Q&A: New environment chair to focus on China, minerals

E&E DAILY | The new chair of the Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee is, like most of his Republican colleagues, a skeptic of renewable energy and environmental regulations. He is particularly focused on combating China.

Gary Palmer, an Alabama Republican representing the state's "graphite belt" since 2014, has a laser focus on policies that will lessen dependence on what he believes is the United States' greatest adversary. That has translated advocacy for bolstering domestic production of critical minerals, a key U.S. vulnerability with China.

Palmer isn't changing direction after getting a new gavel earlier this month. He said he's planning to center all of the panel's work, whether it be on permitting or addressing rising energy demand, toward the ultimate goal of outcompeting China.

"It should be a top priority for the administration as well as Congress to address all of these issues in case things go awry with China at some point down the road," Palmer said. "We cannot be cut off from the things that our military depends on, the economy depends on, and that's true of the entire Western Hemisphere."

Palmer has advocated for the creation of an alliance among countries in the Western Hemisphere that would allow members to pool their resources, build connections and ultimately foster private investment to shore up critical mineral supply chains tied to national security.

He's also led several bills intended to boost domestic mineral production, most recently introducing legislation with 43 Republican co-sponsors to codify executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. In 2023, then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign team called Palmer to ask for advice on critical mineral policy.

His philosophy isn't really meant to boost the clean energy or electric vehicles that rely on those minerals. He called the idea of meeting baseload power demands with renewables "insane" and "some of the stupidest things" he's seen.

Palmer spoke with POLITICO's E&E News about his green energy skepticism, his plans for the subcommittee and why EPA doesn't need all that many workers.

What got you into these China issues and how will your subcommittee address them?

Our top priority is securing our supply chain of critical minerals, including refining and processing from rare earth elements. Our reliance on China is a clear threat to our economic and national security.

We will be focused on regulatory impediments and permitting reform to address that, and I think it'll be bipartisan. I think people have woken up to the fact that China is so dangerous.

Five years ago during Covid, China cut us off from personal protective equipment, and we had to implement the Defense Production Act to get companies to produce to meet our needs. After that, I started looking at other issues with our supply chain, and realized we're in a really bad place when it comes to rare earth elements, in particular the processing and refining.

There's not a major refinery for rare earth elements in the Western hemisphere. There's one thing everybody should realize: No nation should be reliant on an adversarial nation for anything critical to its national or economic security.

The Biden administration tried to solve these issues through Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, like 45X, that encourage domestic clean energy manufacturing. Why did Republicans curtail those incentives?

They didn't address the big need. You're not going to get the capacities we need out of the Biden plan, and to try to do it with renewables? It's insane.

I mean, some of the stupidest things I've ever seen. This idea that we'll be able to provide baseload power that we need for refineries with renewables is just not doable.

We're also competing, and we're in an arms race, for artificial intelligence with China. It's going to require enormous amounts of baseload power for data centers. You're not going to get that with the Biden plan.

Is there any role for renewables, at all, in providing energy for AI and meeting future demand?

No. There's a role for renewables in some places, not heavy manufacturing, just predominantly service economy and residential. But even then, you got to back it up with something. Europe found this out the hard way, when the wind stops blowing and the sun doesn't shine, it just doesn't work.

Oversight of the EPA is an important function of the subcommittee, what role do you think the agency should serve?

I think the original role of the EPA was well intended, and I think they did a pretty good job. They actually did a really good job working collaboratively with the private sector.

Land use has improved. Water quality has improved. There's always room for additional improvement, but the things that the EPA did under Obama and under the Biden administration was, I think, a massive overreach. They were doing things they had no business doing.

I think under Lee Zeldin's leadership, the EPA is going to, like I said, work well with the private sector, and we'll have an EPA that is not intrusive in people's lives. You know, they tried to regulate ditch water. Stuff like that, frankly, was insane.

What do you say to those who are concerned that staff cuts and regulation rollbacks under Zeldin will negatively affect environmental health?

In this age of technology, you don't need that much staff. Every problem that the federal government's tried to address in the last 50 years, they've tried to address with more people, and shockingly, the problem doesn't get addressed.

I think one of the things that came out of DOGE that a lot of people overlook was that they came in with technically proficient people, with 21st Century technology on their laptops, and wrote some algorithms and literally did better oversight than EPA has done for 40 to 50 years.

I don't think we need federal workforce at this size. I think we need subject matter expertise, and I think that's what administrator Zeldin brings.

Your subcommittee has focused on EVs a lot in the past. What's your opinion on the technology?

If people want them, the market will determine that, but I don't think we should impose that on anybody. I mean, if you want to drive a little small car or midsized car, that's fine, but if you live in a state where you have consecutive days below 20 degrees Fahrenheit, there's a pretty good likelihood that your battery capacity is going to decline precipitously.

I think you might actually see EVs and their batteries be a little unsuccessful, and then there could be a shift towards battery storage for generators. I think there's a lot of promise for that, particularly for the military and other applications where people are in remote locations, maybe even on some of our cargo vessels as a backup power source.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.