• 7 months ago
EPA Administrator Michael Regan testified in front of the House Energy Committee on Wednesday.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00:00 Thank you for appearing before us today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2025 budget
00:00:04 request for the Environmental Protection Agency.
00:00:08 I recently assumed the gavel of this subcommittee and I'm privileged to be able to lead this
00:00:12 panel's important work to advance policies which provide for environmental protection
00:00:16 while also growing our manufacturing and industrial base.
00:00:20 My district in southeast Georgia features over 100 miles of pristine coastline, the
00:00:25 Okefenokee Swamp, and thriving forest lands.
00:00:28 These are resources we cherish and strive to protect for future generations.
00:00:33 We are also one of the fastest growing economies in the country.
00:00:37 Billions of dollars of investment are flowing to my district, fueled by Georgia's pro-business
00:00:42 policies, low electricity rates, and access to the ports of Savannah and Brunswick.
00:00:48 To the detriment of my district and the stated goals of this administration, the EPA's regulatory
00:00:53 agenda is poised to choke the prospects for increased prosperity.
00:00:57 The recently finalized particulate matter PM2.5 standard will gridlock permitting at
00:01:03 new and expanded manufacturing facilities.
00:01:06 By placing the standard so close to the natural background level, studies indicate that nearly
00:01:11 80% of manufacturing projects would fail to obtain a permit, including the $5.5 billion
00:01:19 Hyundai EV battery plant in my district.
00:01:22 Luckily, this investment received its permit before the standard was revised.
00:01:27 Savannah controls over 75% of the EV battery supply chain, and actions like the PM2.5 standard
00:01:33 threaten to tighten their chokehold on battery manufacturing.
00:01:37 Meanwhile, the EPA and its zealous rush to green agenda has mandated that almost 70%
00:01:43 of new passenger vehicles sold by 2032 will be electric.
00:01:49 I am not anti-EV, not at all.
00:01:51 I believe there is a market for EVs, and we should be building up our entire supply chain,
00:01:56 including in Georgia, to reduce reliance on China.
00:01:59 However, I am anti-mandate.
00:02:01 The EPA's EV mandate reduces consumer choice, and its efforts to limit new critical mineral
00:02:08 refining ties us to China and threatens grid reliability.
00:02:12 While the administration pushes grandiose electrification visions, the EPA seems to
00:02:18 have forgotten that electricity does not come from the plug.
00:02:22 The illegal Clean Power Plan 2.0 threatens to shutter 16% of our reliable base load generation
00:02:28 that comes from coal-fired power, stranding assets, raising rates, and increasing blackouts.
00:02:36 Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires the best system of emission reduction to be
00:02:41 adequately demonstrated.
00:02:43 By mandating that states require coal-fired plants with a useful life beyond 2039 achieve
00:02:50 90% carbon capture by 2032, the EPA overstepped this authority and will land itself back in
00:02:57 crosshairs of the courts.
00:03:01 No coal-fired power plant in North America has achieved a 90% capture rate.
00:03:07 There are no projects to demonstrate this even close to development.
00:03:10 Guesswork is not a basis for telling states what standards to set.
00:03:15 The EPA does not have a history of timely permitting the injection wells necessary for
00:03:20 carbon sequestration.
00:03:22 I note two states have finally allowed to do this, have permitted more injection sites
00:03:28 in just two years than the EPA has in a decade, not a sign that EPA is serious about relying
00:03:34 on this technology.
00:03:36 I am surprised that since you are a former state regulator, the administration has not
00:03:41 more effectively leveraged your experience and relationships with your co-regulators
00:03:46 to states.
00:03:47 Unfortunately, a much different relationship has been fostered and it is my view that the
00:03:51 agency has drifted far from the statutory principle of cooperative federalism.
00:03:57 Last year's interstate transport rule underscores this sad situation.
00:04:02 In the rule, the EPA denied 21 state implementation plans for ozone standards and less than one
00:04:08 month later, the agency imposed federal implementation plans on 23 states, nearly half of the country.
