[House Report 118-13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                            { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                            { 118-13

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

 
                    KEEPING AMERICA'S REFINERIES ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 23, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1155]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1155) to prohibit the phase out of gasoline and 
prevent higher prices for consumers, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Committee Action.................................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................     9
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     9
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     9
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     9
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings......................     9
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    10
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    10
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    10
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    11
Minority Views...................................................    12

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    To prohibit the phase out of gasoline for use in vehicles 
with internal combustion engines and prevent higher prices for 
consumers.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The United States transportation sector includes nearly 300 
million internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and American 
consumers were on pace to purchase another 14 million in 
2022,\1\ according to an October 2022 report by the Fuels 
Institute. That report further stated that the vehicle sales 
market will continue to be dominated by ICE vehicles for 
decades to come.\2\ To power these ICE vehicles a reliable, 
affordable, and available supply of liquid fuels, particularly 
gasoline, is essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://www.fuelsinstitute.org/research/reports/future-
capabilities-of-combustion-engines-and-liqu.
    \2\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The price of this fuel and consumer affordability for it 
have become serious issues for American consumers. In the 
summer of 2022, the spike in energy prices powered a 41-year 
inflation high for Americans and their wallets.\3\ Much of the 
reason prices skyrocketed after March 2022 was a lack of 
adequate refining capacity to process crude into gasoline and 
diesel to meet high global demand.\4\ Not only have refining 
costs and availability been increasing consumer prices but the 
refinery sector in the U.S. has seen facility shutdowns of the 
past few years outpace new domestic refinery capacity being 
built, forcing U.S. refineries to work at nearly full capacity 
to meet domestic demand.\5\ It can also not be discounted that, 
according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers 
(AFPM), rising costs are also driven by factors attributable to 
increasing policy, marketing, and distribution requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-inflation-high-causes-
gas-price-outlook-forecast-2022-7.
    \4\https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/why-is-there-
worldwide-oil-refining-crunch-2022-06-22/.
    \5\Ibid.
    \6\https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/what-do-refineries-have-do-
price-and-availability-gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Globally, the total refinery capacity for crude oil is over 
100 million barrels per day. While, despite recent capacity 
losses, the United States is the largest oil refining country 
in the world--refining 17.5 million barrels per day in 2021\7\ 
at between 125-130 operating refineries in the United 
States.8}9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://www.statista.com/statistics/273583/oil-refinery-
throughput-worldwide-by-country/.
    \8\https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/
pet_pnp_cap1_a_(na)_8OO_Count_a.htm.
    \9\https://www.statista.com/topics/7286/global-oil-refinery-
industry/#topicHeader__wrapper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Petroleum refineries in the United States use the 
alkylation process to produce gasoline that meets Federal air 
emissions and engine performance requirements. According to a 
report for AFPM by Becht Engineering, two primary catalyst 
technologies exist for alkylation: hydrofluoric (HF) alkylation 
and sulfuric acid alkylation.\10\ Each technology currently 
accounts for about half of US alkylate production.\11\ Refiners 
generally chose one technology over the other based on a 
variety of considerations, including location, plot space, and 
differences in the ability of these two technologies to process 
certain feedstocks.\12\ Of important note, based upon an 
assessment of Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on 
refinery capacity, 6.6 million barrels of petroleum refining 
capacity or about 40 percent of all gasoline refined for use in 
the U.S. market is made using HF.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\https://www.afpm.org/sites/default/files/issue_resources/
Becht%2031437%20HF_Technology%20Position%20Short%20Paper.pdf.
    \11\Ibid.
    \12\Ibid.
    \13\https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HF and sulfuric acid are not without their risks when being 
handled or used. In fact, industries that use hydrofluoric acid 
are subject to requirements under the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. 
Department of Defense (DOD)--and this omits state and local 
requirements. In addition, the American Petroleum Institute 
(API) issued its 5th edition of Recommended Practice 751 to 
provide requirements and recommendations for practices and 
procedures related to safety, operations, design, inspection, 
and maintenance to support the safe and reliable operation 
thereof.14}15 After the implementation of each 
edition, the number of release incidents typically trends 
downward demonstrating the effectiveness of Recommended 
Practice (RP).\16\\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/health-and-safety/
refinery-and-plant-safety/process-safety/process-safety-standards/rp-
751.
    \15\API-RP 751--Safe Operation of Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation 
Units | GlobalSpec.
