Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) pressed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan about the new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule and the EPA’s overregulation of the power sector at an Environment and Public Works (EPW) hearing. Excerpts and full video are below.
Senator Cramer began by thanking Administrator Regan for visiting North Dakota to participate in a WOTUS listening session with farmers and ranchers. He then questioned him about the EPA’s decision to redefine WOTUS while the U.S. Supreme Court hears Sackett v. EPA.
“I’m going to start by challenging you a little bit on why the EPA went ahead with the WOTUS rule […] that’s anything but durable considering we’re in the middle of a case in the Supreme Court, the Sackett case, and now awaiting that ruling. This ‘durable’ word is to prevent the ping-ponging of the rule,” said Senator Cramer. “24 states have already challenged your new rule. Wouldn’t it have made sense to wait until after the [Sackett v. EPA ruling] and maybe have a more durable rule, and then free up all that time and all of those resources to do something of a higher priority, perhaps?”
“We looked at the pre-2015 regulation, and what we did was, we codified two Supreme Court rulings post-2015. We codified over eight exemptions that were requested by the ranching and farming community, in addition to providing this durability, or this certainty, to move forward,” responded Administrator Regan. “We recognize the Sackett case will have some impact on the rule, but what we didn’t want to do was wait until after June, wait for the Supreme Court, and then start a two-year process which would have left farmers and ranchers in limbo.”
Additionally, Senator Cramer discussed Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, a component of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan which the Supreme Court struck in West Virginia v. EPA. For reasons similar to those cited in the West Virginia v. EPA ruling, Senator Cramer cautioned the agency against using the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to expand its regulatory authority over fuel switching at power plants.
“Is there anything in the Inflation Reduction Act that gives the EPA this authority to go at the source and to fuel change – or to suggest fuel changing, or require fuel changing – for generation? Is there a new authority that you didn’t have before?” asked Senator Cramer.
“The Supreme Court made it clear that it was not permissible for EPA to base emission guidelines under Section 111 on generation shifting. The Court’s decision did not draw any conclusions regarding any other control measures, but it was specific there,” responded Administrator Regan. “We have an obligation – the law requires – that we put forward a regulation around greenhouse gas emissions.”
Finally, Senator Cramer emphasized the importance of preserving and fostering states’ authorities, specifically highlighting the quality and cost-efficiency of North Dakota regulators: “Please don’t impose the federal government’s mediocrity on my state’s excellence. They just do it so much better and it doesn’t cost as much.”
Background:
Senator Cramer opposed the repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and has since raised concerns about the EPA’s replacement WOTUS regulation. Last month, he and his Republican colleagues introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to contest the measure, which passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support.