[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2285-S2286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              S.J. RES. 14

  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from attorneys general of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of 
Columbia, and the chief legal officers of Chicago and Denver on the 
importance of passing this resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 26, 2021.
     Re Senate Joint Resolution 14/House Joint Resolution 34--
         Disapproval of Environmental Protection Agency Rule 
         Rescinding Methane Regulation.

     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     House Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Schumer, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, 
     and Representative McCarthy: The Attorneys General of New 
     York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, 
     Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
     New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
     Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of 
     Columbia, and the chief legal officers of Chicago and Denver 
     support using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to 
     invalidate a regulation of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) that eliminated important limits on air 
     pollution from oil and gas facilities, 85 Fed. Reg. 57,018 
     (Sept. 14, 2020) (Rescission Rule). Because that rule is 
     legally flawed and would significantly increase pollution 
     that harms our residents and natural resources, using the CRA 
     to expeditiously nullify the rule is justified. Restoring the 
     prior regulation will ensure that new oil and gas facilities 
     apply common sense, cost-effective measures to control 
     emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 
     and facilitate state efforts to limit pollution from existing 
     oil and gas facilities.


           methane and vocs emitted by oil and gas facilities

       Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is responsible for 
     about a quarter of the global warming we are experiencing 
     today. Oil and natural gas facilities are the single largest 
     industrial source of methane emissions. Methane emissions 
     from oil and gas sources are harming the States and our 
     residents by significantly contributing to climate change. 
     Our States are experiencing substantial injuries from climate 
     change, including property damage and hazards to human safety 
     associated with sea level rise and increased severity of 
     storms and flooding; increased deaths and illnesses due to 
     intensified and prolonged heat waves; harms to lives and 
     property caused by increased frequency and duration of 
     wildfires; and damage to public health--particularly among 
     our children, elderly, and those with lung ailments--due to 
     local air pollution exacerbated by hotter temperatures. These 
     injuries are often most severe in low-income communities and 
     communities of color. Scientists have found that substantial 
     reductions in global methane emissions this decade is 
     critical if we are to have a realistic chance of avoiding 
     catastrophic effects from climate change.
       Oil and gas facilities are also a substantial source of 
     VOCs, a primary component of ground-level ozone (smog). 
     Several of our States experience persistent and widespread 
     unhealthy levels of smog, which EPA has found results in 
     numerous harms to public health, including triggering asthma 
     attacks and even premature death. The States' smog problems 
     are often substantially caused or exacerbated by the 
     transport of smog precursors, such as VOCs, from emission 
     sources located upwind. More than 9 million people live 
     within a half mile of an existing oil or gas well, including 
     approximately 600,000 children under the age of five and 1.4 
     million over 65, groups that are especially sensitive to the 
     health risks posed by ozone and other local air pollution.


                          the rescission rule

       The Rescission Rule eliminated methane emission standards 
     for new (including modified and reconstructed) oil and gas 
     facilities1 that EPA issued four years earlier pursuant to 
     section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. See 40 C.F.R. part 60, 
     subpart OOOOa, 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824 (June 3, 2016). Through 
     common sense, cost-effective approaches such as more 
     efficient technology and leak detection and repair, the 2016 
     rule secured important reductions of methane and VOC 
     pollution. EPA sensibly required that the emission standards 
     apply to similar equipment used in the production, 
     processing, and transmission and storage segments, i.e., up 
     to the point that natural gas is delivered for distribution 
     to businesses and consumers. In sum, the 2016 rule helped to 
     prevent and mitigate significant harms to public health and 
     the environment while increasing the efficiency of natural 
     gas operations.
       Despite these substantial public health, environmental, and 
     economic benefits, the Trump EPA nonetheless promulgated the 
     Rescission Rule, which repealed the requirements that 
     directly targeted methane emissions at new facilities. The 
     Rescission Rule also eliminated pollution abatement 
     requirements for methane and VOCs emitted by facilities 
     engaged in the transmission and storage of natural gas, 
     despite the fact that this segment uses some of the same 
     equipment (e.g., compressors, pneumatic pumps) as production 
     and processing facilities. EPA acknowledged that the 
     Rescission Rule would result in increased pollution emissions 
     from new facilities, including 448,000 more tons of

[[Page S2286]]