00:04:16 Now the agency finds itself again in the Supreme Court, something that could have been avoided
00:04:21 if the agency had worked with its co-regulators.
00:04:24 Today we will explore these regulatory topics as well as the agency's activities with its
00:04:29 massive infusion of funding from the IRA.
00:04:32 It is imperative that Congress conducts robust oversight of the more than $41.5 billion given
00:04:38 to EPA in the IRA, including the $31 billion in taxpayer funds the EPA was provided for
00:04:46 its Green Bank and Environmental Justice Block Grant programs.
00:04:50 Administrator Regan, I appreciate our conversations and thank you for being here.
00:04:54 I look forward to our conversation today.
00:04:57 I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Ranking Member Representative Tonko, for five
00:05:02 minutes for an opening statement.
00:05:05 Thank you, Mr. Chair and Administrator Regan.
00:05:08 Thank you for being here and thank you for all you're doing to lead the Environmental
00:05:11 Protection Agency.
00:05:12 I truly believe you will go down as one of the agency's greatest leaders.
00:05:16 That is not only because you are implementing historic funding opportunities provided by
00:05:21 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
00:05:25 Undoubtedly, these laws are playing a critical role in getting the lead out of our drinking
00:05:29 water, protecting us from PFAS, cleaning up brownfields and Superfund sites, and deploying
00:05:34 fleets of zero-emission buses.
00:05:37 But these are not the only reasons why these laws are transformational.
00:05:40 It is how these resources are reaching people.
00:05:43 For the first time ever, many disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and community-based
00:05:49 organizations are able to access funding that had previously been unreachable.
00:05:54 There has been an increased emphasis by EPA on building capacity and providing technical
00:05:59 assistance to these communities to better address historic environmental injustices.
00:06:05 And you have led these efforts with great sensitivity and awesome commitment.
00:06:09 I know that was the case when you worked with former Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson in
00:06:14 East Palestine.
00:06:15 And I saw it firsthand when you met with community leaders that I represent from Albany's South
00:06:20 End neighborhood.
00:06:21 A robust EPA budget is critical to communities like these.
00:06:25 The President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request will continue to enable EPA to fulfill
00:06:31 its core mission while ensuring that these historic investments are administered effectively
00:06:37 and indeed efficiently.
00:06:39 And based on the Agency's proposed agenda and the statutory requirements, it is clear
00:06:44 that the additional resources and personnel called for in the budget request are necessary.
00:06:50 During the Biden Administration, there has been a concerted effort to rebuild the Agency's
00:06:55 capacity to administer and oversee funding opportunities, as well as carry out the Agency's
00:07:01 regulatory and enforcement agendas.
00:07:04 This regulatory agenda has included finalizing important environmental and public health
00:07:09 protections to address threats, threats that are posed by traditional and climate pollutants
00:07:14 from power plants and vehicles, lead and PFAS in drinking water, and asbestos and other
00:07:20 dangerous chemical substances in commerce.
00:07:23 Simply put, each of these rules will save lives and deliver significant benefits to
00:07:28 the American people.
00:07:30 Not only will these efforts protect public health, but many of them are also critical
00:07:34 to the Biden Administration's Investing in America agenda, which supports the reshoring
00:07:39 of domestic manufacturing in key strategic industries.
00:07:43 Newly finalized standards for power plants, light-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles
00:07:49 will drive innovation and deployment of pollution controls and clean energy technologies, many
00:07:54 of which will be made right here in America.
00:07:58 I believe we can compete with China and other nations, and we can do that in a way that
00:08:02 does not require us to race to the bottom and undermine our critical environmental and
00:08:07 labor protections.
00:08:08 These rules are part of that effort.
00:08:10 So, Mr. Administrator, I also want to recognize and express my appreciation for EPA's efforts
00:08:16 to update and strengthen its scientific integrity policy.
00:08:20 Ensuring that EPA's career public servants are able to do their work guided by science
00:08:25 and free from political and special interests is imperative.
