[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H846-H853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``WASTE EMISSIONS CHARGE
FOR PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS: PROCEDURES FOR FACILITATING
COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING NETTING AND EXEMPTIONS''
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 161, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste
Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 161, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 35
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions''
(89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (November 18, 2024)), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
General Leave
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 35.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 35, a
resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum
and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance,
Including Netting and Exemptions,'' sponsored by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
H.J. Res. 35 will repeal the disastrous rule by the Biden
administration that punishes our small and midsize energy producers
here in the United States. The so-called waste emissions charge starts
at $900 per metric ton for last year's reported methane emissions. It
increases to $1,200 per metric ton for 2025 emissions, and it increases
one more time to $1,500 per metric ton of emissions for 2026 and the
years thereafter.
There are about 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum
drillers in the United States. These mostly small operations are
responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing
83 percent of America's oil and 90 percent of our country's natural
gas. We should be thanking them, not punishing them.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not act, American jobs and energy production
will be lost. This is really, for all intents and purposes, a punitive
tax on natural gas. These folks are not our enemy. They help make the
fuel that we use to heat our homes, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, I and other Republicans are not opposed to the
regulation of methane. I see it as an asset that should not be wasted
when it is practicably able to be captured, but there are cases where
it is not practicable. However, we are opposed to bureaucratic
overreach that, intended or not, will force some of these small
producers out of business, making the energy supply in the United
States less.
We should instead be making rules that work with industry to
facilitate the progress that our country's energy producers have
already made in reducing emissions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 35, a resolution that
will drive up energy prices in the United States. It is a radical
measure that will gut one of the Inflation Reduction Act's most
critical programs: the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.
With this resolution, Republicans are doubling down on their
commitment to lining the pockets of their special interest corporate
polluter friends at Americans' expense.
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the House Republicans
continue to prioritize billionaires and big corporations over everyday
Americans. Just last night, Republicans moved forward with a budget
that includes devastating, life-altering cuts to Medicaid and food
assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so
Republicans can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 35 is just another giveaway that saddles
Americans with higher energy bills, plain and simple, all to help
Republicans' corporate polluter friends. What is more, repealing the
Environmental Protection Agency's methane polluter fee slashes revenue
for the government, meaning this bill will cost American taxpayers a
whopping $7.2 billion.
This is really shameful and a massive waste of money and resources
because the reality is that, without the methane polluter fee, it is
cheaper for the oil and gas industry to waste valuable methane rather
than install or upgrade equipment to control that pollution.
Currently, oil and gas companies waste enough natural gas from leaks,
venting, and flaring to meet the energy demand of 14 million households
every year. In other words, the oil and gas industry is throwing $2
billion worth of American energy down the drain every year, which
Americans then have to pay for.
That wasted methane has grave consequences for our environment and
for public health. Methane is an extremely dangerous greenhouse gas
that accounts for nearly a third of today's global warming and is a key
contributor to smog.
That is why key pollution control programs, such as the Methane
Emissions Reduction Program, are so pivotal. The program includes a
suite of incentives to drive down excess methane pollution, including
$1.5 billion to help industry reduce methane emissions.
Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this program is the methane polluter
fee, which is targeted by the resolution before us today. This fee is
meant to correct the market failure that makes it cheaper for operators
to waste methane rather than capture and sell it. It ensures that
polluters pay for their own wasted energy and the harm that it causes,
not American consumers.
It is not a tax. It is not at all. Unlike a tax, the methane polluter
fee only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds. These
achievable thresholds are based on the oil and gas industry's own
climate commitments and methane reduction targets. I have to stress
that we worked with the industry when we were putting this together as
part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
EPA then applies a fee for wasted methane that exceeds these
thresholds, and the best part is that companies could avoid the fee
altogether by simply not wasting methane. Members should understand
that they don't even pay the fee if they don't waste the methane, and
we actually have a fund to help them upgrade their equipment so that
they do not waste the methane and actually improve the situation.
Many industry leaders are already meeting these thresholds that H.J.
Res. 35 is trying to get rid of. Essentially, what my colleagues are
seeing here is that the good actors are actually doing the right thing.
They are not wasting methane anymore. Some of them have gotten help in
order to upgrade their equipment, and then they don't pay any fee.
[[Page H847]]
It is the bad actors, the dirtiest oil and gas companies and
producers, I should say, that this helps because they don't want to
have to upgrade. They don't care. They just want to pollute. That is
really the unfortunate part of all of this. Instead of encouraging the
good actors, we encourage the bad actors.
Mr. Speaker, addressing methane pollution can yield tremendous
financial, climate, and public health benefits across the country. By
incentivizing companies to capture lost revenue, the Methane Emissions
Reduction Program and the methane polluter fee spur American
innovation, strengthen businesses, and boost local economies.
In fact, in the 10 years between 2014 and 2024, there was an 88
percent increase in manufacturing firms in the methane mitigation
industry, so this mitigation spurs industry and growth in the economy.
This sector employs thousands of Americans across the Nation with
high-quality, good-paying jobs. Yet, in my opinion, this Republican
resolution threatens those jobs and undermines American innovation.
It also not only blocks the EPA from implementing the program's waste
emissions charge, also known as the methane polluter fee, but also
prevents the EPA from ever taking similar action in the future.
