Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, delivered the following opening statement at today's hearing titled A Decade Later: A Review of Congressional Action, Environmental Protection Agency Rules, and Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Today, this Subcommittee will examine coal ash management practices and innovative ways people are utilizing coal waste.  “Coal, historically, has played a major role in keeping our lights on and powering our large industries.  “Currently, there are over 200 coal-fired electric power plants in the United States and a fair amount of industrial boilers that use coal for fuel.  “Coal’s fuel storage attributes and its dispatchable power qualities continue to make it a crucial component of our domestic electric power mix.  “Today’s hearing will focus on one of the byproducts of coal use, coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as CCR or “coal ash.”  “The Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, first began regulating coal combustion residuals from electric utilities in 2014, under its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or ‘RCRA’, Subtitle D authority, to regulate solid waste.  “In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act amended RCRA to grant the EPA the authority to approve state CCR permit programs if a state chose to run its own program.  “However, nearly a decade later, only three state programs have been approved.  “Hopefully, today we will learn more about states’ permitting programs, and how EPA is using its CCR permitting approval authority.  “Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration pressed necessary coal ash regulations into its wider attempts to force a transition to renewable energy by imposing unreasonable and onerous regulations on disfavored traditional energy resources, like coal.  “This war on coal included a 2024 rule regulating INACTIVE coal combustion residuals storage sites, or legacy impoundments, as well as sites where coal ash had PREVIOUSLY been placed, known as coal combustion residuals management units.  “Utilities warned that this unworkable rule would impose needless and unplanned costs on ratepayers.  “Today, we will learn more about the problems with the current regulatory landscape and the costs it imposes on power generation and in-turn, ratepayers.  “Thankfully, in March of this year, the EPA announced that it is reviewing this rule and plans to propose amendments within the next year.  “Additionally, EPA has also announced it plans to prioritize working with states on their permit programs to hopefully facilitate more state management of coal ash disposal.  “I’m encouraged by the Trump administration’s apparent willingness to listen to the states and their utilities and hope the EPA can work with them, and not against them, as partners in protecting our environment.  “I also hope to learn more today on opportunities to improve the reuse of coal byproducts.  “In addition to this primary use, coal byproducts can be reused for many purposes, such as cement manufacturing, drywall manufacturing, road paving, and producing concrete.  “This recycling, known as “beneficial use,” can not only save costs but also result in lower emissions.  “Many may be surprised to hear that there is a thriving coal ash reuse industry in the United States. According to the American Coal Ash Association, 69 percent of all coal ash produced in 2023 was recycled.  “In addition to these established uses in construction, agriculture, waste management, and mining, new uses are emerging.  “For example, research from the University of Texas found that as much as 11 million tons of rare earth elements could be found in accessible coal ash in the United States.  “In fact, researchers from Virginia Tech, located in my district and where one of my children graduated, one is attending, and one hopes to attend, they are leading projects to analyze the presence of critical minerals and rare earth elements in coal byproducts.   “According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States currently relies on imports for 80 percent of its supply of rare earth elements, with 70 percent of those imports coming from China.  “Our regulatory policy for coal combustion residuals management must facilitate continued beneficial use.  “I look forward to today’s discussion of how we can address shortcomings of our current approach to coal combustion residuals management and innovation in how our country deals with waste.”  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C . – Today, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing titled A Decade Later: A Review of Congressional Action, Environmental Protection Agency Rules, and Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash.    “The expert witnesses we heard from today made it clear that coal ash recycling is a win-win for our environment and for American manufacturing,” said Chairman Griffith . “This hearing offered our members a chance to learn more about the impact of the EPA’s coal ash regulations. It’s time to unleash American technology and innovation to use coal ash in practical and responsible ways both in construction, and as an avenue for the large-scale recovery of critical materials.”  Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “For years, coal-fired power generation facilities have worked in Pennsylvania and throughout the entire United States, and they have worked to properly manage coal combustion residuals or coal ash. This is long been done either through disposal and monitoring or through beneficial uses such as the making of concrete or construction applications, as in drywall production. With the EPA's finalized 2024 legacy CCR rule, electric utilities will be faced with burdensome costs for sites where coal ash has already been safely disposed of and environmental concerns mitigated and beneficial use programs will be subjected to harsh regulations despite the evidence that they posed little or absolutely no environmental or health or safety risks.”   Congresswoman Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “I understand the critical importance of striking the right balance between protecting our natural resources and promoting practical science-based solutions to manage industrial byproducts, coal ash being a prime example.” Congressman Gabe Evans (CO-08): “We have a massive footprint in our area dedicated to producing the raw materials that build Colorado to include a lot of concrete and cement production in the area. I know that our producers are working as hard as they can because we all want clean air, clean land, and clean water. We also have the technology these days to see where a lot of the pollution is coming from in my area, double digit percentages of pollution along the Colorado Front Range are coming from China and the fact is, if we don't produce things in the United States, it's not like we get suddenly clean air, clean land, clean water, that production is going to go other places, and we're still going to inherit that pollution.”   ### 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, announced a hearing titled A Decade Later: A Review of Congressional Action, Environmental Protection Agency Rules, and Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash “While coal has played a significant role in our nation's energy sector, coal ash also holds untapped value. From its use in construction materials, such as cinder block, to the potential for remining critical materials, coal ash is a resource that we cannot afford to waste,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Griffith. “This hearing will offer a chance to examine the past decade of coal ash regulations as well as how government red tape and bureaucracy can stifle innovation surrounding the use of coal ash, and what steps can be taken to ensure it remains available and is used safely and effectively in the coming years." Subcommittee on Environment hearing titled A Decade Later: A Review of Congressional Action, Environmental Protection Agency Rules, and Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash. WHAT: Subcommittee on Environment hearing to discuss how coal ash can be used safely and effectively in construction as well for the remining of critical materials. DATE: June 26, 2025 TIME: 10:15 AM ET LOCATION: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. This hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed at energycommerce.house.gov. If you have any questions about this hearing please contact Calvin Huggins at Calvin.Huggins1@mail.house.gov . If you have any press related questions please contact Ben Mullany at Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov . ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Yesterday, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, penned a letter to Secretary Jennifer Granholm questioning the Department of Energy’s involvement in the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to prevent new offshore oil and gas production, leading to higher prices for consumers and harming U.S. energy security. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “Closing off swaths of U.S. offshore areas to energy production, as the Biden-Harris Administration reportedly intends to do, will lead to higher energy prices for American families, the loss of American jobs, and greatly diminish our country’s energy security. As the Secretary of Energy, you have an obligation to weigh in on this matter and insist on a full review of the energy security and economic impacts before any decisions are finalized. “The United States stands at an energy crossroads, facing mounting global security threats and soaring demand for power. Instead of leading the world in energy production, we’ve allowed misguided “green” policies to hamstring our potential. It’s time to unleash American energy dominance again—the federal government must become an ally, not an obstacle, to our nation’s energy security. We look forward to your prompt response to this request, no later than January 10, 2025.” Read the story  here . BACKGROUND: This morning, the Biden Administration announced that more than 625 million square miles of coastline would be off-limits for energy production. Republican Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have continuously called on the Biden-Harris Administration to end its attack on American energy production before leaving office on January 20th. The letter requests an explanation of the DOE’s involvement in the decision and whether the White House or the Department of Interior consulted with the DOE about the plans to close off access to offshore resources. Any decision to shut down access to significant American energy resources impacts U.S. energy policy and should be reviewed by the DOE. The Biden Administration’s energy policies have continued to create major harm to America’s energy production and workforce. A unilateral ban on energy production in large swaths of the U.S. coastline will have lasting impacts on American energy production and security.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) yesterday sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging the Department of Energy to prioritize the onshoring of our critical mineral supply chains following the Chinese Communist Party’s July 1 declaration that rare earth metals were the “property of the state.” CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage by E&E News. KEY QUOTE “Critical minerals are essential to America’s economy and to America’s capacity to manufacture goods and high-tech devices. Many critical minerals are essential to the energy sector, as they are needed to manufacture solar panels, batteries, and electrical equipment. As the DOE is aware, the CCP announced limitations on gallium, germanium, natural and synthetic graphite last October. These critical minerals are vital for our defense and energy technologies and are listed as critical and at high risk of supply disruption. On November 21, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter raising security concerns over the CCP limiting exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite. Your response to that letter failed to address these concerns and lacked basic information to help Members of Congress assess the risks of America’s increasing dependence on CCP controlled minerals.” [...] “The administration should prioritize the onshoring of domestic mining and processing industry for these critical minerals and materials. The answer to a lack of mining and processing is not to extend credits to companies using minerals from a major geopolitical adversary that relies on child labor and exploitation.” Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Carter asked Secretary Granholm to answer the following questions by August 13, 2024: Are you concerned by reports that the Chinese government has declared rare earth metals property of the government of China? What actions will the DOE take in response to the Chinese government’s announcement? Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of synthetic and natural graphite. Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of gallium and germanium. How will DOE work to expedite projects to ensure a secure and stable supply chain of these critical minerals and materials given these recent announcements? What actions will DOE take to mitigate potential domestic supply shortages of these minerals? Were you consulted about the Treasury Department’s decision to extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Did you advise or recommend that the White House extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Please explain. CLICK HERE to read the letter to Secretary Granholm. CLICK HERE to read the November 21, 2023, letter to Secretary Granholm raising concerns over the CCP’s decision to limit exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite.