Overnight Energy: Dems press Interior chief to embrace climate action | Lawmakers at odds on how to regulate chemicals in water | Warren releases climate plan for military

by Miranda Green - 05/15/19 5:49 PM ET

BERNHARDT PLAYS ‘NOT IT’ ON CLIMATE: Democratic House lawmakers on Wednesday pressured Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to commit to considering climate change in all future agency decisions, but the former energy lobbyist wouldn’t take the bait.

“What’s the number for how concerned you are about us hitting 415 parts per million of carbon dioxide?” Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) asked Bernhardt regarding a recent study that found carbon dioxide levels are the highest in human history.

“I haven’t lost any sleep over it,” Bernhardt responded.

Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee grilled the newly appointed Interior Secretary over his thoughts on climate change and how the agency, which oversees drilling on national lands, should consider climate impacts as it drafts its policies.{mosads}

“You have the discretion to issue oil and gas leases on federal lands. There are certain laws that require the department to take climate change into account when it’s managing its land. And so Interior would have the ability to make choices that would be consistent with those goals,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told Bernhardt at the hearing.

How Bernhardt pushed back: Bernhardt pushed back on insinuations that environmental laws bound him to ease off President Trump’s energy independence agenda, which includes expanding oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Emissions from drilling on public lands make up nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S, according to a federal report released last November.

“I think if you all have a view on climate change that says don’t develop energy on federal lands that’s fine. You have to go through a process of codifying it and providing that direction. And if you provide it, I’ll faithfully execute it,” Bernhardt told the lawmakers.

“Just to say from today forward, David Bernhardt says, ‘No development on public lands,’ I do not have that authority.”

Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) challenged Bernhardt’s claim that the Interior chief didn’t have enough authority to make decisions on global warming without a congressional bill.

“You claim that Congress hasn’t given you enough direction to address climate change,” Levin said. “What type of direction would you want Congress to give you to make it clearer?”

Bernhardt said he wasn’t given specific direction to stop drilling.

“Whatever you think you can do to stop it. If that’s what you want to do, go for it. But that should happen in this body. That’s not something the Department of Interior does with a magic wand,” he said, shrugging off the obligation.

What else Dems were ticked about: Democratic lawmakers challenged Bernhardt on a range of issues during the committee hearing, his first as Interior chief. Questions revolved around reports that he signed off on policy decisions that ultimately benefited various former lobbying clients of his and that he’s been stonewalling providing members with requested internal documents.

Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) pointed to a slide of a page of computer code sent to lawmakers among the batches of documents they requested from Interior.

“I call this the gibberish slide. I have no idea what this says, but you sent it on,” Lowenthal said.

Liberal lawmakers on the committee challenged that while Interior had provided large quantities of documents, they had not provided information specific enough to their requests, which they labeled a clear attempt to obfuscate.

“There is quantitative response to the request and qualitative response to the request… The qualitative response is our point. While we have reams of paper, we don’t have quality content,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), chairman of the committee.

Grijalva had previously been vocal about his frustration with Interior’s lack of response to requests for documents. The testiness between the Interior Department and his committee nearly exploded into a standoff two weeks ago when Bernhardt wouldn’t commit to a date to testify before it.

IT’S HUMP DAY! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news.

Please send tips and comments to Miranda Green, mgreen@digital-staging.thehill.com and Rebecca Beitsch, rbeitsch@digital-staging.thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @mirandacgreen, @rebeccabeitsch and @thehill.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

LAWMAKERS BRING PFAS FURY: House lawmakers on Wednesday reviewed over a dozen pieces of legislation regarding the spread of harmful non-stick chemicals in drinking water, exposing the lack of agreement on how to deal with the problem.

Members of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and climate change discussed 13 different approaches to address the growing issue of the chemicals, technically known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The chemicals are used on everything from Teflon pans, food packaging and stain-resistant fabrics, and as they break down they enter the water supply.

The scope of the problem is becoming clearer as a growing number of states — currently 43 — have some sort of PFAS contamination. But it’s less clear how the government should address the problem.

Lawmakers on Wednesday said they were conflicted about how to regulate a class of chemicals that includes almost 5,000 different varieties.

“These chemicals are everywhere–in our environment and in our bodies, with new communities affected all the time,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “All the PFAS in our drinking supply came from industrial activity. They will keep showing up in our drinking water sources if we continue to produce and use thousands of different PFAS chemicals.”

The big questions: There is bipartisan support for addressing PFAS in some way, and the meeting attracted members from both sides of aisle who aren’t on the subcommittee but dropped in to ask questions.

But sticking points quickly arose over whether Congress should take action before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whether legislation should address the most common forms of PFAS or broadly tackle its thousands of variants, and whether legislation should so heavily focus on water when pollution stems from the creation of a number of everyday products.

“EPA has given us little reason for confidence that they will act with the urgency that impacted communities know is needed,” said subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y), lamenting that it would be years before the agency would be able to set a drinking water standard. “One thing is clear: we cannot wait for EPA to act.”

The EPA has been under pressure to set a drinking water standard for PFAS after several states have done so in the absence of agency action. The agency says it will determine by the end of the year whether it will undertake setting such a level.

Several committee Republicans shared Tonko’s view and asked why EPA was not present at the hearing. Tonko said they were invited but declined due to scheduling conflicts.

Michael Abboud, an EPA spokesman, said the agency was unable to prepare for the hearing in time but plans to return for a June hearing on PFAS.

What about the bills?: Among the legislation reviewed by the committee are bills that would require EPA to set a drinking water standard for PFAS, allow Superfund cleanup funds to be used to deal with PFAS contamination, a ban on new PFAS chemicals, and another to provide funding to clean up water that is already contaminated.