Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I am here to speak in favor of S.J. Res. 14, a resolution I co-led with Representatives DeGette and Lamb.

We need to address methane emissions for several reasons, and today, I want to mention three.

First, controlling methane is the single most important immediate step we can take to combat climate change, and that is because methane is a super-pollutant responsible for about 25 percent of the man-made warming we experience today. This is the low-hanging fruit in climate mitigation.

My Republican colleagues never miss a chance--and you will hear this today--to point out that the natural gas revolution has contributed to our historic energy independence and cut our carbon dioxide emissions from energy production. That is right, but there is still a problem, and that problem is fugitive methane emissions.

While burning natural gas can lower CO2 emissions by as much as 40 to 50 percent versus burning coal, almost all of that benefit, from a climate change perspective, is wiped out even with small leaks of methane, which we have today. Put simply, to reap the climate benefits of natural gas, which are often touted, we have to address methane emissions.

Second, controlling methane is critical to the economic competitiveness of the U.S. natural gas industry. We should say thanks to the oil and gas industry when they do the right thing, but let's not fool ourselves by thinking that they are doing this because they are altruists. They are doing this because this is important to competitiveness. They are doing this because this makes American oil and gas more competitive. The reason is that world markets and domestic politics will not tolerate natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel unless the industry can prove, with real credibility and transparency, that it has fixed its methane problem.

It is increasingly apparent that the viability of exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, depends on American policies to address methane pollution.

Three of the largest LNG importers in the world, South Korea, Japan, and the European Union, have set goals to reduce emissions to net-zero by mid-century. These nations will demand verifiably clean gas from the United States.

On top of this, investors are increasingly putting pressure on financial institutions and demanding climate-smart investment portfolios. Natural gas will solely be seen as a climate risk and not as a climate opportunity if methane leaks persist.

We saw this recently in the cancellation by France of a deal for liquefied natural gas from Brownsville, $7 billion over 20 years. Ultimately, they were able to put that back together, but this is a sign of what is to come. If we don't get it right here, it is going to hurt business.

They all sounded like businesses to me, what Ms. DeGette talked about. I am not from Texas or Oklahoma, but I have heard of Exxon, and I have heard of the American Petroleum Institute. If they are for it, it says something about where business is, what they think about competitiveness.

Third, U.S. companies can lead the world in developing technologies to monitor and reduce methane emissions. Dealing with climate change is a science project. It is not a jobs program, but it does create a lot of jobs.

Seventy-five percent of the manufacturing firms and 88 percent of service firms in the sector report that they would create more jobs if the national methane standards were reinstated.

And the starting salary for methane mitigation jobs is nearly 10 percent higher than the national average salary and can pay up to $140,000 a year.

These companies represent the best of American innovation, creating economic opportunity and tackling global challenges at the same time.

Today, we in Congress can soundly reject one of the most irresponsible environmental rollbacks of the prior administration. We can restore robust methane pollution standards, and we can clear a path for stronger protections in the future.

I am proud to be a co-lead on this resolution. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' This is a win-win-win for climate, public health, and U.S. industry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to a couple things I heard.

One is this tip of the iceberg idea that we are doing something beyond methane by doing this. Of course, that is not how it works around here. The laws are specifically written around what we are doing. We are only voting on this. I can tell you that if we were doing more than this, we might get a different response from the oil and gas industry than we have seen. That is not a real argument.

The other thing is that this is somehow cooked up by the Biden administration as a way to undercut oil and gas. Again, I want to go through all of the names that Ms. DeGette went through of the companies and organizations that support this regulation, but it is hard to argue that the American Petroleum Institute is anything other than American.

It is also hard to argue, even with a company that is based someplace else, that they would be arguing to burden, as it is characterized, their United States operations with these regulations. There would be no incentive for them to do that, no matter where the corporate headquarters is based.

The fact is that these companies see this as a way to be competitive, and it is not unprecedented. One thing we did on the committee last term that became part of the year-end spending plan was the American Innovation and Manufacturers Act, which regulated HFCs. If you recall, the industry supported the institution of standards around HFCs so that it could compete successfully with manufacturers around the world that are building from the same standards.

It was actually helpful for them to have a uniform standard that they could innovate around, and that is why Republicans and Democrats supported that and it became part of a bipartisan end-of-year package. We are in the same situation here where businesses are saying, set a standard here.

Don't tell us that we are going to get one set of regulations, by the way, in Colorado, and virtually no regulations in Texas. We are not being duplicative at all. What we are doing is setting a standard. Let's set a Federal standard. Let's do it at the request of the industry and with the cooperation of the industry to make sure we get it right.

And I guess the other remarkable thing that is implied by all of this discussion is that we are talking about regulating methane out of oil and gas production. No one is talking about banning oil and gas. We wouldn't have to be talking about methane at all if we were talking about that. In fact, we are trying to take oil and gas and get it right, to get it competitive, and get it to be climate-friendly for our future generations.

So I thought that the one glaring omission from my colleagues' arguments is: How do you explain so much support from American oil and gas companies for this regulation?

I wouldn't suggest that it is unanimous. I would say probably it is not. But to dismiss it is really, I think, missing the point. And I think it is obvious that this industry sees this as an advantage in terms of competitiveness going forward, as Mr. Lamb said as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source