00:08:30 And I believe once finalized, EPA's scientific integrity policy will become the gold standard
00:08:35 amongst our federal agencies.
00:08:38 This is just one part of the effort to recruit, retain, and develop the workforce necessary
00:08:43 to carry out the agency's mission while being guided by the best available science.
00:08:49 Administrator Regan, I thank you again for joining us.
00:08:52 I look forward to working with you as EPA carries out its responsibilities to address
00:08:56 our nation's greatest environmental challenges, including climate change, clean air and clean
00:09:01 water, and chemical safety and environmental justice.
00:09:04 I do hope Congress will deliver the resources necessary in fiscal year 2025 to ensure that
00:09:10 that agenda stays on track.
00:09:12 With that, I yield back.
00:09:14 The gentleman yields.
00:09:15 I now recognize the chair of the full committee, the Honorable Chair Rogers, for five minutes
00:09:19 for an opening statement.
00:09:21 Thank you.
00:09:22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:09:23 Welcome, Administrator Regan.
00:09:27 We appreciate you being here today to discuss the President's budget and priorities for
00:09:30 the Environmental Protection Agency.
00:09:36 This committee plays a critical role in ensuring U.S. energy and economic security and leadership.
00:09:41 For decades, America has led the world in innovation and entrepreneurship while continuing
00:09:46 to maintain the highest environmental standards in the world.
00:09:50 We should be proud of this legacy and work together to advance smart policies that continue
00:09:55 to build that legacy for generations to come.
00:09:58 But sadly, what we see today is the administration is promoting policies that dismantle that
00:10:05 legacy.
00:10:06 The spending and regulatory policies continue to put America on a dangerous path that threatens
00:10:12 our economic and energy security while enriching our adversaries like China and making us beholden
00:10:19 to them for critical materials.
00:10:22 The Biden administration and its allies have done this in ways that lack transparency and
00:10:26 prevent accountability for their actions that threaten American manufacturing and energy
00:10:31 resources.
00:10:32 It's not acceptable.
00:10:35 Since President Biden took office, the EPA has been given over $109 billion in additional
00:10:41 funding and grown its workforce to over 15,000 employees.
00:10:46 President Biden's budget request for FY 2025 contains almost $11 billion in new funding
00:10:51 requests for EPA, an increase of more than 8 percent since the current year.
00:10:56 It's over 16 percent since President Biden took office.
00:11:01 Americans are already feeling the impacts of this agenda.
00:11:05 Since the Biden administration took office, electricity prices have risen 30 percent.
00:11:09 And really, it's energy prices that are driving inflation.
00:11:13 That's more than 50 percent more than that electricity prices are more than 50 percent
00:11:19 than overall pace of inflation.
00:11:21 Unilateral actions like those taken by the administration are driving out affordable,
00:11:27 reliable, baseload generation needed to keep energy prices low and the lights on.
00:11:34 Grid operators and others have been sounding the alarm, warning that the U.S. is on a dangerous
00:11:40 and unsustainable path.
00:11:43 Continuing this trend will mean higher prices.
00:11:45 And what the grid experts have warned the committee about, catastrophic blackouts.
00:11:51 It's not the American way and it doesn't need to be this way.
00:11:54 In addition, the auto waivers for California and other allied states, as well as federal
00:11:59 mandates on carmakers, are taking away affordable and practical transportation from Americans.
00:12:06 Ask any car dealer.
00:12:07 Their lots are full of EVs that won't sell.
00:12:11 And they have limited access to vehicle models people actually want.
00:12:17 What we've seen is a record number of rules and regulations coming out of the EPA.
00:12:24 Over 125 major rules resulting in over $1 trillion in new regulatory costs on American
00:12:32 businesses and ultimately, that's on families.
00:12:36 And as an elected representative of the people, I know that there's a lack of accountability
00:12:42 to the elected representatives or the people as you continue to write record rules without
00:12:47 input from the people or their elected representatives.
00:12:50 And I continue to believe we must authorize the EPA.
00:12:55 EPA has never been authorized by Congress.
