[House Report 117-64]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress   }                                               { Report
                          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                               { 117-64

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
UNITED STATES CODE, OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY RELATING TO ``OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR: EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 
           NEW, RECONSTRUCTED, AND MODIFIED SOURCES REVIEW''

                                _______
                                

 June 17, 2021.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Pallone, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 34]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of 
a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards 
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review'', having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Purpose and Summary.............................................2
  II. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................3
 III. Committee Hearings.............................................13
  IV. Committee Consideration........................................13
   V. Committee Votes................................................14
  VI. Oversight Findings.............................................16
 VII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur16
VIII. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................16
  IX. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives..........16
   X. Duplication of Federal Programs................................16
  XI. Committee Cost Estimate........................................16
 XII. Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....16
XIII. Advisory Committee Statement...................................17
 XIV. Applicability to Legislative Branch............................17
  XV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................17
 XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........17
XVII. Dissenting Views...............................................18

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.J. Res. 34, a joint resolution providing for 
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 
Review'', was introduced on March 26, 2021 by Representatives 
Diana DeGette (D-CO), Scott Peters (D-CA), Conor Lamb (D-PA) 
and 26 other original cosponsors and was referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    If the joint disapproval resolution is enacted, the 2020 
Rescission Rule ``shall be treated as though such rule had 
never taken effect,''\1\ reinstating the methane and volatile 
organic compound (VOC) pollution reduction requirements 
established under the 2012 and 2016 Oil and Gas Rules.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. Sec.  801(f).
    \2\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas 
Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews (Aug. 16, 2012) 77 Fed. 
Reg. 49490 (Hereinafter 2012 Oil and Gas Rule); U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 
New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 81 Fed. Reg. 35824 (June 3, 
2016) (Hereinafter 2016 Oil and Gas Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes and mandates the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect Americans from 
dangerous air pollution. Under section 111(b), the EPA must set 
new source performance standards (NSPS) for categories of 
stationary sources that cause, or significantly contribute to, 
air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.\3\ In 
2012 and 2016, the EPA promulgated rules adding emission 
standards for greenhouse gases (GHGs) (in the form of 
limitations on methane emissions) and updating VOC emission 
standards for new, reconstructed, and modified sources 
throughout the production, processing, transmission, and 
storage segments of the oil and gas sector.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Clean Air Act Sec.  111(b)(1)(A)-(B).
    \4\2012 Oil and Gas Rule; 2016 Oil and Gas Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2020, the EPA issued deregulatory rules that rolled back 
the 2012 and 2016 standards.\5\ Notably, the 2020 Rescission 
Rule eliminated both methane pollution standards for the oil 
and gas sector and all air pollution standards for the 
transmission and storage segments of the oil and gas sector. It 
also removed the predicate for EPA's obligation to address the 
extensive methane pollution emitted by existing sources and 
established a new, non-statutory requirement that EPA make an 
additional, pollutant-specific finding of significant 
contribution (SCF) to endangerment before addressing harmful 
air pollution from a sector already regulated under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas 
Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 
Review 85 Fed. Reg. 57018 (Sept. 14, 2020) (Hereinafter 2020 Recission 
Rule). H.J. Res. 34 and S.J. Res. 14 only disapprove the 2020 
Rescission Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is an oversight tool 
that Congress may use to overturn a major rule issued by a 
federal agency.\6\ The CRA requires agencies to report on their 
rulemaking activities to Congress, provides Congress with 
special procedures to consider legislation to overturn those 
rules, and prevents agencies from issuing the same or rules 
that are substantially the same in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  801-808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of reporting H.J. Res. 34 is to clearly 
demonstrate the Committee's disapproval of a deregulatory rule 
that removed critical health and welfare protections. The 
Committee's intent in taking that action is to put those 
protections back into place. Further, reporting H.J. Res. 34 is 
intended to comply with the special procedures under the CRA to 
consider legislation to overturn the rule.
    Passage of this resolution of disapproval will indicate 
Congress' disapproval of many aspects of the 2020 Rescission 
rule and specifically rejects: (1) removing the transmission 
and storage segments of the oil and natural gas production 
sources category; (2) repealing standards for emissions of GHGs 
(in the form of limitations on methane emissions); (3) negating 
the EPA's statutory obligation to regulate existing oil and gas 
sources under section 111(d); and (4) creating new legal 
hurdles by requiring a pollutant-specific SCF before regulating 
a particular pollutant under section 111, despite no basis in 
the plain language of section 111 to do so. The Committee also 
strongly disagrees with the legal interpretations underpinning 
the 2020 Rescission Rule.
    On the other hand, the Committee agrees with the legal 
underpinnings of the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule, which would be 
reinstated upon enactment of the resolution of disapproval. 
Passage of the resolution of disapproval indicates Congress' 
support and desire to immediately reinstate: (1) the 
transmission and storage segments to the regulated source 
category; (2) standards for GHGs (in the form of limitations on 
methane emissions) for new and modified sources in the 
production, processing, transmission, and storage segments; (3) 
EPA's statutory obligation to regulate existing oil and gas 
sources under section 111(d); and (4) EPA's prior 
interpretation that a pollutant-specific SCF is not required 
before regulating a particular pollutant under section 111.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\The Senate passed the companion resolution on April 28, 2021. To 
avoid the need for a conference and expedite its path to the President, 
the CRA also includes automatic ``hookup'' procedures. That is, once 
one chamber of Congress passes a disapproval resolution, it is then 
received by the other chamber, not referred to a committee, and any 
vote in the receiving house will be on the disapproval resolution 
initially passed by the other chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed in the following section, effectively 
regulating methane emissions from oil and gas sources is 
critical to avoiding the worst climate endangerment, and to 
protecting human health and welfare. To that end, upon 
reinstatement of the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule, the Committee 
strongly encourages the EPA to take swift action to reverse the 
damage caused by the 2020 Rescission Rule, strengthen its 
regulations for new sources, and fulfill its statutory 
obligation to issue existing source guidelines under section 
111(d).