Controlling methane pollution is a win-win for all Americans. It is
unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are willing to throw all of
this away in order to line the pockets of their corporate polluter
friends, raising costs on hardworking Americans and the middle class in
the process.
Make no mistake: President Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional
Republicans have no intention of doing anything to lower energy bills
for Americans, and H.J. Res. 35 is just the latest proof of that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a new day in America. Once
again, House Republicans are standing up for hardworking Texans and
Americans by rolling back another harmful rule pushed through by the
Obiden administration.
Mr. Speaker, I call him ``Obiden'' because I think he is Obama's
third term.
This latest scheme slaps new taxes on our energy producers, the very
folks who keep our gas prices low and our economy running strong. We
are not going to sit back and let the Obiden administration strangle
our energy industry with unnecessary costs.
It is absolutely time to strike down this destructive natural gas tax
and protect America's energy independence.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to claim that
President Biden--I will use his name--his natural gas tax won't hurt
producers who are ``in compliance.'' I have a news flash for you. That
is a bait and switch, Mr. Speaker.
Under the current waste emissions charge regulation, the so-called
regulatory compliance exemption only applies if methane emission
regulations are in place in every applicable State.
Here is the catch: Many States haven't adopted these regulations,
which means producers can't even comply with these rules that don't
exist.
In other words, the ``exemption'' isn't really an exemption at all.
It is just another backdoor tax designed to squeeze the very industry
that keeps America powered.
This isn't just bureaucratic red tape, Mr. Speaker. It is a direct
attack on Texas jobs, Texas families, and energy producers that fuel
our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support my colleagues in striking down
this burdensome tax and standing up for the hardworking men and women
of the Lone Star State and our great Nation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, strong opposition, to this
resolution.
For the past 5 weeks, Elon Musk and congressional Republicans have
been running around calling any Federal spending debt they don't like
waste. The empowerment exercise of Elon Musk is a rather interesting
saga. He is a person who did not have a background check, was not
confirmed or had a process of approval through the United States
Senate, and is functioning through a ghost agency of government
oversight of efficiency. He is now the determinant to go forward and
reduce government in a way that is not utilizing the strength of
inspectors general or institutional memory that can best guide the
academics to do that with the greatest degree of efficiency.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. TONKO. Sure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GRIFFITH. When debating this resolution, H.J. Res. 35, is it
appropriate to discuss superfluous matters to the matter at hand
currently on the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1 of rule XVII, remarks in
debate must be confined to the subject under debate, in this case, the
pending legislation.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I was using that to set in context my
comments because, again, waste addressed in an efficiency exercise is
important, but ironically, today, we are finally on the House floor
talking about an EPA rule that reduces actual, literal waste, and
Republicans want to undo it.
The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane
pollution. Each year, oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of $2
billion worth of wasted natural gas, and that can come via venting,
perhaps flaring, and leaks. The methane polluter fee makes certain that
companies are held accountable for their waste.
This is an effort to provide for efficiency for the general public
because methane waste is not only exacerbating climate change, but it
is also bad for Americans, especially through their energy bills.
Consumers still pay for natural gas that is wasted, but this
resolution will let those polluters off the hook. It also hurts
American companies that are innovating new technologies enabling leak
detection and repair, creating whole new pollution reduction
industries.
These new technologies are turning waste into economic value, all
while protecting our environment.
I suggest that that is an exercise we should all embrace, but oil and
gas industry polluters aren't willing to take meaningful mitigation
actions voluntarily if it eats into their bottom lines.
It is why we have historically enacted environmental laws to make
sure polluters pay for the damage that they do to the public. The
methane polluter fee is the next chapter of that environmental success
story by incentivizing companies to perform leak detections and repairs
that provide high-quality and good-paying jobs that employ thousands of
Americans across our great country.
We should be holding polluters accountable, lowering energy costs for
hardworking Americans, and supporting new domestic industries, but when
it comes down to a choice between reducing everyday Americans' energy
bills or lining the pockets of oil and gas executives, Republicans will
choose Big Oil each and every time.
Let's stop wasting methane without consequence, and let's not leave
American consumers to foot the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about this
parliamentary inquiry. I yield myself such time if I can that there was
a ruling on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. PALLONE. Well, the problem that I have, Mr. Speaker, unless I
misunderstood--yes, it would be a parliamentary inquiry. Unless I
misunderstood, Mr. Griffith was criticizing Mr. Tonko because he
mentioned Elon Musk in the context of this debate.
[[Page H848]]
I was in the back room before this debate started and the President
had his first Cabinet meeting and Elon Musk was in charge of the
Cabinet meeting, talking about every topic in the Federal Government.
As you know, he has used his position with DOGE to fire people at the
EPA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PALLONE. My question is, could you repeat that ruling and what it
was about? Was it about Elon Musk?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair had advised Members that under
clause 1 of rule XVII, remarks in debate must be confined to the
subject under debate, in this case, the pending legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. All right. I don't have an--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may be recognized for debate.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I am a little confused. If the gentleman--if Mr. Griffith's
comment was about the fact that we cannot bring up Elon Musk, who is
essentially in charge of so many government programs, including
everything at the EPA--again, I was in the back room. He was addressing
the Cabinet. No one was saying anything. He was talking about every
government policy. He has fired people at the EPA. He has commented on
every government policy, including EPA policy.