00:12:59 Perhaps that's where we should be starting, to get the EPA back on mission.
00:13:04 EPA rules are a critical part.
00:13:07 We've seen the new PM 2.5 standard.
00:13:10 It's going to make permitting for manufacturing and development nearly impossible.
00:13:14 I hope you've looked at the map.
00:13:17 We're not going to be able to site a new manufacturing plant in the United States.
00:13:21 And I want to understand why EPA thinks that the United States is going to be able to maintain
00:13:26 our economic leadership with these anti-manufacturing, anti-American, really anti-jobs.
00:13:34 You're taking away opportunities from people and making us more reliant on China.
00:13:41 That's where we're going to go.
00:13:43 That's where we are going.
00:13:45 We are dependent on China.
00:13:46 If we're really serious about growing our economy, not China's, we need predictable
00:13:52 and realistic regulatory environment.
00:13:55 We need EPA to actually meet statutory deadlines for new chemical reviews.
00:13:59 We need data-driven decisions that appropriately balance a healthy environment and a healthy
00:14:04 economy.
00:14:06 EPA must return to a position where they're accountable to the elected representatives
00:14:12 of the people.
00:14:13 That's our form of government.
00:14:17 And it's key to American leadership, to the prosperity of the people that we represent,
00:14:23 and driving down costs for Americans.
00:14:26 I look forward to discussing how we can work together to ensure this, and I yield back.
00:14:31 General Yields, I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman
00:14:35 from New Jersey, Representative Pallone, for five minutes for an opening statement.
00:14:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:14:40 I want to welcome Administrator Reagan back to the committee, and thank you for being
00:14:44 here today to discuss President Biden's fiscal year budget for the EPA.
00:14:49 And since our last budget hearing, EPA has been hard at work protecting public health
00:14:54 and the environment.
00:14:55 The agency has been implementing the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction
00:15:00 Act that were delivered last Congress by President Biden and congressional Democrats, and I look
00:15:04 forward to hearing about the agency's progress.
00:15:07 These laws are directing investments into communities across the nation, modernizing
00:15:12 our aging infrastructure, and helping us lead the world in the transition to a clean energy
00:15:17 economy.
00:15:18 So, last month, the administration announced $20 billion in grant awards as part of the
00:15:23 Inflation Reduction Act's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to deploy clean energy projects in communities
00:15:29 nationwide.
00:15:30 In February, the EPA announced the final $1 billion allotment of funding for a total of
00:15:34 $3.5 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law to clean up contaminated Superfund sites.
00:15:41 And then earlier this month, the EPA announced $3 billion in funding to replace up to $1.7
00:15:46 million in toxic lead service lines nationwide.
00:15:50 And these investments are already making a difference.
00:15:53 More than 271,000 clean energy jobs have already been created, with millions of good-paying
00:15:58 American jobs expected over the next decade.
00:16:01 The investments from these two laws will grow our economy and cut costs for American families.
00:16:07 The President's Fiscal Year 2025 request builds on the success of our historic climate
00:16:12 laws by investing in the health, safety, and prosperity of all American families and moving
00:16:17 the country forward.
00:16:19 To combat the climate crisis, I am pleased that the budget invests nearly $3 billion
00:16:24 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping communities build resilience to the
00:16:28 impacts of a changing climate.
00:16:30 EPA will continue to drive down potent superpollutants with key climate programs to cut methane
00:16:37 and curb the production and use of hydrofluorocarbons.
00:16:41 And the budget includes funding to implement achievable carbon pollution standards for
00:16:45 fossil fuel power plants and vehicles, as directed by Congress.
00:16:49 I also commend the Administration for devoting $170 million to combat PFAS pollution and
00:16:56 increased funding to effectively implement ATASCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
00:17:01 This funding will allow the Agency to evaluate and manage risks from toxic chemicals to protect
00:17:06 workers and families.
00:17:08 This investment builds on EPA's recent drinking water standards and hazardous substance designations
00:17:14 for specific PFAS chemicals, which will protect Americans from these forever chemicals.