                II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

I. The Current and Growing Methane Pollution Problem

    Methane is a potent GHG. Over a 100-year period, the 
emission of a ton of methane contributes 28-36 times as much to 
global warming as a ton of carbon dioxide, and is about 84 
times more powerful when measured over a 20-year timeframe.\8\ 
Historical emissions of methane contribute almost one-third of 
the total present-day warming effects resulting from human-
contributed emissions of all GHG.\9\ The effects of this 
warming include: rapidly rising temperatures, ocean acidity, 
sea level rise and other flooding, more frequent droughts, heat 
waves and wildfires, air quality impacts, increases in 
temperature-related illnesses and death, and many other harms 
experienced by communities across the United States.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Understanding Global 
Warming Potentials (updated Sept. 9, 2020) (epa.gov/ghgemissions/
understanding-global-warming-potentials); See Table 8.7 of 
International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The 
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(2013) (www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/).
    \9\Id., Supplementary Material at Table 8.SM.6, pg. 8SM-13 Table 
8.SM.6, pg. 8SM-13, (www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/
WGI_AR5.Chap_.8_SM.pdf).
    \10\See. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report (2014) (www.ipcc.ch/site/
assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf); IPCC, Special Report: 
Global Warming of 1.5+C (2018) (www.ipcc.ch/sr15/); USGCRP, The Impacts 
of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific 
Assessment (2016) (www.health2016.globalchange.gov); USGCRP, Fourth 
National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation 
in the United States (2018) (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oil and gas source category is the largest industrial 
emitter of methane in the United States, and consists of 
hundreds of thousands of sources.\11\ According to EPA data, it 
emits 7,280,000 metric tons of methane per year, or 28 percent 
of total U.S. methane emissions.\12\ Production and processing 
sources emit at least 5,800,000 tons of methane, or 80 percent 
of the total emissions from the oil and gas source category. 
Transmission and storage sources emit the remaining 
approximately 20 percent. The actual amount of emissions is 
almost certainly higher,\13\ with studies showing the EPA 
underestimates methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 
approximately 60 percent.\14\ A recent analysis found that the 
oil and gas sector released over 16 million metric tons of 
methane in 2019.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\The 2016 Oil and Gas rule covered roughly 60,000 wells 
constructed since 2015, and there are more than 800,000 existing wells 
in operation. Comments on 2019 Proposed Rule, (www.edf.org/sites/
default/files/content/Joint%20Environmental%20Comments%20on%20EPA%
27s%20Proposed%20NSPS%20Review.pdf); Environmental Defense Fund, 
Federal Methane Map, Oil and Gas Population: United States 
(www.edf.org/federalmethanemap).
    \12\This value is from the EPA's 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory 
(GHGI) and includes emissions in the ``oil and gas source category'' 
which covers production through transmission and storage, but not all 
oil and gas methane emission sources are included in the GHGI. For 
example, it does not include the distribution segment or abandoned oil 
and gas wells. For all oil and gas emissions included in the GHGI, 
total methane emissions are 7.9 million metric tons, or 8.1 if 
including abandoned oil and gas wells.
    \13\See Joannes D. Maasakkers, et al., 2010-2015 North American 
methane emissions, sectoral contributions, and trends: a high-
resolution inversion of GOSAT observations of atmospheric methane, 
European Geosciences Union, Atmos. Chem. Phys., (Mar. 22, 2021) 
(www.acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/4339/2021/); Benjamin Hmiel, et 
al., Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 
emissions, Nature (Feb. 19, 2020) (www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-
1991-8).
    \14\Alvarez, R. et al., Assessment of methane emissions from the 
U.S. oil and gas supply chain, Science (Jul. 13, 2018) 
(www.science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186).
    \15\Environmental Defense Fund, 2019 U.S. Oil & Gas Methane 
Emissions Estimate (Apr. 2021) (www.blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/
2021/04/2019_EDF-CH4-Estimate.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil and gas sources also emit VOCs, which contribute to 
ozone and other local air pollution that cause local health 
impacts. Children under the age of 5 and elderly people over 
the age of 65 are especially sensitive to those health risks, 
and low-income and environmental justice communities are, as 
well. Oil and gas sources release other toxic air pollution 
alongside methane and VOCs that can worsen asthma, affect lung 
development in children, and increase cancer risk, immune 
system damage, and neurological, reproductive, and 
developmental problems. This dangerous pollution impactsmore 
than nine million Americans who live in the frontline 
communities near oil and gas operations, including ones located 
near transmission and storage segments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Environmental Defense Fund, Federal Methane Map, Oil and Gas 
Population: United States (www.edf.org/federalmethanemap); CATF, 
Gasping For Breath (2016) (www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/
CATF_Pub_GaspingForBreath.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without bold action to curb emissions from the hundreds of 
thousands of sources in the oil and gas sector, methane 
pollution will continue to cause significant harm to public 
health, threaten the stability of our economy, and compromise 
the well-being of future generations and the planet. Addressing 
methane pollution from the oil and gas sector is an urgent and 
essential step to effectively prevent the worst endangerment 
from GHG pollution and mitigate climate change. One study found 
that swift adoption of comprehensive methane reduction measures 
can dramatically slow the rate of warming in the near term and 
lower the amount of warming over the long term.\17\ The Global 
Methane Assessment found that fast and ambitious methane 
mitigation is one of the best strategies available today to 
deliver immediate and long-lasting benefits for climate, 
agriculture, human and ecosystem health. It also found that 
currently available and cost-effective measures can reduce 
methane emissions and rapid and dramatic methane pollution cuts 
could slow global warming, while preventing a quarter-million 
deaths every year.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Ilissa B Ocko, et al., Acting rapidly to deploy readily 
available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow 
global warming, Environmental Research Letters (May 4, 2021) 
(www.iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8/pdf).
    \18\U.N. Environment Programme, Global Methane Assessment: Benefits 
and Costs of 
Mitigating Methane Emissions (May 6, 2021) (www.unep.org/resources/
report/global-methane-
assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change is caused by the accumulation in the 
atmosphere of GHGs from numerous sources--some individually 
small. In order to mitigate climate change, and protect human 
health and welfare, the EPA must address the cumulative 
pollution problem, including emissions from types of stationary 
sources that are individually small but collectively a 
significant part of the pollution problem. The United States 
cannot become GHG neutral by 2050 without reducing GHGs from 
all industrial sources, regardless of the relative size of any 
one emission source or the disparate locations of the points of 
emission.
    Accordingly, regulation of emissions from new and existing 
oil and gas sources, including those located in the production, 
processing, and transmission and storage segments, is necessary 
to protect human health and welfare, including through 
combatting climate change, and to promote environmental 
justice.