Again, I don't understand what the ruling was. I don't want to get
into it again, but we certainly will continue to talk about Elon Musk
and the negative impact of DOGE on the EPA, on methane, on everything
else. That is what we are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I meant no offense and no
criticism. As the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and from
New Jersey knows, I love parliamentary procedure. One of the reasons
that we have parliamentary procedures and rules of parliamentary
procedures is to make the place more efficient.
We are talking about H.J. Res. 35 today. We are not talking about
every other ill that anybody might think is going on. The focus today
in this debate period is H.J. Res. 35.
That is my only point. I meant no criticism of Mr. Tonko or the
Democrats in this matter. Just trying to get us on track with
parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen), my good friend.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Griffith for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is a new day in America. I remind my friends that,
just 6 years ago, we had the greatest economy in our lifetimes, and we
achieved energy independence. That is what this day is about.
The days of weakness on the world stage and dependence on foreign
adversaries for our energy needs are over.
I am proud to rise in support of H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the Biden
administration's harmful rule establishing a natural gas tax and help
the United States reclaim energy dominance.
The Biden administration had an all-out war on fossil fuel. On their
way out the door, the previous administration finalized this burdensome
rule to effectively collect taxes on methane emissions released from
oil and gas facilities and funnel that money to their radical climate
allies.
What my Democratic colleagues won't tell you is that our clean
natural gas is a major reason why the U.S. has become a world leader in
reducing carbon emissions.
In partnership with President Trump, House Republicans are
reinstating common sense in Washington. To lower costs for American
families, we must unleash our energy capabilities and utilize the
reliable natural gas right under our feet, not impose these outlandish
taxes on domestic producers.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of H.J. Res. 35.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose efforts to repeal the
waste emissions charge, commonly known as the methane fee, which is a
commonsense measure that benefits American industry, protects
consumers, and provides much-needed regulatory certainty in the energy
sector.
Addressing methane emissions, especially fugitive emissions from oil
and gas, is one of the most effective ways to combat the climate
crisis, protect public health, and ensure America's energy sector
remains globally competitive.
Methane has a global warming potential 80 times higher than carbon
dioxide over a 20-year period, meaning that even small leaks can erase
the climate benefits of utilizing cleaner energy sources.
Unfortunately, methane regulations have been caught in a cycle of
constant change.
The first Trump administration repealed methane regulations from the
previous administration. When President Biden took office, we led
efforts to reinstate these crucial protections. Then, in 2022, House
Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which not only reinstated
strong methane controls but also implemented a market-driven approach
to reducing waste, the methane fee.
The methane fee is not a blanket tax on energy production. I think
the gentleman from Virginia suggested that this was a tax on small
polluters. Actually, it is a tax only on larger emitters because it is
only applied for 25,000 metric tons annually, so it is on the larger
ones.
It is designed to encourage companies to capture more methane rather
than venting or leaking it. The methane fee provides proof to consumers
and competitors that we are serious about producing the cleanest, most
efficient natural gas on the market.
Repealing the fee would hurt American industry by eliminating
incentives to modernize operations and remain competitive in an
international market that increasingly values low-emission energy.
Now, I am supposed to get up here and bash Big Oil, but actually, Big
Oil is for the methane fee. The largest companies--ExxonMobil,
TotalEnergies, and Cheniere Energy--support strong methane rules. They
oppose this repeal because they know reducing waste makes business
sense. How is that? Because the customers for our gas around the
world--Korea, South Korea, Japan, the EU--are demanding cleaner gas.
These companies know that the methane fee demonstrates that our gas
is cleaner. Also, the consumer demand from those customers has led to
the development of technologies to detect methane, its presence, and
its concentration in a way that we can make much more efficient ways to
regulate it.
{time} 1245
A repeal would undercut responsible producers who have invested in
cutting-edge methane detection and capture technologies that make them
globally competitive.
Even if this CRA passes today, the problem doesn't simply disappear.
My colleagues on the other side never miss a chance to point out that
the natural gas revolution has contributed to our historic energy
independence and cut our CO2 emissions from energy
production. That is true, but even small leaks of methane wipe out that
advantage from a climate perspective.
World markets and domestic politics are demanding that the industry
can prove with real credibility and transparency that we fixed this
methane problem. It is increasingly apparent that the viability of
exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas depends on American policies to
address methane pollution.
If we don't do this, we are going to have to pass bipartisan
legislation to do the same thing to ensure that the industry standards
provide for the cleanest, most efficient natural gas production.
Industry and ratepayers have asked us for certainty, consistency, and
an assurance that America will remain a global leader in energy
production and resilience. The customers want this to happen. The large
producers want this to happen. I don't see why Democrats and
Republicans can't agree on this.
We need long-term solutions, not more political whiplash. I urge my
colleagues to stand with responsible energy producers and American
consumers to reject efforts that repeal this vital provision.
[[Page H849]]
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly
support H.J. Res. 35, legislation to repeal the Biden administration's
waste emissions charge.
During President Biden's term in office, he and his administration
waged war on our domestic energy producers, limiting their production
and expanding regulations that raise prices on the American consumer.
The waste emissions charge implemented by President Biden through the
failed Inflation Reduction Act does nothing but shackle our energy
producers, raising costs for consumers, and forcing our allies into the
hands of adversaries.
