Blocking Regulatory Interference From Closing Kilns Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act.

EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum achievable control technology based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities.

Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick and Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to further appeal or review.''

This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having to comply with the rule.

Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance dates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the judicial process.

The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for Congress to override it.

To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay MACT rule.

Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act.

This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2 emission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters.

EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have until 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the standards until 2023.

Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable.

In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 standards.

These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate.

By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by the original deadline.

Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional pollution in and around people's homes.

The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 times the costs.

Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants.

In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat their homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41 percent of the State's particulate emissions.

Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes, there is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations.

The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R. 1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts.

The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some reason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact, industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule.

The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are still a number of remedies available to address the industry's concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is no need for H.R. 1917.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary investments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at stake.

Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards are achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. It has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for brick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last Federal standards for wood stoves.

We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source