00:17:20 The budget request supplements the revenue collected from the reinstatement of the Superfund
00:17:25 tax to fund more cleanup activities.
00:17:27 I fought for decades to reinstate this tax, and thanks to these new laws, it is once again
00:17:32 a reality.
00:17:33 I am also pleased to see the budget bolster EPA's work to advance environmental justice
00:17:38 through the President's Justice40 initiative.
00:17:41 Overall, I believe this budget request appropriately prioritizes the protection of human health
00:17:46 and the environment.
00:17:47 It demonstrates the value that Biden's EPA places on ensuring access to clean air and
00:17:52 water, meeting our shared climate goals, driving innovation in homegrown clean energy, creating
00:17:58 good-paying middle-class jobs, and protecting American consumers by holding polluters accountable.
00:18:05 And the budget stands in sharp contrast to the Republicans' polluters over people agenda.
00:18:10 It's bad enough that not one Republican on this committee supported either the bipartisan
00:18:14 infrastructure law or the Inflation Reduction Act, but they have spent the last year trying
00:18:19 to undermine these investments at every turn.
00:18:22 Republicans are also working behind closed doors with the Trump campaign to develop a
00:18:26 radical policy roadmap that would repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, slash the EPA, and
00:18:31 dismantle bedrock environmental protections.
00:18:34 And according to recent reports, Trump is selling off his policy priorities to the highest
00:18:38 bidder to the tune of demanding $1 billion in campaign contributions from big oil and
00:18:44 gas corporations in exchange for executing their pro-polluter agenda.
00:18:49 The priorities of the Democrats in the Biden administration could not be more different,
00:18:53 and the President's fiscal year 2025 request reflects that difference, obviously, from
00:18:59 the Republicans.
00:19:00 Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans even care about protecting the environment at all.
00:19:05 So I appreciate Minister Reagan's leadership, and I'm committed to working together to secure
00:19:10 a more sustainable future for all Americans.
00:19:13 With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
00:19:15 The gentleman yields.
00:19:16 We now conclude with member opening statements.
00:19:18 The Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members'
00:19:22 opening statements will be made part of the permanent record.
00:19:26 Our witness for today is the Honorable Michael Regan, the Administrator at the U.S. Environmental
00:19:31 Protection Agency.
00:19:33 Administrator Regan, thank you for being here.
00:19:35 You're now recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
00:19:39 Thank you.
00:19:40 And Chair Rogers, Ranking Member Pallone, Chair Carter, Ranking Member Tonko, and members
00:19:44 of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
00:19:48 bold vision laid out by the U.S. EPA's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request.
00:19:54 Our partnership and open dialogue with Congress is invaluable for EPA to carry out its mission
00:19:59 to protect public health and the environment.
00:20:01 Over the last year, we've been hard at work at EPA, and under President Biden's leadership,
00:20:06 my agency has finalized protections that will bring 100 million people cleaner and safer
00:20:11 drinking water, free from PFAS, and we've worked hard to right many of the historic
00:20:16 wrongs communities have faced for generations.
00:20:19 Through our critical rulemaking, we've banned the last remaining kind of asbestos used in
00:20:23 our country, and we've issued final technology standards that will eliminate more than 6,000
00:20:28 tons of toxic air pollution from chemical plants each year, slashing cancer-causing
00:20:33 pollution from covered processes and equipment by nearly 80 percent and reducing elevated
00:20:38 cancer risk for those living near these facilities by 96 percent.
00:20:42 EPA is committed to protecting public health and the environment for the American people.
00:20:47 But more than just powerful health impacts EPA is undertaking, my agency is working hard
00:20:51 to implement the historic laws that you have passed in President Biden's Investing in America
00:20:56 agenda.
00:20:58 President Biden's Investing in America agenda has not only directed investment in communities
00:21:01 nationwide, but it has generated nearly $700 billion in funding from private sector manufacturing
00:21:07 and clean energy projects, protecting our planet and enhancing our global competitiveness.