     methane, 12,000 more tons of VOCs, and 400 more tons of 
     hazardous air pollutants by 2030. 85 Fed. Reg. at 57,065.
       EPA also included in the Rescission Rule a new hurdle for 
     limiting pollution under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act: 
     to adopt emission limits on any additional pollutant for 
     sources already regulated under section 111(b), EPA must make 
     a pollutant-specific ``significant contribution'' finding. 
     See 85 Fed. Reg. at 57,019. This new obstacle contravenes 
     EPA's longstanding position that the agency may require 
     emission limits for other pollutants from already-listed 
     sources provided it demonstrates a rational basis for doing 
     so, and creates an unjustified roadblock making it more 
     difficult for EPA to carry out its mission to protect public 
     health and the environment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
     recently vacated a related EPA rule that sought to implement 
     EPA's new significant contribution finding requirement, 
     further undermining this theory.
       As noted above, the Rescission Rule would result in 
     significant increases in emissions from new oil and gas 
     facilities. These pollution increases are just part of the 
     story, however, because the rule also blocks Clean Air Act 
     regulation of existing oil and gas facilities--facilities 
     that collectively emit substantial amounts of methane 
     pollution. Under the Clean Air Act, there must be pollutant 
     emission standards in effect for new facilities under section 
     111(b) of the Act to trigger the requirement under section 
     111(d) of the Act for EPA to promulgate emission guidelines 
     that facilitate states' developing plans that limit emissions 
     of the same pollutant from existing facilities.
       EPA is required under its regulations to issue existing 
     source emission guidelines ``upon or after promulgation'' of 
     standards for new facilities, 40 C.F.R. 60.22a(a). Although 
     EPA did not issue the guidelines in 2016 when it finalized 
     the previous new source rule, it began work that year to 
     ``swiftly'' develop guidelines to limit methane emissions 
     from existing sources. That work ground to a halt shortly 
     after the Trump Administration took office, leading a group 
     of our States to sue EPA in on the grounds that it had 
     unreasonably delayed issuance of the emission guidelines, New 
     York v. EPA (D.D.C. No. 18-773). In that litigation, EPA 
     contended that it could not be compelled to issue the 
     guidelines because it was in the process of eliminating its 
     statutory obligation to regulate methane from existing 
     sources, a process that culminated in the Rescission Rule.
       Significantly, the Rescission Rule was opposed by a wide 
     range of stakeholders, from independent domestic companies 
     such as Jonah Energy and Pioneer Natural Resources to the 
     largest oil and gas companies such as BP, Shell, and 
     ExxonMobil. These industry leaders support the direct 
     regulation of methane from oil and natural gas facilities 
     because it is the right thing to do for the environment, 
     will lead to consistent regulation across the U.S., and 
     can be cost-effectively achieved.


                      The Disapproval Resolutions

       Pursuant to the CRA, enacting the disapproval resolutions, 
     once signed by the President, results in the subject rule 
     ``being treated as though such rule had never taken effect.'' 
     5 U.S.C. 801(f). Here, by restoring the 2016 rule's emission 
     standards for new facilities and paving the way for EPA to 
     facilitate state regulation of methane from existing 
     facilities, passing the disapproval resolutions under the CRA 
     would result in substantial public health, environmental, and 
     economic benefits. According to EPA, the 2016 rule was 
     expected to reduce 510,000 tons of methane, 210,000 tons of 
     VOCs, and 3,900 tons of hazardous air pollutants in 2025 
     alone. 81 Fed. Reg. at 35,827. Between the health benefits of 
     the 2016 rule and the increased revenues that operators would 
     realize from recovering natural gas that would otherwise be 
     released, EPA determined that the 2016 rule would result in a 
     net benefit of $170 million in 2025. Id. at 35,827-28.
       Enacting the disapproval resolutions would also help EPA 
     promptly fulfill its obligation to develop emission 
     guidelines that states can use to craft plans to limit 
     methane from existing sources. Had EPA continued on the path 
     it began in 2016, those guidelines would have been issued 
     some time ago and states would now be implementing them. 
     Although Congress cannot turn back the clock, it can take 
     action now that gives EPA clear direction to promptly 
     discharge its overdue statutory duty to limit emissions from 
     these existing, polluting facilities.
       Finally, passing the disapproval resolutions would not risk 
     invalidating any subsequent regulations pursuant to the CRA's 
     ``substantially the same'' language. See 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2) 
     (prohibiting a ``new rule that is substantially the same as 
     the [disapproved] rule'' unless specifically authorized by 
     Congress). The Trump EPA acknowledged that the Rescission 
     Rule is a ``deregulatory action.'' 85 Fed. Reg. at 57,067. As 
     discussed above, it (1) eliminates direct regulation of 
     methane from new facilities (removing the predicate for state 
     regulation of existing facilities pursuant to section 111(d) 
     of the Clean Air Act), (2) repeals methane and VOC limits on 
     new facilities in the transmission and storage sector, and 
     (3) creates a new legal requirement for EPA to regulate 
     additional pollutants from already-listed source categories 
     under section 111.
       Disapproving the Rescission Rule thus would restore the 
     provisions in the 2016 rule that directly regulated methane 
     and VOCs from sources in the transmission and storage sector, 
     and would reinstate EPA's legal interpretation permitting 
     regulation of additional pollutants from already-listed 
     sources. Accordingly, disapproval of the rule would not stand 
     in the way of EPA using its statutory authority in the future 
     to promulgate more protective standards for new facilities 
     under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and more protective 
     emission guidelines for existing facilities under its section 
     111(d). Indeed, it would be absurd to contend that a CRA 
     resolution disapproving a purely ``deregulatory action'' 
     would bar a protective future regulation under the statute's 
     ``substantially the same'' language.
       We urge the Senate and the House to promptly pass the CRA 
     resolutions disapproving the Rescission Rule. Thank you for 
     your consideration of this important matter.
           Sincerely,
       Letitia James, Attorney General of New York; Matthew 
     Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General of California; Philip J. 
     Weiser, Attorney General of Colorado; William Tong, Attorney 
     General of Connecticut; Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General 
     of Delaware; Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois; Tom 
     Miller, Attorney General of Iowa; Aaron M. Frey, Attorney 
     General of Maine; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of 
     Maryland; Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts; 
     Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan; Keith Ellison, 
     Attorney General of Minnesota; Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney 
     General of New Jersey.
       Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico; Josh 
     Stein, Attorney General of North Carolina; Ellen Rosenblum, 
     Attorney General of Oregon; Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of 
     Pennsylvania; Peter Neronha, Attorney General of Rhode 
     Island; T.J. Donovan, Attorney General of Vermont; Bob 
     Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington; Karl Racine, 
     Attorney General for the District of Columbia; Celia Meza, 
     Acting Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago; Kristin 
     M. Bronson, Attorney for the City and County of Denver.

                          ____________________