By repealing the Biden administration rule, we can deliver on the
mandate that Americans voted for in November and unleash American
energy production. This will allow us to support hardworking
constituents and our allies abroad, by producing more affordable and
cleaner energy.
By simply repealing this overreaching regulation, our Nation can step
forward, fully utilizing the energy resources that are underneath the
feet of my constituents.
Soon, with the help of H.J. Res. 35, we will once again be energy
dominant. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of our committee.
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 35, which
will block the methane polluter fee, which is designed to control
wasteful methane from the oil and gas industry.
This resolution is another attempt by Republicans to put corporate
polluters ahead of hardworking American people. Much like their budget
adopted last night, it is a handout for billionaires and large
corporations.
Despite President Trump's promise to cut energy costs, Republicans
are actively working to raise Americans' energy bills, not to mention
the effect that reckless tariffs that, together with this policy, the
Republicans are pushing will drive American energy bills and prices at
the pump sky high.
However, I guess those high prices are worth the costs to Republicans
if it means Big Oil and Gas are pleased.
The Methane Emissions Reduction Program was created to make sure that
these big corporations pay for their own pollution, but I guess my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer that American
families cover the cost of corporate pollution.
Under this resolution, the American people will be stuck footing the
bill. That is egregious. It is egregious to let the American people
bear the burden of industry's pollution. It is not just a cost to their
wallets, but also a cost to their health and safety.
The oil and gas sector is the single largest industrial source of
methane pollution in the United States, responsible for nearly a third
of our emissions. We know that this pollution of our air has powerful
effects on our climate and is driving worsening natural disasters.
The devastating wildfires and hurricanes that we have seen, fueled by
climate change, aren't just our children's problem. They are here
today. The pollution that this methane gas produces affects our
children's health today. It affects their respiratory health, among
other things.
While Republicans are pushing tax breaks for billionaires and
corporate polluters, they will get a pat on the back from the industry
today. Democrats are thinking about the future and the world that our
children and their children will inherit.
Will it be livable? Will they be able to breathe?
I urge my colleagues to put the American people and families now and
in the future over polluters and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Begich).
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res.
35, which repeals the Biden administration's natural gas tax, a
misguided policy that drives up costs, stifles investment, and weakens
our energy security. This so-called waste emissions charge won't reduce
methane emissions, but it will punish American producers, increase
reliance on foreign energy, and make life more expensive for America's
working families.
While some claim this tax does not directly impact my home State of
Alaska, what is bad for American energy is bad for Alaskan energy.
Alaska holds over 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and the
Alaska LNG project is our best chance to bring it to market. Yet,
burdensome Federal regulations discourage investment, keeping Alaska's
energy potential locked away.
Meanwhile, Cook Inlet gas supplies are declining, threatening
Alaskans in south central Alaska with higher heating and electricity
costs. If we want long-term energy security, we must develop our
resources.
Mr. Speaker, every job is an energy job because energy powers
everything that we do. Supporting American energy production means
creating good-paying jobs in oil and gas, construction, transportation,
manufacturing, and small businesses that rely on affordable energy. The
Alaska LNG project alone would generate thousands of jobs,
strengthening our economy and supply chains. If we want to grow
opportunity for working families, we must stand with American energy
and repeal the natural gas tax.
Let's be clear: Opponents of this bill are spreading falsehoods. They
claim this tax will cut emissions, but the U.S. already leads the world
in methane reduction, cutting emissions intensity by 42 percent since
2015. They say this is about Big Oil, but 90 percent of U.S. natural
gas comes from small and midsize producers. They claim only gas
producers are affected, but the Biden administration designed this rule
to also hit oil producers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, they argue this tax protects energy
security, yet it increases reliance on foreign adversaries.
If we are serious about energy security, affordability, and economic
growth, we must repeal the natural gas tax. H.J. Res. 35 is a
commonsense step toward a stronger energy future. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes.''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Virginia has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I mentioned, I am very much opposed to this resolution, and a big
part of it is because I think it will cost the American taxpayers and
the Federal Government more money.
The CBO has a preliminary cost estimate for this resolution, and it
is a whopper. The CBO estimates that this resolution would cost
American taxpayers $7.2 billion over the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an email from CBO regarding
this.
H.J. Res. 35 would disapprove a final rule published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024 that
implemented a requirement in the 2022 reconciliation act
(Public Law 117-169). The rule detailed how the agency would
collect fees from certain energy-related facilities whose
methane emissions exceed a threshold specified by law.
Estimated revenue effects of H.J. Res. 35, a joint
resolution providing for Congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including
Netting and Exemptions''.
As posted by the House Committee on Rules on February 24,
2025.
[[Page H850]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025- 2025-
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2030 2035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECREASES IN REVENUES
Estimated Revenues........... -400 -1,300 -1,400 -1,300 -1,300 -375 -300 -275 -275 -275 -275 -6,075 -7,475
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By invoking a legislative process established in the
Congressional Review Act, the resolution would repeal the
rule and prohibit the agency from issuing the same or any
similar rule in the future.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, $7.2 billion to have dirtier air, a
more unstable climate, and waste more gas. I mean, it is really
unbelievable.
Republicans have spent years getting mad about the deficit, but as we
saw yesterday, the first chance they got, they plan to increase the
deficit by trillions of dollars in their budget resolution to give tax
breaks to billionaires.