II. Fundamental Flaws with the 2020 Rescission Rule

    Under the CAA, the EPA Administrator must protect human 
health and welfare from pollution that causes harm. That is 
exactly what the 2012 and 2016 Oil and Gas Rules did. Using 
strained and counterfactual arguments to obfuscate the clear 
meaning of the statute, and ignoring all prior EPA 
interpretations and Congressional intent, the 2020 Rescission 
Rule removed those protections, replacing them with nothing. 
Congress is using its authority under the CRA to disapprove of 
the 2020 Rescission Rule, treating the deregulatory rule as if 
it had never taken effect, and reinstating the protections of 
the 2012 and 2016 Oil and Gas Rules.
    Adopting this resolution indicates that the EPA should 
regulate, under the authority of section 111, methane and other 
air pollutant emissions from both new and existing oil and gas 
sources, including those located in the production, processing, 
and transmission and storage segments.\19\ This resolution of 
disapproval also indicates the strong rejection of the numerous 
harmful components of the 2020 Rescission Rule, and reaffirms 
the EPA's authority and obligation to protect the public from 
harmful climate pollution like methane.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Section 111 is one of the primary tools in the CAA for 
regulation of air pollutants from both new and existing stationary 
sources. Section 111 sets out a multi-step process for this regulation. 
Section 111(b) directs the EPA Administrator to list for regulation a 
source category that, in the Administrator's judgment, causes, or 
contributes significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (referred to herein as 
dangerous air pollution). This provision further directs the EPA to 
promulgate NSPS for emissions of air pollutants from new sources in 
that source category, and section 111(d) directs EPA to establish 
requirements for states to regulate emissions of certain air 
pollutants, including GHGs, from existing sources in that source 
category.
    \20\See Purpose and Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            A. Affirms that Section 111 Authorizes Regulation of 
                    Methane from All Oil and Gas Sources
    The 2020 Rescission Rule eliminated both methane NSPS for 
the oil and gas source category and all air pollution NSPS for 
the transmission and storage segments of the oil and gas 
sector. It also established a new, non-statutory requirement 
that EPA make an additional, pollutant-specific SCF to 
endangerment before addressing harmful air pollution from a 
sector already regulated under the CAA. Those elements of the 
rule are, at best, incorrect interpretations of the CAA and, at 
worst, thinly veiled attempts to avoid regulating the largest 
source of methane pollution in the United States. For the 
reasons described below, the 2020 Rescission Rule should be 
disapproved, and the 2012 and 2016 Oil and Gas Rules should be 
reinstated.
                i. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production Source Category
    Enacting the resolution of disapproval indicates Congress's 
rejection of the 2020 Rescission Rule's determination of the 
scope of the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production source 
category. Further, it affirms that previously, the EPA properly 
determined the scope of the source category as including the 
transmission and storage segments, in addition to the 
processing and production segments, for purposes of regulation 
under section 111.
    In 1979, EPA first listed for regulation the ``Crude Oil & 
Natural Gas Production'' source category consisting of large 
components of the oil and gas industry.\21\ The EPA 
subsequently promulgated NSPS for VOC emissions from sources in 
the production and processing segments in 1985,\22\ and in the 
2012 Oil and Gas Rule promulgated NSPS for VOC emissions from 
additional sources, including sources in the transmission and 
storage segments of the industry.\23\ The 2016 Oil and Gas Rule 
promulgated NSPS for VOC emissions from additional sources and 
NSPS for methane emissions from sources in the production, 
processing, and transmission and storage segments.\24\ In 2016, 
EPA also reaffirmed the scope of the 1979 source category and, 
alternatively, revised the source category to include the 
transmission and storage segments based on the interrelatedness 
of, and similarities between, the segments. The 2020 Rescission 
Rule rescinded the EPA's conclusions in the 2012 and 2016 Oil 
and Gas Rules that the scope of the 1979 source category 
includes the transmission and storage segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See 49 Fed. Reg. 49222 (Aug. 21, 1979).
    \22\50 Fed. Reg. 26122 (June 24, 1985).
    \23\2012 Oil and Gas Rule.
    \24\2016 Oil and Gas Rule. The rule established standards for 
emissions of greenhouse gases in the form of limitations on methane 
emissions. Id. at 35840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The EPA, in the 2020 Rescission Rule, erred in rescinding 
that determination. In the CAA, Congress provided the EPA with 
wide latitude to determine the scope of a source category under 
section 111 and to expand the scope of an already-listed source 
category if the agency later determines that it is reasonable 
to do so. In the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule, the EPA correctly 
determined that the equipment and operations at production, 
processing, and transmission and storage facilities are a 
sequence of functions that are interrelated and necessary for 
the overall purpose of extracting, processing, and transporting 
natural gas for distribution. Furthermore, the EPA correctly 
determined that the types of equipment used and the emissions 
profile of the natural gas in the transmission and storage 
segments do not so distinctly differ from the types of 
equipment used and the emissions profile of the natural gas in 
the production and processing segments as to require that the 
EPA create a separate source category listing. Indeed, even the 
presence of large distinctions in equipment type and emissions 
profile across two segments would not necessarily preclude EPA 
from regulating those segments as a single source category, so 
long as the EPA could identify some meaningful relationship 
between them.
                ii. Regulation of Methane
    Enacting the resolution of disapproval indicates Congress's 
strong rejection of the 2020 Rescission Rule's fundamentally 
flawed justifications for the rescission of the methane 
standards in the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule. First, the 2020 
Recission Rule takes the position that the methane standards 
were redundant to the VOC standards on the grounds that the two 
sets of standards applied to the sources in the same way, so 
that by complying with one (for example, the VOC standards), 
the sources would also comply with the other (for example, the 
methane standards) without having to take any different 
action.\25\ But this does not mean that the two sets of 
standards are redundant, only that the EPA formulated them to 
impose the same requirements for the same types of equipment, 
so that sources could comply with them in an efficient manner. 
Further, in the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule, the EPA determined that 
it had a rational basis for promulgating the methane standards, 
that was reasonable and appropriate.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\2020 Recission Rule at 57031.
    \26\2016 Oil and Gas Rule at 35843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most importantly, the 2020 Rescission Rule's erroneous 
assertion that standards of performance for methane are 
redundant to standards for VOCs was based on a fundamental 
misinterpretation of section 111, and the critical importance 
of section 111(d) in Congress scheme. Section 111(b) standards 
of performance for methane trigger an obligation under section 
111(d) for EPA to promulgate requirements for methane emitted 
from existing oil and gas sources. Standards of performance for 
VOCs (for purposes of addressing ozone), however, do not 
trigger any such requirement for existing sources.\27\ Because 
of the structure of section 111, the EPA must consider 
emissions from both new and existing sources when evaluating 
whether standards are appropriate to address dangerous air 
pollution. The 2020 Rescission Rule's misinterpretation of 
section 111 was glaring and enormously consequential because 
existing sources emit the vast majority of methane in the oil 
and gas sector.\28\ By rescinding the methane NSPS on the 
spurious grounds of redundancy with the VOC standards, the 2020 
Rescission Rule effectively blocked the EPA from addressing 
most of the dangerous air pollution from the oil and gas 
sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Congress designed section 111 to take an integrated approach to 
new and existing sources and as a result, the effect of regulation of 
new sources on regulation of existing sources is important. For 
example, under section 111, the EPA lists source categories on the 
basis of emissions from both new and existing sources, see Nat'l Lime 
Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433 n.48 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Nat'l Asphalt 
Pavement Ass'n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The 
Committee agrees that listing decisions should be based on emissions 