    \17\Becht 31437 HF_Technology Position Short Paper.pdf (afpm.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concerned about past accidents at refineries using HF 
alkylation and the potential impacts that could occur at those 
facilities, on August 18, 2022, EPA proposed a rule to modify 
the Risk Management Plan (RMP) program under Clean Air Act 
section 112(r)(7), entitled the RMP Safer Communities by 
Chemical Accident Prevention Proposed Rule.\18\ Clean Air Act 
Section 112(r) requires the EPA to publish regulations and 
guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using 
substances that posed the greatest risk of harm from accidental 
releases. RMP contains three (3) main elements, which include: 
(1) a hazard assessment that details the potential effects of 
an accidental release, an accident history of the last five 
years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative 
accidental releases scenarios; (2) a prevention program that 
includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and 
employee training measures; and (3) an emergency response 
program that spells out emergency health care, employee 
training measures and procedures for informing the public and 
response agencies (e.g., the fire department) should an 
accident occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\https://www.epa.gov/rmp/risk-management-program-safer-
communities-chemical-accident-prevention-proposed-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The August 18, 2022, proposed rule added a new requirement 
for refineries that use an HF alkylation process. Specifically, 
EPA proposed that these facilities must also complete a Safer 
Technology and Alternatives Assessment (STAA) of their 
operations every five (5) years. This requirement--also 
considered the use of Inherently Safer Technology (IST)--was on 
top of all existing hazard assessments and planning activities. 
Moreover, the rule did not define what was inherently safer, 
making both compliance with and enforcement of the requirement 
subject to arbitrary standards. Moreover, Congress has 
consistently rejected the imposition of IST requirements on 
existing facilities both for its arbitrary nature and that 
design requirements should be imposed at the design phase--not 
long after that has passed. Another concern was echoed in the 
Committee's hearing, one witness suggested that the purpose of 
the IST exercise was to move the refining sector out of the use 
of HF altogether.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\See exchange between Rep. Crenshaw and Mr. Garcia at https://
energycommerce.house.gov/events/joint-energy-climate-and-grid-security-
subcommittee-and-environment-manufacturing-and-critical-materials-
subcommittee-legislative-hearing-titled-unleashing-american-energy-
lowering-energy-costs-and-strengthening-supply-chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Becht report for AFPM states that the cost of 
performing the required STAA would be $362 million per 
facility\20\ and the per unit cost of replacement of shuttered 
HF alkylation units with the alternate technology sulfuric acid 
is estimated to cost, per unit, over $1 billion (all-inclusive 
of STAA, decontamination, spent acid regeneration, and total 
installed cost) and would not improve the public safety\21\--
assuming the facility wishes to continue in business rather 
than shutter its operations. Moreover, the Becht reports cites 
two alternatives to HF alkylation that are promoted by EPA--
ionic liquids alkylation (ILA) technology and solid catalyst 
alkylation (SCA) technology--both are still undergoing 
commercial testing at one US refinery--ILA\22\--and refineries 
in China--SCA--making these technologies a heavy and unproven 
risk for refiners to make a large transition to use. Finally, 
the duration between shutting down the existing HF alkylation 
unit and starting up an alkylation unit that uses different 
technology would be on the order of 3 years. Testimony at the 
Committee's legislative hearing mentioned the profound national 
impact of having refining capacity off-line for an amount of 
time.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Becht 31437 HF_Technology Position Short Paper.pdf (afpm.org).
    \21\Ibid.
    \23\See discussion between Rep. Crenshaw and Mr, Menezes. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It should also be noted that driving a change from HF 
alkylation to sulfuric acid alkylation does not end risks from 
refining gasoline and may move them deeper into a community. 
Sulfuric acid is transported to the regeneration site via 
truck, about 500 trucks per month for moving fresh and spent 
acid would be required. Depending on the distance to and from 
the regeneration facility, this can be a significant community 
safety risk, especially for spent acid due to its sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) content. SO2 is a toxic chemical.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Op. Cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    On February 7, 2023, the Subcommittees on Energy, Climate, 
and Grid Security and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical 
Materials held a joint hearing entitled ``Unleashing American 
Energy, Lowering Energy Costs, and Strengthening Supply 
Chains,'' on 17 pieces of legislation, including H.R. 1155. The 
Subcommittees received testimony from:
           The Honorable Mark Menezes, Former United 
        States Deputy Secretary of Energy, Department of 
        Energy.
           The Honorable Bernard McNamee, Former 
        Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
           Jeffrey Eshelman, II, President and Chief 
        Executive Officer, Independent Petroleum Association of 
        America.
           Katie Sweeney, Executive Vice President and 
        Chief Operating Officer, National Mining Association.
           Raul Garcia, Legislative Director for 
        Healthy Communities, Earthjustice; and
           Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy 
        Program, Public Citizen.
    On February 28, 2023, the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Manufacturing and Critical Materials met in open markup session 
and forwarded H.R. 1155, without amendment, to the full 
Committee by a record vote of 10 yeas and 6 nays. On March 9, 
2023, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1155, without amendment, 
favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 26 yeas and 
19 nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the 
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:


                 OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII, the Committee held hearings and made findings that 
are reflected in this report.

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 1155 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this 
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.

                       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.

         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 
increase American energy production and restore energy 
leadership by prohibiting the phase out of gasoline for use in 
vehicles with internal combine engines and prevent higher 
prices for consumers.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.R. 1155 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.

              RELATED COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following 
hearings were used to develop or consider H.R. 1155:
    (1) the following hearings were used to develop or consider 
H.R. 1155:
    On January 31, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing entitled, ``American Energy 
Expansion: Strengthening Economic, Environmental, and National 
Security.'' The Committee received testimony from:
           The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Former Under 
        Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy.
           Robert McNalley, President, Rapidan Energy 
        Group, LLC.
           Donna Jackson, Director of Membership 
        Development--National Center for Public Policy 
        Research, Project 21; and
           Ana Unruh Cohen, Former Majority Staff 
        Director, U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate 
        Crisis.
    On February 16, 2023, the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, 
and Grid Security held a field hearing in Midland, Texas, 
entitled, ``American Energy Expansion: Improving Local 
Economies and Communities'' Way of Life.'' The Committee 
received testimony from:
           The Honorable Lori Blong, Mayor of Midland, 
        Texas, and President of Octane Energy.
           Adrian Carrasco, Chairman Midland Hispanic 
        Chamber of Commerce, and President of Premier Energy 
        Services.
           Steven Pruett, President and CEO, Elevation 
        Resources, and Chairman of the Board for Independent 
        Petroleum Association of America; and
           Dr. Michael Zavada, Professor of Biology and 
        Geosciences, and Chair, Department of Geosciences at 
        The University of Texas--Permian Basin.
    (2) the following related hearing was also held:
    On February 7, 2023, the Subcommittees on Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials and Energy, Climate, and 
Grid Security jointly held a hearing on 17 separate pieces of 
legislation, including a pre-introduced ``Discussion Draft'' 
version of H.R. 1155. The Subcommittee received testimony from:
           The Honorable Mark Menezes, Former U.S. 
        Deputy Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy.
           The Honorable Bernard McNamee, Former 
        Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
           Jeffrey Eshelman, II, President and Chief 
        Executive Officer, Independent Petroleum Association of 
        America.
           Katie Sweeney, Executive Vice President and 
        Chief Operating Officer, National Mining Association.
           Raul Garcia, Legislative Director Healthy 
        Communities, Earthjustice; and
           Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy 
        Program, Public Citizen.

