Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose efforts to repeal the waste emissions charge, commonly known as the methane fee, which is a commonsense measure that benefits American industry, protects consumers, and provides much-needed regulatory certainty in the energy sector.

Addressing methane emissions, especially fugitive emissions from oil and gas, is one of the most effective ways to combat the climate crisis, protect public health, and ensure America's energy sector remains globally competitive.

Methane has a global warming potential 80 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, meaning that even small leaks can erase the climate benefits of utilizing cleaner energy sources. Unfortunately, methane regulations have been caught in a cycle of constant change.

The first Trump administration repealed methane regulations from the previous administration. When President Biden took office, we led efforts to reinstate these crucial protections. Then, in 2022, House Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which not only reinstated strong methane controls but also implemented a market-driven approach to reducing waste, the methane fee.

The methane fee is not a blanket tax on energy production. I think the gentleman from Virginia suggested that this was a tax on small polluters. Actually, it is a tax only on larger emitters because it is only applied for 25,000 metric tons annually, so it is on the larger ones.

It is designed to encourage companies to capture more methane rather than venting or leaking it. The methane fee provides proof to consumers and competitors that we are serious about producing the cleanest, most efficient natural gas on the market.

Repealing the fee would hurt American industry by eliminating incentives to modernize operations and remain competitive in an international market that increasingly values low-emission energy.

Now, I am supposed to get up here and bash Big Oil, but actually, Big Oil is for the methane fee. The largest companies--ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, and Cheniere Energy--support strong methane rules. They oppose this repeal because they know reducing waste makes business sense. How is that? Because the customers for our gas around the world--Korea, South Korea, Japan, the EU--are demanding cleaner gas.

These companies know that the methane fee demonstrates that our gas is cleaner. Also, the consumer demand from those customers has led to the development of technologies to detect methane, its presence, and its concentration in a way that we can make much more efficient ways to regulate it.

A repeal would undercut responsible producers who have invested in cutting-edge methane detection and capture technologies that make them globally competitive.

Even if this CRA passes today, the problem doesn't simply disappear. My colleagues on the other side never miss a chance to point out that the natural gas revolution has contributed to our historic energy independence and cut our CO2 emissions from energy production. That is true, but even small leaks of methane wipe out that advantage from a climate perspective.

World markets and domestic politics are demanding that the industry can prove with real credibility and transparency that we fixed this methane problem. It is increasingly apparent that the viability of exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas depends on American policies to address methane pollution.

If we don't do this, we are going to have to pass bipartisan legislation to do the same thing to ensure that the industry standards provide for the cleanest, most efficient natural gas production.

Industry and ratepayers have asked us for certainty, consistency, and an assurance that America will remain a global leader in energy production and resilience. The customers want this to happen. The large producers want this to happen. I don't see why Democrats and Republicans can't agree on this.

We need long-term solutions, not more political whiplash. I urge my colleagues to stand with responsible energy producers and American consumers to reject efforts that repeal this vital provision.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source