from new and existing sources. VOCs present a special case, distinct 
from other pollutants regulated under section 111(d) because although 
they are not expressly listed as section 108(a) pollutants, they are 
regulated as precursors to listed pollutants (ozone and particulate 
matter) and as a result, the promulgation of VOC standards do not 
trigger existing source requirements.
    \28\The 2016 Oil and Gas rule covered roughly 60,000 wells 
constructed since 2015. There are more than 800,000 existing wells in 
operation, which EPA will be obligated to regulate under 111(d). In 
2020, these existing sources emitted 10 million tons of methane, 2.3 
million tons of VOCs, and nearly 90,000 tons of HAPs in 2020. Comments 
on 2019 Proposed Rule(www.edf.
org/sites/default/files/content/
Joint%20Environmental%20Comments%20on%20EPA%27s%20Pro-
posed%20NSPS%20Review.pdf); Environmental Defense Fund, Federal Methane 
Map, Oil and Gas Population: United States (www.edf.org/
federalmethanemap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            B. Affirm that Section 111 Does Not Require a Pollutant-
                    Specific Significant Contribution Finding
    Passage of the resolution of disapproval indicates 
Congress's intent to make clear that the 2020 Rescission Rule 
erred in contending that section 111 ``requires, or at least 
authorizes [EPA] to require,'' a pollutant-specific SCF as a 
predicate for promulgating a standard of performance for that 
pollutant.\29\ The plain language of section 111 does not 
support this interpretation. The EPA's statutory interpretation 
prior to the 2020 Rescission Rule is correct, and would be 
reinstated by this resolution of disapproval. This action 
reaffirms that once a source category is listed, regulation of 
any pollutant is reasonable provided that the EPA has a 
rational basis for concluding that regulation is appropriate to 
address dangerous air pollution. The EPA appropriately so 
concluded in the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule in deciding to 
promulgate standards for emissions of greenhouse gases in the 
form of limitations on methane emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\2020 Rescission Rule at 57034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                i. Statutory Interpretation of Section 111
    Congress designed section 111 to address stationary source 
categories that invariably emit at least several types of air 
pollutants; many source categories combust fossil fuels and 
thus result in emissions of numerous types of air pollutants. 
Section 111 explicitly sets out a step-by-step process for EPA 
to address the risks to public health or welfare that 
stationary sources present, and clearly indicates the basis EPA 
must develop to support each step. As the first step, section 
111(b)(1)(A) requires the EPA to list ``a category of sources'' 
for regulation if it ``causes, or contributes significantly to, 
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare.'' Next, section 111(b)(1)(B) requires 
the EPA to propose and finalize regulations ``establishing . . 
. standards of performance'' for new sources. In section 
111(a)(1), a ``standard of performance'' is defined as ``a 
standard for emissions of air pollutants'' that is based on 
what EPA determines to be the ``best system of emission 
reduction . . . adequately demonstrated.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\See American Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 
410, 426-27 (2011) (AEP) (summarizing the regulatory process under 
section 111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 111(b)(1)(A) is clear that the EPA is to make a SCF 
at the first step of the process, the listing of the source 
category, and it must apply to the impact of the ``category of 
sources'' on ``air pollution.'' This provision does not require 
the EPA to make a SCF for individual air pollutants emitted 
from the source category, nor does it even mention individual 
air pollutants. Section 111(b)(1)(B) and section 111(a)(1), 
read together, obligate the EPA to establish standards of 
performance for air pollutants emitted by sources in the listed 
source category, and make clear that EPA must base those 
standards on the ``best system of emission reduction . . . 
adequately demonstrated.''
    Section 307(d) provides that the EPA's decisions whether to 
promulgate standards of performance for particular pollutants 
must be guided by the ``arbitrary and capricious'' standard 
under section 307(d)(9).\31\ Thus, when the EPA determines it 
is appropriate to promulgate section 111 standards, they will 
be subject to an ``arbitrary and capricious'' standard of 
judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\See AEP, 564 U.S. at 427 (``EPA may not decline to regulate 
carbon-dioxide emissions from powerplants if refusal to act would be 
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 
accordance with law'' (citing section 307(d)(9)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent rulemakings concerning GHG emissions from fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plants and from oil and gas 
sources, the EPA, as the expert agency, applied what it termed 
the ``rational basis test,'' under which it must set forth a 
rational basis for promulgating a standard of performance for 
an air pollutant.\32\ This interpretation is fully consistent 
with the provision of section 111 and the section 307(d)(9) 
``arbitrary and capricious'' standard.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\2016 Oil and Gas Rule; AEP, 564 U.S. at 426-427.
    \33\EPA's record-based application of this ``rational basis'' test 
is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in American 
Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut. AEP, 564 U.S. at 426-427
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contrary to the 2020 Rescission Rule, section 111 cannot be 
interpreted, given the plain language of the statute and as a 
matter of Chevron step 1,\34\ to require that the EPA make a 
SCF for each pollutant as a predicate to promulgating a 
standard of performance for that pollutant. Given that the 
statute is not ambiguous, the EPA cannot interpret section 111 
to authorize the EPA to exercise discretion to require such a 
pollutant-specific SCF as a predicate for promulgating a 
standard of performance for the pollutant, and decline to 
promulgate such a standard in the event that EPA declines to 
make such a pollutant-specific SCF.\35\ This reality is brought 
into sharp relief by contrasting it with numerous other CAA 
provisions that explicitly do require EPA to make a pollutant-
specific cause-or-contribution finding before regulating a 
pollutant.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (creating a two-step inquiry for courts to 
follow in reviewing agency interpretations of law--step one asks 
whether the statute is clear on its face with respect to the specific 
issue, and if so, the court must effectuate Congress's stated intent; 
but if the statute is silent or ambiguous, then, at step two, the court 
defers to the agency's reasonable interpretation).
    \35\Thus, and in contrast to the erroneous position in the 2020 
Rescission Rule, section 111 contemplates that the EPA list a source 
category on the basis of all of its air pollutants, taken collectively, 
and regardless of whether any of them, taken individually, contribute 
significantly to dangerous air pollution, and then proceed to 
promulgate standards of performance for pollutants that meet the 
rational basis test under section 307(d)(9).
    \36\See, e.g., CAA Sec.  Sec.  108(a)(1)(A) and (B), 115(a), 
202(a)(1), 211(c)(1), 231(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2020 Rescission Rule's claim that sections 111(b)(1)(B) 
and 111(a)(1) must be read in conjunction with 111(b)(1)(A) to 
require, or at least authorize, the EPA to require a pollutant-
specific SCF\37\ is inconsistent with section 111 for the 
reasons described above. Moreover, such an interpretation would 
render the source-category SCF required under section 
111(b)(1)(A) a nullity. Congress did not intend to require the 
EPA to go through the exercise of determining that a source 
category contributes significantly to dangerous air pollution 
on account of its pollutant emissions considered together, and 
then also require the EPA to make the same determination for 
each pollutant individually that the EPA sought to regulate. 
That makes no sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\2020 Recission Rule at 57035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The premise of the 2020 Rescission Rule's interpretation is 
that the rational basis test cannot be used to determine which 
air pollutants should be subject to standards of performance 
because the test is ``unduly vague'' and thus would allow the 
EPA ``virtually unfettered discretion'' to promulgate NSPS for 
``air pollutants emitted in small quantities or otherwise 
having little adverse effect.''\38\ This premise is 
inconsistent with section 307(d)(9). Further, there is no 
evidence, and the 2020 Rescission Rule cites none, that the EPA 
would regulate air pollutants that were emitted in amounts too 
small to be of concern or were otherwise innocuous. If the EPA 
were to regulate such small amounts of pollutants without a 
rational basis, such action would be subject to judicial review 
and potentially invalidated under section 307(d)(9)'s arbitrary 
and capricious standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\2020 Recission Rule at 57037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While section 111 is clear that the EPA is not required, or 
authorized to require, a pollutant-specific SCF as a predicate 
for regulation, the Committee recognizes that the EPA has the 
discretion to make a pollutant-specific SCF as a supplement to 
its rational basis determination for regulating a particular 
pollutant.\39\ The EPA may choose to make such a finding to 
further explain its decision, to inform the public about the 
risks of the pollutant, or for other purposes. However, it is 
the rational basis determination as to the risk a pollutant 
poses to endangerment of human health or welfare that remains 
the statutory basis for the EPA's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\See 167 Cong. Rec. S2283 (statement of Sen. Heinrich) (``EPA 
could make such a [pollutant-specific significant contribution] finding 
if it chooses to do so on a case-by-case basis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the 2020 Rescission Rule was incorrect in 
interpreting section 111 to require that the finding of whether 
emissions of an air pollutant ``contribute significantly'' to 
dangerous air pollution must be based on some ``identif[ied] 
standard or established set of criteria,''\40\ and not the 
facts-and-circumstances approach that EPA has used in making 
the SCF for the source category.\41\ It is fully appropriate 
for EPA to exercise its discretion to employ a facts-and-
circumstances approach, particularly in light of the wide range 
of source categories and the air pollutants they emit that EPA 
must regulate under section 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\2020 Recission Rule at 57038,
    \41\See, e.g., 2016 Oil and Gas Rule, at 35843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ii. Legislative History and Other Provisions in Section 
                    111
    The statutory interpretation set forth in the 2020 
Rescission Rule requiring a pollutant-specific SCF is 
inconsistent with the legislative history of section 111 and 
with section 111(f). Nothing in the legislative history of the 
1970 CAA Amendments, in which section 111 was first enacted, 
supports the pollutant-specific SCF interpretation. The EPA 
listed source categories\42\ and promulgated standards of 
performance\43\ continuously in the subsequent decades, and 
never adopted a pollutant-specific SCF interpretation until the 
2020 Rescission Rule. Congress made major revisions to section 
111 in the 1977 CAA Amendments--including revising the SCF 
provisions of section 111(b)(1)(A)--and 1990 CAA Amendments, 
but never indicated any concern over the EPA's reading of the 
plain text that section 111 requires a SCF for the source 
category but not individual air pollutants.\44\ Instead, 
Congress adopted and revised section 111(f), requiring the EPA 
to increase the pace of promulgating standards of performance. 
Because the pollutant-specific SCF interpretation would 
unavoidably slow down the EPA promulgation of standards of 
performance and could lead to fewer standards,\45\ the 2020 
Rescission Rule interpretation is contrary to concerns Congress 
expressed in adopting section 111(f) that the EPA must move 
swiftly to regulate under section 111.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\List of Categories of Stationary Sources, 36 Fed. Reg. 5931 
(March 31, 1971).
    \43\Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators 
for Which Construction Is Commenced After August 17, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 
24875 (December 23, 1971).
    \44\The 2020 Rescission Rule cites several statements in the 1977 
CAA Amendments legislative history, summarizes the interpretations of 
those statements offered by commenters supporting and opposing the 
pollutant-specific SCF, and accepts the interpretations offered by the 
former and rejects those offered by the latter. 2020 Recission Rule at 
57053-54. The cited statements in the 1977 CAA Amendments legislative 
history were general and did not apply specifically to section 111 and 
as a result, the rule's interpretation of those statements is 
incorrect.
    \45\For example, 7 days before the end of the last Administration, 
and without any public notice or comment. EPA published a final rule 
that applied the pollutant-specific SCF in an attempt to preclude EPA 
from regulating greenhouse gases under section 111 from any source 
category except for fossil fuel-fired power plants. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Pollutant-Specific Contribution Finding for 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed 
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, and Process for 
Determining Significance of Other New Source Performance Standards 
Source Categories (Jan. 13, 2021) 86 Fed. Reg. 2542. The D.C. Circuit 
vacated the rule. California v. EPA, No. 21-1035, Order, ECF 1893155 
(D.C. Cir. April 5, 2021).
    \46\House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1977, at 194-195, 95th Cong. (May 12, 1977) (H. Rept. 
95-294).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            C. Affirm that Section 111 Obligates and Authorizes the EPA 
                    to Regulate Existing Sources in All Segments
    Enacting the resolution of disapproval also has the effect 
of restoring the EPA's obligation to regulate methane emissions 
from existing sources in the production, processing, 
transmission, and storage segments of the oil and natural gas 
sector pursuant to section 111(d).\47\ Section 111(d) requires 
EPA to publish existing source guidelines for any air pollutant 
that meets two criteria: the air pollutant is neither a 
pollutant regulated under section 108(a) (i.e., criteria 
pollutants) nor a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) regulated under 
section 112; and the air pollutant is emitted by sources that, 
if they were new sources, would be subject to a NSPS for those 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\See also Exec. Order No. 13990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Jan. 25, 
2021) (directing the EPA to consider ``proposing new regulations to 
establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission 
guidelines for methane and volatile organic compound emissions from 
existing operations in the oil and gas sector, including the 
exploration and production, transmission, processing, and storage 
segments, by September 2021'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some have argued that the exclusion in section 111(d) for 
HAPs covers those pollutants listed under section 112 and 
precludes the EPA from regulating a source category under 
section 111(d) for any pollutant if that source category has 
been regulated under section 112. This argument is 
fundamentally incompatible with the language, structure, and 
Congressional intent in creating and adopting these CAA 
provisions. It would destroy the conscientious design of the 
CAA and perversely transform section 111(d) from a gap-filling 
provision to a gap-creating provision. Moreover, the D.C. 
Circuit has considered this issue and held that the EPA has the 
authority to regulate a source category for HAPs under section 
112 and regulate that same source category for different 
pollutants under section 111(d).\48\ Since enactment of the 
1990 CAA Amendments, every administration has correctly come to 
the same conclusion.\49\ Any reading of the CAA that precludes 
the EPA from regulating sources under both provisions would be 
contrary to Congress intent to provide a structure under which 
the EPA has a mandate and authority to mitigate air pollution 
that endangers human health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Am. Lung Assoc. v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914, 977-988 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
    \49\See, e.g.,56 Fed. Reg. 24,468, 24,469 (May 30, 1991); 65 Fed. 
Reg. 66,672, 66,674-75 (Nov. 7, 2000); 70 Fed. Reg. 15,994, 16,031-32 
(Mar. 29, 2005); 73 Fed. Reg. 44,354, 44,417-18 (July 30, 2008); 80 
Fed. Reg. 64,662, 64,710 (Oct. 23, 2015); 84 Fed. Reg. 32,520, 32,533 
(July 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disapproval of the 2020 Rescission Rule reinstates the 
methane new source requirements promulgated under section 
111(b) by the 2016 Oil and Gas Rule. Since it is not regulated 
as a criteria pollutant under section 108(a) or a HAP under 
section 112, methane, as emitted from the oil and natural gas 
sector, is an air pollutant that meets the two criteria in 
section 111(d). Therefore, the EPA has the authority and a 
legal obligation to issue existing source guidelines under 
section 111(d) and implementing regulations to reduce methane 
emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector.
    The EPA's obligation extends not only to the production and 
processing segments of the oil and gas sector, but also to the 
transmission and storage segments. Section 111(d) requires the 
EPA to issue existing source guidelines for all sources to 
which a federal NSPS would apply. As explained above, the 
resolution of disapproval has the effect of reinstating the 
NSPS for the transmission and storage segments. Therefore, the 
EPA is obligated to issue existing source guidelines for 
methane that cover the transmission and storage segments in 
addition to the production and processing segments of the oil 
and gas sector.

