News

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.

“DOE is threatening domestic jobs and economic development, weakening the energy security of European allies, and strengthening our adversaries” 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 Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm demanding the agency stop rushing to prematurely release its anti-liquefied natural gas (LNG) study, which aims to hamstring the incoming Presidential administration. The letter also calls for DOE to lift the pause on LNG exports, which was a politically motivated decision by the Biden administration to appease radical environmental activists at the expense of American energy security and the security of our allies. KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “Despite DOE’s prior findings and published reviews in favor of U.S. LNG exports, and contrary to DOE’s limited statutory authority under the NGA, the Biden administration’s DOE announced that it would expand its environmental review as part of a ‘managed transition’ to reduce use of fossil fuels. Recent press reports indicate that DOE is racing to complete a study on the climate impacts of LNG exports to hamper the incoming Republican administration and provide opportunities to challenge future project approvals in court.” [...] “ The results of the 2024 presidential election are clear, and DOE leadership will soon change. As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, DOE should immediately stop work on any plans to expand the scope of review or add new conditions to LNG export licenses. DOE should immediately lift the ban on LNG export approvals in compliance with the NGA and the District Court order.” BACKGROUND: January 26, 2024 : The Biden administration announces indefinite “pause” on LNG export permits. Chair Rodgers immediately rebukes the decision, calling it a “gift to Putin.” February 5, 2024 : More than 150 House Republicans demand President Biden ends his de facto ban on American LNG exports. February 15, 2024 : E&C Republicans lead bipartisan passage of H.R. 7176 to reverse President Biden’s LNG export ban. April 8, 2024 : The Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security holds a field hearing in Port Arthur, Texas, with local leaders and energy workers to highlight the economic and public benefits of American energy production, including job creation. November 7, 2024 : Bloomberg Law reports that the “Biden administration is racing to complete a study that could complicate President-Elect Donald Trump’s plan to immediately approve new liquefied natural gas export terminals.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today sent letters to five independent federal agencies urging the Biden-Harris administration appointees to abandon partisan efforts and instead focus remaining efforts on bipartisan, consensus items.   The letters state, “The results of the 2024 presidential election are now apparent and leadership of the [agency] will soon change. As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, the [agency] should immediately stop work on any partisan or controversial item under consideration, consistent with applicable law and regulation.”    Click below to read each agency’s letter:   Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Federal Communications Commission (FCC)   Federal Trade Commission (FTC)   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)   Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Note: In the letter, Chair Rodgers urges NRC to continue timely implementation of the ADVANCE Act. 

More than a decade has lapsed since the GAO’s last review Washington, D.C. —  In a new letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), bipartisan Energy and Commerce Leaders are requesting that the GAO conduct an extensive review of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Isotope Program. Led by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ) as well as Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO), the letter addresses concerns regarding U.S. dependence on Russia for isotopes and other materials critical to American national security, advanced manufacturing, and medicine, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “The DOE Isotope Program has been working for at least a decade to shore up domestic isotope development and free the United States from a position of dependence, but its progress in doing so is unclear. Current U.S. production still has not replaced our reliance on Russia and possibly other high-risk countries, and several proposed DOE facilities conceived as major contributors to the U.S. domestic supply chain remain in the design phase or, at best, under construction (chief among these is Oak Ridge’s Stable Isotope Production and Research Center, or SIPRC, which is reportedly not expected to start production until 2032). These dynamics raise serious questions and concerns about the security of the U.S. supply chain for these critical isotopes.” BACKGROUND: The DOE’s Isotope Program produces and sells hundreds of high priority isotopes that are rare—but essential—for the production of important commodities in national security, advanced manufacturing, and medicine.  The DOE is often the only, or one of very few, global producers of such isotopes, which are in short supply or represent a supply chain risk. However, the United States still relies on obtaining several materials and commercially produced isotopes from other, sometimes adversarial countries, such as Russia.  The GAO last reviewed the DOE Isotope program in 2012 and has not conducted a review since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.  According to a 2022 testimony by the executive director of the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, the U.S. still relies nearly exclusively on Russia to obtain 44 isotopes that are critical in industrial applications and cancer treatment.  China has also emerged as a new global supplier of stable isotopes, positioning the U.S. for even further foreign reliance to keep Americans healthy and safe. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

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.

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. — 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.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm following reports that the Biden administration is preparing to further drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The letter calls on the Secretary to safeguard the SPR and stop using it to provide political cover for President Biden in an election year. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “ Under President Biden, the SPR has reached its lowest level since 1983. The DOE has overseen the largest sale in history, amounting to a total of 290 million barrels. When President Biden took office in January 2021, the SPR contained 638 million barrels of oil. Today, the SPR currently contains 367 million barrels of oil, which represents nearly a 42 percent decline from when President Biden took office.”  […] “Under the Biden administration, the SPR has been abused for political purposes to try and bring down record high gasoline prices that are driving record high inflation that are a consequence of the administration’s radical rush to 'green' energy policies. In November of 2021, the Biden administration announced a release, in coordination with China, in an attempt to lower prices. Then in March of 2022, the president announced the release of 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR in the middle of an election year, a transparent attempt to influence the midterm elections and distract from the Biden administration’s energy policy failures.”  [...] “We urge you, in the strongest terms, to put this country’s energy security first and stop abusing the SPR for political purposes. As the Secretary of Energy, it is your responsibility to ensure that the SPR is ready to respond to true energy supply disruptions.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter. CLICK HERE to read Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Barrasso’s letter in November 2022 detailing the damage from President Biden’s SPR drawdowns. CLICK HERE to read Chair Rodgers’s statement on the House’s passage of H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response Act , which would help ensure the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is available during a true energy emergency and not abused for non-emergency, political purposes.