This bill is more of the same. They are encouraging oil and gas
companies to let their products go to waste to the tune of $7.2 billion
rather than put them to work for American families just to line the
pockets of their oil and gas allies.
I listened to the gentleman from Alaska, and we are all in favor of
developing our natural resources. There was more oil and gas pumped
under President Biden than any other President since I have been here.
We want to develop our resources but in a way that helps Americans save
dollars.
I heard Dr. Joyce on our committee talk about our allies. I mean, I
have got to be honest with you. When I listen to Trump, he makes it
sound like our allies are our adversaries, and our adversaries like
Russia are our allies. He talks about investing in Russian resources
and oil and gas.
Again, I don't know what this administration is doing. I know that
what the Republicans are doing today is definitely not a good thing for
the American people. It is not good for our deficit. It is going to
essentially cost Americans more, and it is only going to result in more
pollution. When, in fact, this is working and this methane fee is
actually getting the oil and gas industry to correct this problem and
recycle the methane and not waste it.
We are just trying to do what makes sense from every point of view
here. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win for
everybody, and this resolution is a lose-lose for everybody, in my
opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the
time here and the effort on this review.
We see that this is an eleventh hour rule put in at the end of the
Biden administration, like many, that was contained in the Inflation
Reduction Act, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is a pretty
funny name.
What we have is a situation here where there are a couple of main
drivers of inflation in this country: government overspending and
energy costs that have been driven so high during the Biden
administration. It hasn't helped.
What we are doing, in effect, is that we are punishing the people
with the reduction of methane by imposing these strict financial
charges on the facilities. Due to that rewrite of the greenhouse gas
reporting rule, the natural gas tax will capture many more producers
than the so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually authorized. It is
already being misapplied.
When you look at the whole issue, H.J. Res. 35 is important to get
back to energy independence and also not drive our partners in Europe
into the arms of--not yet another Russian hoax, it sounds like here
today--Russian natural gas dependence.
If anybody would view the history of those areas of the world, why
would they want to be dependent on Russian gas? Why would we do things
to help foster that by driving up the price and lowering the
availability?
Indeed, with the miracle of hydraulic fracturing, we made natural gas
so incredibly available for our country to lower the cost of energy. We
enjoyed that for a while until the Biden policies have put us where we
are.
We have to take a step back, repeal that horrific rule made by rule,
not by a discussion in Congress, but by the stroke of a pen in the
Biden era. Let's repeal this. Let's put us back on energy independence
that will make our economy stronger, our country stronger, and also
help us be better trading partners with those around the world that can
rely on cheap American gas instead of Russian gas.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
{time} 1300
Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
resolution to roll back a critical component of the Methane Emissions
Reduction Program.
The Oregonians I represent know that climate change poses a real and
existential threat. As a mother, I understand intimately the anxiety
our children are grappling with every day with the warming Earth that
they are inheriting. It is my commitment to mitigating climate change,
while working to adapt to it, that drives my work here.
We cannot kick this can down the road and wait to take action. As our
kids are forced to grapple with this reality, I am sick and tired of
Republican efforts to let Big Oil and corporate polluters off the hook.
The methane polluter fee that would be rolled back by this resolution
corrects a serious market failure that makes it cheaper for polluters
to waste methane than install or upgrade equipment to prevent leaks and
flaring. I will vote ``no'' because I have no interest in protecting
corporate polluters at the expense of a cleaner world for our children.
To the Oregonians watching, please know that I will come back to this
House floor time and again to ensure our message is heard loud and
clear. The climate crisis is real. It is our children who will suffer
if we do not stand up to Big Oil and corporate polluters. I implore my
colleagues to stand with me.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 35
which will overturn the disastrous Biden administration's natural gas
tax on the hardworking American people.
During a time in which energy demand across the United States and the
entire world is growing exponentially, the Federal Government should
make it easier to produce ever cleaner, reliable, and affordable
energy. Rather than supporting domestic energy production, the Biden
administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle used the
so-called Inflation Reduction Act to levy an unnecessary tax on natural
gas, which ultimately fell on American people to pay, simply to try and
kill the domestic natural gas industry.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what is the largest factor that has led to
global emissions being reduced in recent years? It has been the
increased use of American natural gas, both here in the United States
and around the world. Oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of
America is 43 percent cleaner than oil and natural gas produced
elsewhere around the world.
The natural gas tax won't stop the use of all natural gas. It will
simply stop the use of American natural gas. This tax will make it
harder for hardworking Americans to pay for their soaring energy bills
and force us to utilize more natural gas and energy produced by foreign
adversarial nations
[[Page H851]]
who have far inferior environmental and labor standards.
A natural gas tax is a completely misguided tax on the working
American people that will hurt their bottom line and benefit Vladimir
Putin. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has been the most antidomestic
energy-producing administration and the most antimining administration
in the history of this country. We are going to turn it around.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke before about how the Methane Emissions Reduction
Program is a win-win and how this resolution is a lose-lose. The bottom
line is that curbing methane waste is an opportunity for the oil and
gas industry itself. The industry really wants to waste less methane.