III. Disapproval of the Methane Rescission Rule Does Not Preclude 
        Future Section 111 Regulation of the Oil and Gas Industry

    Congressional disapproval of the 2020 Rescission Rule would 
not risk invalidating any subsequent regulation that 
strengthens air pollution reduction requirements pursuant to 
the CRA's ``substantially the same'' language.\50\ First, the 
2020 Rescission Rule is a purely deregulatory rule; it would be 
absurd to contend that disapproval of a deregulatory action 
would block a future regulatory action. Second, and more 
specifically, disapproval of the 2020 Rescission Rule does not 
preclude future regulation under section 111 of methane, VOCs, 
or other pollution from the oil and gas industry. This 
resolution of disapproval nullifies a rule that strips away 
public health and welfare protections and deregulates the oil 
and gas industry. Any future rule that imposes regulatory 
requirements on the oil and gas industry, provides additional 
public health and welfare protections, or establishes or 
strengthens standards on sources of methane and other pollutant 
emissions would have the opposite intent and effect of the 2020 
Rescission Rule. Any such future rule, therefore, cannot be 
construed as ``substantially the same'' under the CRA. The 
Committee has drafted this report to make clear the Committee's 
intent and to enable EPA to give effect to this resolution of 
disapproval when considering future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\5 U.S.C. Sec.  801(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. COMMITTEE HEARINGS

