Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Inhofe
Today, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, questioned Michael S. Regan, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at a hearing entitled the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed 2023 Budget.
Inhofe: The Reagan administration – well first of all, let me thank you for the time you and I have spent together to try to get used to each other and what we’re doing and what we’re trying to accomplish. One of these issues has been ongoing for decades, at least 60 years that I know because I have been involved in aviation that long, that is removing lead from avgas. I think I speak for all members of this panel that want to see a safe and smart transition and are working toward that. However, I remain concerned that the EPA’s impending announcement of the proposed endangerment finding, the transition to an unleaded fuel could be put in jeopardy before it gets started.
There are over 200,000 aircraft and 1,800 different engine types in general aviation in the fleet today. A large sector of this fleet needs 100 low-lead fuel to operate. So, let me just start with one question that I think is probably pretty self-evident. That is, will you commit to fostering a safe and smart transition and working with the FAA and industry to help ensure that fuels available today remain available until a solution is fully approved and widely available? In other words – well go ahead.
Regan: Senator, absolutely we’d have to do this in a very responsible way. I would like to say that to your point, this issue has been bounced around for a number of years. I think what we’ve decided to do is responsibly, instead of just talking behind closed doors, take on a process that actually pursues whether or not there is an endangerment finding. So that process will be very public. We’re at the beginning of that process, we’ll be very transparent with all of our stakeholders, so that there will be no surprises there.
Inhofe: Okay, I appreciate that and we have a company in Oklahoma, and I’ve mentioned this to you once before, called GAMI—General Aviation Modifications Incorporated. They’re leading the nation in this new field and they’ve been so very successful. I think that we’re in a position now where we’re going to be able to maintain what we have now until such time as we have the security backing behind it. One other question, Mr. Administrator, in January of 2021, on President Trump’s last day in office, the price of gas was $2.38. This past month, worsened by I believe the Biden administration’s policies, the national average cost-per-gallon surged to $4.33. Now think about that, $2.38 to $4.33 making it the highest average price we’ve ever had on record. President Biden keeps breaking records and those records are breaking Americans’ budgets.
In November, you released a proposal that would impose new, burdensome methane regulations on the oil and gas sector, which could lead to devastating consequences for American jobs and the cost of energy. Democrats in Congress have proposed a methane tax that would increase the average family’s electricity and heating bill by 17 percent, which is huge. We’re going to keep talking about that because it has to be talked about. Mr. Administrator, would implementing a methane tax on the oil and gas industry have any effect to lower the energy cost for Americans? Is there any spin that could be put on this that somehow this is going to lower the price for fuel in America?
Regan: You know, Senator, I think that the methane, what we’ve done is provided strong, technical assistance to Congress as Congress deliberates on what that methane tax program would look like. What our focus is is ensuring that any program designed would be complementary to the proposed methane rule that we have in place.
Inhofe: Here’s the problem I have with that answer: If there’s some notion out there that somehow a methane tax on oil and gas is going to lower energy costs, then we don’t have an argument anymore. You’re not saying that surely.
Regan: What I’m saying is, for instance, if it builds on the methane regulation that we’re proposing, one of the things the industry agrees with us on is that we can create a framework where we are capturing a lot of lost product. Millions of dollars of lost product.
Inhofe: That’s fine, my time is up but I’ve got to get an answer. In fact, I don’t think there is an answer to this. But you’re saying a tax increase on methane, on oil and gas, can somehow be a lower energy cost for America. Is this what you’re saying?
Regan: I’m saying if properly designed, which is Congress’ responsibility, that a methane fee, according to the industry, might create complications.
Inhofe: You know every time I hear this “according to the industry” it’s interesting because my phone starts ringing off the hook saying, “I didn’t say that, I didn’t say that.” My time is up but I would ask this question, you can ponder —
Carper: I’m going to ask my colleague just to hold, we’ll have another round.
Inhofe: Well, we have an Armed Services meeting in the other round so this is the only chance I have to ask this question.
Carper: Go ahead. I just ask you keep it brief.
Inhofe: I will ask for the question. How would you assure every American that EPA’s proposed regulations will not contribute to the elimination of jobs in the fossil fuel sector or increase gas in other energy prices for consumers? For the record. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Carper: You bet.