It is simple logic. Each molecule of methane saved is one they can
sell to people. Oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of about $2
billion worth of wasted natural gas every year, and there is money to
be made in that. On the other hand, repealing this program, which is
what this resolution does, will cost us $7.2 billion and at the same
time pollutes our air. It is a lose-lose scenario.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the Biden-
Harris administration's natural gas tax. For the last 4 years,
Americans witnessed firsthand the implementation of a heavyhanded, top-
down regulatory agenda that put the interests of the environmental left
first, leading to increased prices for families and businesses.
This resolution would overturn the rule implementing the EPA's waste
emissions charge which was published following the 2024 Presidential
election as part of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program established
in the Inflation Reduction Act. Energy produced in the United States
has some of the lowest methane emissions intensity in the world. U.S.
upstream oil and gas producers have reduced their total methane
emissions intensity by 42 percent since 2015.
We have our entrepreneurial spirit to thank for this success, not
policies like the WEC, which are unworkable for American producers and
will lead to our allies being forced to rely on gas with higher
emissions coming from adversarial nations like Venezuela.
Businesses and consumers rely on the affordable and reliable natural
gas underneath our feet. By putting new taxes on this baseload power,
the Biden-Harris administration put the interests of their far-left
base ahead of the needs of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that
will enable us to enact President Trump's energy agenda and restore
American energy dominance.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I really stress that the Republicans keep talking about
how this Methane Emissions Reduction Program harms the industry.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are a whole bunch of incentives in this program to drive down
excess methane pollution and remediate the effects of pollution that do
occur, but the program provides over $1.5 billion to assist the
industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions, including
$700 million of incentives for small producers.
The methane charge, or fee, only applies to wasted methane above
specific thresholds based on the oil and gas industry's own climate
commitments and methane reduction targets. We worked with the industry
to put this together. They are cooperating with us. It is the opposite
of the idea that somehow they are harmed. They are benefiting. They are
actually making money from it.
Overall, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program recognizes the
cleanest performers, holds companies responsible for their own leaks
and wasted methane, drives innovation, and creates a lot of jobs. The
whole idea is to get them to do the right thing. We even give them
money in order to accomplish that with their equipment, and it is
working. This idea that it is harmful is just nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation,
H.J. Res. 35, to nullify the EPA's rule on the waste emissions charge,
also known as the natural gas tax.
With President Trump back in office, it is time to restore American
energy. It is time to restore American energy dominance, which is why I
am proud to lead this CRA to rescind the ill-conceived natural gas tax.
As part of his war on energy, former President Biden took radical
steps to end fossil fuels during his administration, which hurt the
hardworking energy producers not only in my district in the Permian
Basin in Midland and Odessa but also across America.
This Congressional Review Act is a tool that Congress uses to
overturn Federal agency actions, a direct example of congressional
checks and balances on the executive branch and one of Congress' most
important duties.
My CRA will not eliminate the program that collects this tax, but it
will remove the EPA's ability to collect it. This is an essential first
step in eliminating this tax, while we work to undo the underlying
statute: killing the natural gas tax once and for all. It is critical
to negate these punitive regulatory requirements now to ensure that the
United States can reclaim its place as the world leader in energy for
generations to come.
In the waning days of the Biden administration, the EPA doubled down
on Biden's disastrous energy policies, imposing a burdensome and
harmful tax on oil and natural gas facilities called the waste
emissions charge, also like we have been discussing, the natural gas
tax or the methane tax. This natural gas tax was a blatant abuse of
power and the first time that the Federal Government has ever directly
levied a tax on emissions, creating a duplicative layer of red tape
that would devastate American energy, if continued.
The specifics of this tax started at $900 a metric ton in '24,
increasing to $1,200, and then $1,500 in the subsequent years. While
the statute directs the EPA to develop a formula to impose and collect
a tax based on intensity, Biden's EPA did so by ignoring well-
established international standards.
Actually, one of the things I have heard here today is that industry
was consulted. That is false. Industry was not consulted. In a hearing,
I asked a member of Biden's Department of Energy to tell me one
producer they had worked with. I asked them to name one producer they
had worked with, and they couldn't come up with that producer. They
couldn't come up with even one until pressed. Then they said whatever
producer they thought. I went back and double-checked that. They hadn't
been consulted. They hadn't been talked to.
This is an important day. Taxes, like the one we are discussing,
raise energy production costs. They discourage investment. They
ultimately lead to higher consumer prices and costs. Not only is this a
tremendous burden on both producers and consumers but this rule also
completely ignores the significant progress that the United States
private sector has made over the past decade or more.
U.S. emissions have decreased by 18 percent between 2005 and 2022,
making the United States the world leader in reductions of emissions,
while simultaneously increasing production threefold or fourfold.
Today's vote exemplifies the principles upheld in the Supreme Court's
landmark Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. By overturning
Chevron deference precedent, the court restored the judiciary's
rightful role in interpreting statutes and checking agency overreach.
This is important for all of us. What Biden's administration did for
4 straight years was to overreach, to impose burdensome regulations,
and to hurt innovation, the actual innovation that was reducing
emissions. They destroyed that progress.
[[Page H852]]
I am very proud to lead this CRA. I am proud that it will be
bipartisan. I have had multiple Democrats who have told me that they
are going to vote for this because it is common sense and it actually
helps all of our goals: affordable, reliable energy that also helps the
environment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I thank
the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for leading this.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Begich). The gentleman from Virginia has
10 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas,
and he described once for me his district, Midland, and the oil and gas
production there.