    For the purposes of section 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the following hearings were 
used to develop or consider H.J. Res. 34:
    The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a 
hearing on April 29, 2021. The hearing was entitled, ``Fiscal 
Year 2022 EPA Budget.'' The Subcommittee received testimony on 
the EPA's actions regarding methane emissions from the 
following witness:
           The Honorable Michael S. Regan, 
        Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

                      IV. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    H.J. Res. 34, a joint resolution providing for 
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 
Review'', was introduced on March 26, 2021 by Representatives 
DeGette (D-CO), Peters (D-CA), Lamb (D-PA), and 26 other 
original cosponsors, and was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. It was then referred to the Subcommittee 
on Environment and Climate Change on March 29, 2021. A hearing 
on the bill was held on April 29, 2021.
    On June 10, 2021, the full Committee met in virtual open 
markup session to consider H.J. Res. 34. During consideration 
of the bill, an amendment offered by Mr. Duncan, was ruled out 
of order by the Chairman because the amendment violates House 
rule XVI, clause 7. Mr. Pallone, Chairman of the committee, 
offered a motion to order H.J. Res. 34, reported favorably to 
the House, without amendment. The motion on final passage was 
agreed to by a roll call vote of 30 yeas to 22 nays (roll call 
no. 26), a quorum being present.

                           V. COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
Committee advises that there was one record vote taken on H.J. 
Res. 34, including a motion by Mr. Pallone ordering H.J. Res. 
34 favorably reported to the House, without amendment. The 
motion on final passage of the bill was approved by a record 
vote of 30 yeas to 22 nays. The following are the record votes 
taken during Committee consideration, including the names of 
those members voting for and against:


                      S6602VI. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee are 
reflected in the descriptive portion of the report.

 VII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Pursuant to 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the 
estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax 
expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    The Committee has requested but not received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to 
whether this bill contains any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.

                    VIII. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

       IX. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general 
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to provide 
for congressional disapproval under 8 of title 5, United States 
Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 
Review''.

                   X. DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.J. Res. 34 is known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, including any program that was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

                      XI. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

    XII. EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 
Committee finds that H.J. Res. 34 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                   XIII. ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                XIV. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

           XV. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

    The legislation provides that Congress disapproves the rule 
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review'' (published at 85 
Fed. Reg. 57018 (September 14, 2020)), and such rule shall have 
no force or effect.

       XVI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    There are no changes to existing law made by the bill H.J. 
Res. 34.