                        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. At the time this report was 
filed, the estimate was not available.

       EARMARK, 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.R. 1155 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

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

                  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.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1155 is a stand-alone piece of legislation that refers 
to the implementation of a particular aspect of the Risk 
Management Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7). The 
legislation makes no amendments to the Clean Air Act. H.R. 1155 
relies upon the meanings of certain terms as they are defined 
in the Clean Air Act.
    Section 1 contains the Short Title of the legislation: 
``Keeping America's Refineries Act''.
    Section 2 has one overarching focus and two subparts to it. 
First, section 2 only applies to requirements issued by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency--under 
Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7)--on an owner or operator of a 
stationary source identified in NAICS code 324 and that uses a 
hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit. Next, section 2 precludes 
the Administrator from requiring that owner or operator, whose 
stationary source has a Clean Air Act construction or operating 
permit, to conduct an assessment of safer technology or 
alternative risk management measures as part of the that 
source's required hazard assessment under the RMP. Last, if 
that owner or operator does not have Clean Air Act construction 
or operating permits, that source can avoid being required to 
conduct an assessment of safer technology or alternative risk 
management measures if they can demonstrate conformance with or 
future conformance with API Recommended Practice 751.
    To clarify the Committee's intent with this legislation, a 
few things should be noted. First, the Committee seeks to 
create a reliable, available, and affordable liquid fuel supply 
in the United States. The Committee observes that there are two 
main ways to address a hazard--eliminate it or manage it--and 
forcing procedures designed to frustrate operations of such a 
large amount of gasoline production capacity will have 
immediate and deleterious impacts to Americans. To this end, 
the Committee seeks to eliminate regulatory exercises that may 
not result in any safety benefit but will add costs and could 
cause major economic disruptions. Since the most appropriate 
time to assess the type of refinery one wants to build is in 
the design phase, this legislation is specifically intended to 
nullify the recurring proposal at EPA to require operating or 
constructed gasoline refineries to conduct an assessment of 
safer technology or alternative risk management measures. This 
legislation does not and should not be interpreted to eliminate 
RMP hazard assessments for these types of facilities--just the 
requirement of this exercise on top of the current hazard 
assessment. Finally, for preconstructed refineries that may use 
hydrofluoric acid alkylation units, the Committee believes 
those facilities can either comply with EPA's requirements for 
assessments of safer technology and alternatives risk 
management methods or demonstrate to EPA that the facility will 
or plans to conform with the industry's most stringent safe 
management protocols, API Recommended Practice 751.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    We oppose H.R.1155, the ``Keeping America's Refineries 
Act,'' which exempts refineries that use dangerous hydrofluoric 
acid from doing a safer technology alternatives assessment 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112(r). The bill gives 
refineries a free pass from considering safer alternatives to 
hydrofluoric acid (HF) in their refining operations--a highly 
toxic chemical linked to recent catastrophic chemical 
disasters.\1\ This brazen loophole would jeopardize the health 
and safety of workers, first responders, and frontline 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Husky 
Energy Superior Refinery Explosion and Fire (www.csb.gov/husky-energy-
superior-refinery-explosion-and-fire/) (accessed Mar. 21, 2023); 
Refinery Explosions Raise New Warnings About Deadly Chemical, National 
Public Radio (July 19. 2019) (www.npr.org/2019/07/19/742367382/
refinery-explosions-raise-new-warnings-about-deadly-chemical); PFAS 
Refinery Explosion Investigation Says EPA Should Scrutinize Deadly 
Chemical Hydrofluoric Acid, WHYY (Oct. 11, 2022) (whyy.org/articles/
pes-refinery-explosion-investigation-epa-chemical-safety-board-
hydroflouric-acid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               BACKGROUND