I must stress, I actually did spend a lot of time talking to the
industry when we were putting this methane emissions program together.
I can speak firsthand that I spoke to the industry. The main thing they
were concerned about is they did not want this program to be punitive.
They said: We want to correct this problem. We don't want to waste
methane, but you have to give us some sort of incentive to do this.
That is what we did. Rather than have a punitive program, we have
$1.5 billion to assist industry with reducing current and legacy
methane emissions. Mr. Speaker, $700 million of that is specifically
set aside for small producers, which I know there are a lot of those in
the district of the gentleman from Texas.
Unfortunately, much of that $700 million to help the small producers
has been stalled by President Trump with his funding freeze. That harms
the small producers who are counting on those critical funds.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
Res. 35, legislation I proudly cosponsored to stand up for North
Dakota's energy producers and hardworking families who depend on
affordable, reliable energy.
For my first action as a Member of Congress, I wrote to President
Trump and Secretary Burgum urging them to repeal 20 unnecessary and
burdensome rules that threaten affordable, reliable energy, including
this rule.
The Biden administration's methane tax is a real attack on North
Dakota's energy sector, and it is really a tax on every aspect of our
lives. This tax was the number one concern of the energy stakeholders
in my State.
This heavy-handed Federal mandate punishes small and midsize
independent producers who are responsible for 90 percent of America's
natural gas. It threatens jobs, raises costs for families, and
jeopardizes our energy independence.
North Dakota leads the way in responsible energy production, not
because of government mandates but because of innovation and
technology. My State is proof that we don't have to choose between a
strong economy and a clean environment. We can and do have both.
This tax will have a huge impact on our energy sectors who already
produce the cleanest energy in the world. This natural gas tax
threatens American energy security, and we will be forced to rely on
adversaries to meet our energy needs, countries that do not have strong
labor or environmental laws.
This tax hurts energy producers who are already doing it right.
America is leading the way in reducing emissions.
Since 2015, upstream oil and gas producers have reduced their methane
emissions by 42 percent. Our innovation and technology have allowed us
to reduce emissions while raising the standard of living across this
country.
American energy solutions are clean energy solutions. We should be
unleashing U.S. energy production, not taxing it and not making it more
expensive and creating disincentives to production.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
I just want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the methane polluter fee
corrects a market failure that currently makes it cheaper for owners
and operators to waste methane instead of installing or upgrading their
equipment to prevent leaks and flaring.
In other words, what we want them to do is to upgrade their
equipment, prevent the leaks and the flaring. If they do that, we give
them money, including a set-aside for small producers so that this
happens and they don't pay the fee.
Leaked or intentionally wasted natural gas never makes its way to
customers, but they are nevertheless stuck with the bill. They have to
pay for that.
The Methane Emissions Reduction Program will ensure that American
consumers no longer pay for wasted energy or the harm that these
emissions can cause.
The bottom line is that wasted methane is bad for business. It is bad
for consumers. It is bad for the climate. The problem with H.J. Res. 35
is it will allow this waste to continue unchecked.
This is a program that is working. Don't kill it with this
resolution. You are going to kill jobs. You are going to kill our
efforts to try to reduce methane in the environment, and you are not
helping anybody in the industry.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of
support for H.J. Res. 35 from the United States Chamber of Commerce, a
letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and
last, but not least, a letter from the American Petroleum Institute.
February 24, 2025.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Congressional Review
Act resolution of disapproval aimed at overturning the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Emissions
Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for
Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions
rulemaking. Disapproving this rulemaking would help give
consumers access to affordable energy to heat their homes and
businesses to power manufacturing.
Disapproving EPA's natural gas tax rulemaking is expected
to reduce energy costs for consumers, making heating,
cooking, and electricity more affordable for households. For
manufacturers, it lowers operating expenses, enabling greater
investment in production and job creation, which in turn
stimulates economic growth and strengthens the overall
economy. Disapproving this tax will also provide relief to
small businesses and industries so they can allocate more
resources toward growth, innovation, and workforce expansion.
This natural gas tax threatens to increase costs to
consumers and businesses and undermines economic
competitiveness. We urge Congress to act swiftly in passing
this resolution of disapproval.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley,
Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of
Strategic Advocacy,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
____
NFIB,
Washington, DC, February 25, 2025.
Dear Representative: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's
leading small business advocacy organization, I write in
support of H.J. Res. 35, the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
resolution to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) rule establishing a methane fee for oil and natural gas
production, processing, transmission, and storage. This fee
will increase costs for energy producers, which will be
passed on to families and small businesses. A vote in favor
of H.J. Res. 35, will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the
119th Congress.
In a recent ballot, more than 88 percent of small business
owners support streamlining regulations to facilitate the
production and transport of oil, natural gas, and other
energy sources in the United States. Small business owners
also report the cost of electricity, natural gas, gasoline,
and diesel fuel, as top 10 problems when asked to assess
their top 75 issues.
The EPA's methane fee would apply to oil and gas facilities
that report annual methane emissions above a certain
threshold. In 2024, a $900 fee per metric ton of methane
would kick in above the threshold. By 2026, the fee will
increase to $1,500 per metric ton. This fee will increase the
cost of energy production which will be passed on to the
consumer in the form of higher energy costs. In its rule, the
EPA acknowledged that this regulation would increase the
price of gasoline and decrease gas production.