                         XVII. DISSENTING VIEWS

    We oppose H.J. Res. 34, a resolution disapproving of 
important reforms to air regulations for oil and natural gas 
sources. We oppose this unnecessary and misguided resolution 
because it will contribute to job losses and higher energy 
costs, and re-establish duplicative and burdensome regulations. 
It will allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
continue an inappropriate, controversial interpretation of the 
law, which will accelerate new regulations for sources beyond 
oil and natural gas, regardless of their overall contribution 
to air pollution.
    In 2020, EPA issued two final rules to make it simpler and 
less burdensome for the oil and natural gas industry to comply 
with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA).\1\ Combined, the two final rules were estimated 
to yield net benefits of $750 to $850 million dollars from 2021 
to 2030. EPA's final rules updated and corrected the Obama-
Biden Administration's national standards for the oil and 
natural gas industry, which fell heavily on small and medium-
sized energy businesses. EPA's 2020 final rules corrected 
course by aligning with the requirements Congress established 
in the CAA and by relieving industry and consumers of 
burdensome overregulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Oil and Natural Gas 
Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources 
Review.'' 85 Federal Register 57,018, September 14, 2020; 85 Federal 
Register 57,398, September 15, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.J. Res. 34 is a Continuation of Partisan Attacks on American Energy 
        Workers and Consumers
    H.J. Res. 34 is yet another a partisan attempt to rollback 
progress made under the prior Administration and continue 
attacks on fossil fuels and the tens of millions of hardworking 
Americans in all 50 states who support the energy industry. On 
his first day in office, President Biden issued a sweeping 
Executive Order to rescind regulations and permits issued under 
the prior Administration, and direct Federal Agencies to 
establish aggressive new mandates and regulations, without 
regard for the costs imposed on consumers and by inflating the 
accounting of environmental benefits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Executive Order 13990, 86 Federal Register 7037 (January 25, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On his first day in office, President Biden revoked the 
permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which, according to the 
union workers that would have constructed the pipeline, would 
have created thousands of good jobs at a time when unemployment 
in the construction industry was 16% with 1.3 million men and 
women jobless. Following the decision, Terry O'Sullivan, LIUNA 
General President, stated ``[o]nce again the President has 
sided with environmentalists instead of blue-collar 
construction workers--even though environmental concerns were 
more than adequately addressed. Blue Collar construction 
workers across the U.S. will not forget this.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\LIUNA. (2021, February 9) Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline 
Decision [Press Release].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 27, 2020, President Biden issued another 
sweeping E.O. targeting American workers in the fossil fuel 
industry.\4\ The E.O. prioritizes global climate agreements 
over American jobs, the U.S. economy, and national security. 
The E.O. reinforces a top-down, Federal government-controlled 
approach to regulation and imposes a moratorium on new oil and 
natural gas leases on public lands and waters. In response to 
the Biden Administration's E.O., the Independent Petroleum 
Association of America (IPAA) stated, ``[I]n his first week in 
office, President Biden has already shown that his campaign 
theme to ``Build Back Better'' was simply campaign rhetoric. In 
the latest blow to American oil and natural gas producers, the 
Biden Administration announced it is placing an indefinite 
halton new oil and natural gas leases on federal lands and 
waters. However, do not be fooled, this is a ban . . . This 
latest order, made in the name of protecting the environment, 
does the opposite--it will only shift jobs and energy 
production to Saudi Arabia and Russia, which have far less-
stringent environmental controls than America.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (February 2, 2021).
    \5\Independent Petroleum Association of America. (2021, January 2), 
Don't Be Fooled. This is a Ban on Production [Press Release].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane Regulation is Unlawful Under the CAA
    H.J. Res. 34 would re-establish the Obama-Biden 
Administration's methane standards which violate the Clean Air 
Act requirements, inappropriately expand to cover new sectors, 
and impose ineffective and redundant methane standards for 
production and process equipment.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires EPA to set NSPS for EPA-
listed categories of industrial facilities that cause, or 
significantly contribute to, air pollution that may be 
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 
The CAA requires EPA to make a formal finding that a pollutant 
contributes significantly to air pollution before setting NSPS 
requirements. Since EPA under the Obama Administration did not 
make this finding for transmission and storage segments to the 
oil and gas category, the Obama Administration regulations were 
inconsistent with the rule of law. In the 2020 Final Rule, EPA 
found that the Obama Administration's regulation of methane was 
improper because it included transmission and storage, and 
because EPA did not establish criteria to support its 
significant contribution finding.
Methane Regulation is Duplicative of Existing Regulation of VOCs
    H.J. Res. 34 would result in duplicative and unnecessary 
regulations. From oil and gas production to processing, source 
emissions of methane are effectively regulated by EPA and the 
States under the framework for controlling emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are also a component 
of natural gas.
    EPA found that the required VOC pollution controls also 
reduce methane emissions at the same time, making clear that 
separate regulation of methane establishes no additional health 
protections, and thus, unnecessary. In the 2020 Final Rule, EPA 
discussed at length why separate VOC and methane regulations 
are duplicative of each other, and how the capture and control 
devices used to meet the NSPS requirements are the same for 
both VOC and methane.
H.J. Res. 34 Will Accelerate New Methane Regulations for Other Sources
    H.J. Res. 34 could accelerate new regulations spanning the 
entire range of America's domestic manufacturing industries 
under Section 111 of the CAA. The Biden Administration's 
Statement of Administrative Policy for S.J. Res. 14, an 
identical Senate resolution, confirms this expectation, stating 
``the resolution will also clear the pathway for EPA to 
evaluate opportunities to promulgate even stronger standards 
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Office of Management and Budget. (2021, April 27), Statement of 
Administrative Policy, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards 
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 111 of the CAA establishes mechanisms for 
controlling emissions of air pollutants from stationary 
sources. Section 111(b) requires the first step, directing EPA 
to identify categories of stationary sources that ``causes or 
contributes significantly to air pollution which may reasonably 
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,'' which is 
followed by promulgation of a standard of performance for new 
sources in each category. Currently, EPA maintains a list of 
more than seventy source categories for which a NSPS is 
required.\7\ Once EPA has elected to set an NSPS for sources in 
a given source category, Section 111(d) requires regulation of 
existing sources in each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 60, New Source 
Performance Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CAA requires EPA to formally establish that a pollutant 
significantly contributes to air pollution that endangers 
public health as a predicate to regulating that pollutant. H.J. 
Res. 34 will eliminate this important requirement. H.J. Res 34 
would also enable EPA to add new source categories without 
assessing whether they make a significant contribution. In 
effect, H.J. Res 34 would accelerate the direct regulation of 
methane across all listed source categories, and new 
categories, regardless of their overall contribution to air 
pollution, for both new and existing sources spanning the 
entire range of industrial sources, including manufacturing, 
chemicals, paper, metals, and many others.
H.J. Res. 34 Hurts American Producers and U.S. Allies Seeking to Reduce 
        Dependence on Russian Natural Gas
    Today, the U.S. is the world's largest producer of natural 
gas. According the Department of Energy, U.S. gas production in 
2020 was about 33.4 trillion cubic feet, the second highest 
annual amount recorded, mainly as result of production 
increases resulting from advances in horizontal drilling and 
hydraulic fracturing.\8\ Meanwhile, according to the EPA, 
methane emissions associated with natural gas and oil 
production declined by 23% since 1990.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2021, May), Natural Gas 
Explained- Where our natural gas comes from.
    \9\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the majority of natural gas produced in the U.S. is 
delivered via pipeline to domestic consumers, the growth in the 
international market for natural gas has created opportunities 
for U.S. LNG exports, which strengthen the U.S. economy, energy 
security, and national security. The U.S. currently has six LNG 
export facilities operating near full capacity, with new 
projects under construction.
    At the same time, Russia is attempting to strengthen its 
grip on European gas supplies with the construction of the 
state-sponsored Nord Stream 2 pipeline connecting Russia to 
Germany. The completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which 
was slowed during the Trump Administration, will increase 
Russia's geopolitical influence in Europe at the expense of 
U.S. energy producers and America's national security. Life 
cycle emissions from Russian natural gas are also much higher 
than U.S. natural gas, leading to worse environmental 
outcomes.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\U.S. Department of Energy. ``Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas 
Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States: 
2019 Update.'' 84 Federal Register 49,278, September 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During Full Committee Markup of H.J. Res. 34, Rep. Duncan 
attempted to offer an amendment providing for Congressional 
disapproval of Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline; however, the 
Majority ruled it out of order on germaneness grounds.
    Congress should disapprove of Russia's Nord Stream 2 
pipeline to create a level playing field for American energy 
workers. The Biden Administration's failure to stop 
construction of Nord Stream 2 and the Majority's unwillingness 
to allow an amendment to H.J. Res. 34 will strengthen Russia's 
grip on European gas supplies, at the expense of U.S. national 
interests.
    Rather than attacking American energy producers and tacitly 
supporting foreign state-owned energy companies, the Committee 
Majority should be focused on efforts to lower energy costs for 
consumers, adhere to the proper application of the law as 
Congress intended, and strengthen the nation's energy security. 
Our foreign adversaries, such as Russia and China, benefit the 
most from this misguided rollback.
    Unfortunately, H.J. Res. 34 takes the opposite approach. It 
will contribute to job losses and higher energy costs and re-
establish duplicative, burdensome CAA regulations; and the 
inappropriate interpretation of the law that will allow the EPA 
to accelerate new regulations that could further harm consumers 
and American workers. For these reasons, we oppose H.J. Res. 
34.

                                   Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
                                           Republican Leader, Energy 
                                               and Commerce.
                                   David B. McKinley,
                                           Republican Leader, 
                                               Subcommittee on 
                                               Environment and Climate 
                                               Change.