    The bill seeks to block portions of Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Safer Communities by 
Chemical Accident Prevention rule, to strengthen the Risk 
Management Program (RMP).\2\ The rule proposes to mitigate and 
decrease the incidents and impacts of chemical disasters on 
communities, first responders and workers at chemical 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Environmental Protection Agency, Accidental Release Prevention 
Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Safer 
Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention, 87 Fed. Reg. 53556 (Aug. 
31, 2022) (proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some refineries use HF alkylation units--process units used 
in petroleum refining--to convert isobutane and alkenes 
(primarily propylene or butylene) into alkylate, which is used 
to make gasoline. HF is particularly hazardous in the event of 
a major release because it is highly toxic and is a vapor at 
atmospheric conditions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 
Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) Refinery Fire and Explosions 
(www.csb.gov/philadelphia-energy-solutions-pes-refinery-fire-and-
explosions-/) (accessed Mar. 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One key component of the proposed RMP rule requires 
facilities with chemicals that pose a high risk to workers and 
communities to undertake a safer technology alternatives 
assessment (STAA).
    This provision was included in the proposed rule in direct 
response to incidents at refineries with HF, such as the 2019 
PES refinery explosion in Philadelphia and the 2015 Torrance 
refinery explosion in California. Despite evidence of the 
dangers, H.R. 1155 would exempt refineries that use HF from the 
STAA requirements of the RMP proposed rule.

                          SUMMARY OF H.R. 1155

    The bill exempts gasoline refineries that use HF from a 
requirement in a proposed rule pursuant to section 112(r)(7)(B) 
of the Clean Air Act, to include in any hazard assessment an 
assessment of safer technology and alternative risk management 
measures with respect to the use of HF in an alkylation unit. 
This exemption is unnecessary and misleading. It is good 
business practice to look for safer alternatives to highly 
toxic and dangerous chemicals being used at facilities. EPA's 
proposal is just an extension of that good business practice 
for facilities that are already regulated under the Risk 
Management Plan Program.
    H.R. 1155 is a solution in search of a problem. EPA's 
proposed RMP rule does not require adoption of alternatives, so 
no refineries currently using HF will be forced to shutter 
their doors as a result of assessing safer alternatives to HF. 
In fact, there are already other commercialized alternatives 
that are proven safer such as ionic alkylation and sulfuric 
acid alkylation.\4\ Along similar lines, the short title of the 
bill is woefully misleading. The proponents of H.R. 1155 
insinuate that requiring a refinery to assess and consider 
safer alternatives to HF amounts to a phase out of gasoline and 
would raise gas prices for consumers. Yet, as confirmed by the 
majority counsel during the Environment Subcommittee markup, 
nothing in the bill ``addresses EPA authority with regard to 
retail gasoline prices.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See e.g. Honeywell, Chevron and Honeywell Announce Start-Up of 
World's First Commercial ISOALKY Ionic Liquids Alkylation Unit (Apr. 
13, 2021) (press release); ExxonMobil, Sulfuric Acid Alkylation 
(ALKEMAX) (www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/catalysts-and-technology-
licensing/fuel-production/sulfuric-acid-alkylation) (accessed Mar. 21, 
2023).
    \5\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup of Seven Bills, 
118th Cong. (Feb. 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Democratic Committee Members offered amendments during Full 
Committee markup to ensure communities, workers, and first 
responders are protected from the worst potential harms of the 
bill. First, every Republican Committee Member voted against an 
amendment to ensure that any facility that had a near miss 
event, chemical incident, or explosion under EPA's Risk 
Management Program, would not be eligible for the bill's 
exemption. Second, every Republican Committee Member voted 
against an amendment to ensure the act would not go into effect 
until EPA, in consultation with necessary agencies, certifies 
that this act would not jeopardize the national security of 
these facilities.

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 1155 is nothing more than a deregulatory gift to 
petroleum refiners, letting them off the hook for examining any 
safer alternatives to HF. This brazen loophole endangers the 
health and safety of refinery workers,\6\ surrounding 
communities, and the first responders that will unfortunately 
have to rush into a facility when an incident occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Letter from the United Steelworkers, to Rep. Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers, Chair, House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Rep. Frank 
Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
(Mar. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.
                                        Frank Pallone, Jr.,
                  Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.