[[Page H853]]
Small businesses want affordable, abundant, and reliable
energy. NFIB strongly supports H.J. Res. 35 and will consider
support for H.J. Res. 35 a Key Vote for the 119th Congress.
Sincerely,
Adam Temple,
Senior Vice President for Advocacy,
NFIB.
____
American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2025.
Hon. Brett Guthrie,
Chair, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Frank Pallone,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone: The
American Petroleum Institute (API) writes in support of H.J.
Res. 35, Providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance,
Including Netting and Exemptions'' (the WEC rule).
The WEC rule is a duplicative layer of red tape that
creates a punitive tax on American energy, stifling
innovation and hampering the industry's ability to produce
the energy that American consumers and allies abroad rely on,
and we appreciate your committee's leadership in repealing
this harmful policy.
Methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are already
regulated by EPA under the new and existing source rule,
which prescribes extensive requirements for industry. At the
same time, industry is voluntarily doing more to continue
reducing our emissions, and those efforts are working. Thanks
to innovation and industry actions, methane emissions fell by
42 percent between 2015 and 2023 according to the EPA, even
as production increased by 51 percent to meet demand.
Operators have taken significant voluntary steps to
identify and implement cleaner engineering technology
solutions within their operations and facility designs. For
example, since 2018, members of The Environmental
Partnership, a voluntary industry initiative administered by
API and whose members represent nearly 70 percent of U.S.
onshore oil and gas production, have removed or replaced more
than 180,000 gas-driven pneumatics, resulting in the
permanent reduction of an estimated 355,421 metric tonnes of
CH4 per year released into the atmosphere based on 2023 EPA
reporting. Operators are also implementing vapor recovery
units to capture methane emissions from higher-emitting
equipment like tanks and compressors. In addition to
traditional ground-based monitoring approaches using optical
gas imaging (OGI) technologies, companies are also
implementing the use of laser absorption spectroscopy and
sensors technologies on the surface, in the sky and in space
to improve leak detection efforts and further reduce
emissions.
In addition to the duplicative nature of the fee, API also
contends that the Biden Administration failed to implement it
consistent with congressional intent for several key reasons:
The Inflation Reduction Act allowed for an exemption from
the fee if (1) the final EPA rule addressing methane
emissions is in effect; and (2) as determined by the
Administrator, the given state rule will result in greater
emission reductions than would have been achieved by the
proposed rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines
for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review'' (86 Fed. Reg. 63110 (November 15, 2021)) had that
rule been finalized and implemented. Those conditions have
been met, but the compliance exemption is still not as
broadly available as Congress intended. The availability of
the exemption should not have been delayed until all 50
states have fully implemented the requirements.
The WEC rule also disqualifies sites from using the
compliance exemption if they have a deviation. Sites should
not be disqualified from using the compliance exemption
unless and until a violation (not a deviation) is proven
through adjudication or admitted by the owner/operator of the
site, and disqualification should be limited specifically to
the emissions resulting from the adjudicated violation.
The final rule allows netting at the parent company level,
but owners/operators who have made substantial investments to
mitigate emissions in advance of any regulatory requirement
are not currently able to include those facilities that now
fall below the Subpart W reporting threshold in netting
calculations.
The WEC rule requires combustion emissions to be reported
under Subpart W and subject to fees, instead of under Subpart
C, consistent with other industries and congressional intent
around the netting provisions.
Repealing this misguided rule is an important first step
towards providing industry with relief from one of the
previous Administration's anti-energy policies, and we
appreciate your work to advance a pro-consumer regulatory
environment that embraces U.S. energy.
We urge Congress to pass H.J. Res. 35 to repeal the WEC
rule, and API and its members stand ready to work together
with your committee to follow this with full repeal of the
underlying statutory mandate in Section 136(c)-(g) of the
Clean Air Act.
Sincerely,
Amanda E. Eversole.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is interesting. I heard some speakers--and everybody is just
trying to talk about these issues from their viewpoint. I get it.
However, I heard some speakers on the other side of the aisle say today
that we are just catering to Big Oil and others.
Then I hear there were discussions with larger folks, and those are
the people who are okay with it. I hear from Representatives from
places like Alaska, North Dakota, and Texas whose constituents
oftentimes are small mom-and-pop operations. It is hard to think of oil
and natural gas that way, but that is the way it is in those regions.
They say this will, in fact, hurt them and this is disastrous.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have this dichotomy, this
difference, is that a lot of times bigger institutions, bigger
organizations, can afford to take on a new regulation. It will cost
them a little bit of money. It will make the cost of production go up a
little bit, but because they are large, they can spread that out over a
lot of different items or a lot of different--I guess, in this case, it
would be oil and gas measured in cubic feet, or whatever the
measurement is these days. As a result, they can say this is a cost
spread out over a large piece of the pie so it is not that big of a
deal to us.
As I said in my opening, there are 9,000 small and midsize
independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These, mostly
small, operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and
gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil, and 90 percent of our
country's natural gas.
Those are the folks who are most upset about these regulations and
why we need to repeal them. We are going to break the back of those
9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers who are
providing us with affordable gas, affordable heat for our homes through
natural gas, and affordable products made out of natural gas and
petroleum.
Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all
Members, both Democrat, Republican, and any who may think of themselves
as independent, to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 35.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 161, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________