Interstate Transport Rule, Regional Haze, Risk and Technology Review for the Mercury Air Toxics Rule, a new set of greenhouse gas performance standards, effluent limitations, and a legacy coal combustion residue rule—all of which directly affect power plants that are essential for reliable electric operations. “We are concerned that EPA actions threaten to accelerate fossil generation retirements, at the very same time electric system operators report growing shortfalls in such baseload capacity will accelerate blackout risks.” The members make several requests of Administrator Regan, including the following: Describe what specific actions you are taking or are prepared to take to address energy or electricity emergencies this summer in the bulk power system. List all waivers or other emergency actions you are considering or have taken over the past two years in connection with electricity reliability. List all regulatory actions you are considering or have taken over the past two years to alleviate electricity reliability risks. List and provide a description of all interactions with the Department of Energy concerning potential and proposed rulemakings and enforcement activity that may affect the reliable delivery of electricity. List and provide a description of all interactions with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concerning potential and proposed rulemakings and enforcement activity that may affect the reliable delivery of electricity. List and provide a description of all interactions with states concerning potential and proposed rulemakings and enforcement activity that may affect the reliable delivery of electricity. List and provide a description of all interactions with the Independent System Operators, and states concerning potential and proposed rulemakings and enforcement activity that may affect the reliable delivery of electricity. In developing its reported “EGU Strategy” to “marry a range of authorities” to regulate the power sector, has EPA evaluated the cumulative impact of the strategy in accelerating plant closures? If so, please provide us with these assessments. How will the June 30 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency affect your “EGU Strategy” to regulate sources in the power sector? Regarding the proposed Transport Rule [Federal Implementation Plan], what specific statutory provisions authorize EPA to impose a federal plan that effectively overrides the electric power sector planning authorities in 26 states? CLICK HERE to read the letter to Administrator Regan. CLICK HERE to read Fox News' exclusive report on the letter.

Washington, D.C. — This week, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), and the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), led a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler regarding the SEC’s proposal to require extensive climate change-related disclosures from public companies. The letter urges Chair Gensler to rescind the proposal immediately and focus on the SEC’s statutory tripartite mission, rather than a far-left social agenda that is shutting down American energy, raising energy costs on families, and making President Biden’s inflation crisis worse. Republican Leaders McMorris Rodgers and McHenry were joined by 129 of their House Republican colleagues. Read the letter to SEC Chair Gensler here or below: “Dear Chair Gensler, “We write regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) proposed new rules requiring publicly traded companies to disclose extensive climate-related data and additional ‘climate risks.’ The proposed rules exceed the SEC's statutory authority and fundamentally misappropriate the SEC's rulemaking authority. Congress did not establish the SEC to set climate policy nor to be the final arbiter of businesses' strategies to combat climate change, which is what these rules will do. We call on the SEC to rescind the proposed rules immediately. “As you know, the ‘SEC's long-standing tripartite mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation’ has been the foundation of its work. Congress passed the Securities and Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934 ('33 and '34 Acts) to implement a disclosure-based regime that facilitates – not participates or dictates outcomes – in the investment decision-making process. Over the last 80 plus years, the SEC has implemented this statutory directive through a principle-based approach to rulemaking. This approach relies on companies to determine what is material to investors, not the SEC. “This principles-based disclosure regime enables companies to choose how best to comply and thrive under those polices. Investors decide whether they want to back those strategies. The proposed climate rules shift the SEC' s rulemaking authority, taking a novel, activist approach to climate policy. This far exceeds the SEC's authority, jurisdiction, and expertise. As a result, it will deservedly draw legal challenges. It also puts our time-tested approach to capital allocation, as well as the agency's independence and credibility, at risk. “We call on you to rescind these proposed climate rules and to respect the statutory limitations Congress placed on the SEC in the '33 and '34 Acts. It is Congress' job to set our environmental policy, not the job of unelected regulators. The SEC should focus on its core mission-protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation rather than a far-left social agenda.”

Were They Influenced by Putin’s Dark Money to Shut Down American Energy? Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans sent a letter to three environmental groups with financial ties to a San Francisco-based environmental NGO called the Sea Change Foundation as a next step in the investigation of foreign influence over U.S.-based environmental NGOs. According to reports, it’s been alleged that Vladimir Putin has used Sea Change to funnel money into U.S. based environmental advocacy efforts designed to shut down and undermine American energy production. The letters ask the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club: To identify the total amount of funding they received from Sea Change since 2006. To identify the specific efforts the funding was designed to support. To disclose if they are aware of concerns that Sea Change may be a conduit for Russian funding. If they currently or ever have received funds from the Russian government or anyone connected with the Russian government. If they have taken any action at the request of the Russian government or anyone connected with the Russian government. Due to the recent bilateral pact between Russia and China on defeating sanctions, if they have received funds from the Chinese Communist Party or taken any action on their behalf. All three of these groups were identified as top recipients of Sea Change grants since 2006. Read excerpts and find full letters to all three groups below. LETTER EXCERPT: “It has been alleged that Putin is using a San Francisco-based eNGO, the Sea Change Foundation (Sea Change), to funnel money into U.S.-based environmental advocacy efforts designed to undermine American energy production. According to a 2014 report, Sea Change receives contributions from a ‘Bermuda-based company called Klein Ltd.’ which is used ‘for funneling Russian government money to American environmental groups in order to undermine U.S. natural gas and oil production to Russia’s benefit.’ Notably, reports suggest that your organization is one of the top e-NGO recipients of Sea Change grants since 2006.” The Energy and Commerce Republican members request the three organizations respond by March 25, 2022 to a series of questions regarding their ties to the Russian and Chinese governments and their funding. CLICK HERE to read the letter to the League of Conservation Voters. CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council. CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Sierra Club. CLICK HERE to read what E&C Republicans sent to four groups over possible ties to the Chinese Communist Party.