00:21:13 Last May, I visited Chair Carter's district and I was pleased to announce programs that
00:21:17 will invest $4 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act to upgrade our nation's port
00:21:21 infrastructure while improving air quality and protecting public health.
00:21:25 Together, President Biden's Investing in America agenda and EPA's fiscal year 2025 budget request
00:21:31 will continue to invest in environmental actions that will promote cleaner communities and
00:21:35 produce economic benefits for years to come.
00:21:39 President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request for EPA provides nearly $11
00:21:43 billion to advance key priorities for the American people, including protecting air
00:21:48 quality, cleaning up pollution, upgrading the nation's aging water infrastructure, urgently
00:21:53 fighting the climate crisis and advancing environmental justice.
00:21:57 Millions of people across the country are still grappling with the effects of poor air
00:22:00 quality, perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts.
00:22:04 In fiscal year 2025, EPA will improve air quality for communities by reducing emissions
00:22:09 of ozone-forming pollutants, particulate matter and air toxics.
00:22:14 The President's budget includes $1.3 billion to improve air quality for communities across
00:22:18 the country, to reduce exposure to dangerous levels of radiation and to leverage regulatory
00:22:23 tools and public and private sector partnerships to promote environmental stewardship.
00:22:28 EPA's work to set these standards provides certainty to industry, builds on the advancements
00:22:33 of technology and reinforces market movement towards a cleaner energy system that provides
00:22:38 reliable, affordable energy.
00:22:40 Additionally, the budget provides $100 million to expand availability of Diesel Emissions
00:22:45 Reduction Act grants to replace older diesel engines with newer technologies.
00:22:50 Clean and safe water is also essential for healthy communities and a thriving economy.
00:22:55 Although substantial progress has been made, many areas across our nation still face significant
00:23:00 barriers and challenges to achieving this goal.
00:23:04 Aging water infrastructure, the effects of lead pipes, cybersecurity threats to our water
00:23:08 systems, climate change and emerging contaminants such as PFAS all pose dangerous health risks
00:23:14 to our nation's water supply and the American people.
00:23:17 EPA's budget request includes a total of $101 million for two EPA grant programs dedicated
00:23:23 to remediating lead contamination in our drinking water.
00:23:27 From investing in to clean air, to cleaning up contaminated land and water, there is absolutely
00:23:32 no shortage of important work to be done.
00:23:34 Members of the committee, EPA is up for the task.
00:23:37 We're eager to work with all of you to deliver for our fellow Americans and to secure our
00:23:41 nation's global competitiveness, but we need your support.
00:23:45 The fiscal year 2025 President's Budget continues the historic progress and investments made
00:23:50 by the Biden-Harris administration and positions EPA to advance our vital mission of protecting
00:23:56 public health and the environment, championing environmental justice and again tackling the
00:24:01 climate crisis.
00:24:02 So, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to submit this testimony for the
00:24:06 record.
00:24:07 I look forward to our continued partnership and yet to achieve these ambitious yet necessary
00:24:13 goals and I welcome all questions.
00:24:15 Thank you.
00:24:16 Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
00:24:17 We'll now begin questioning and I'll recognize myself for five minutes.
00:24:22 Administrator, if we could start with Clean Power Plan 2.0.
00:24:28 The EPA recently finalized its greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for fossil fuel
00:24:32 fired power plants and requiring coal-fired power plants that will operate past 2039 to
00:24:40 install carbon capture infrastructure that achieves a 90% capture rate.
00:24:47 If we talk about Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, how would you describe in your words
00:24:53 what the term adequately demonstrated means considering factors such as cost, non-air
00:24:59 quality, health and environmental impact and energy requirements?
00:25:03 Again adequately demonstrated seems to be somewhat subjective.
00:25:06 How would you define it?
00:25:07 Well, I would define it in the way that we have defined it in this power sector rule
00:25:11 which is a technology that is available to reduce the targeted pollutants that we're
00:25:17 after or various technologies and best management practices that can do such.
00:25:23 And so in this power sector rule, what you see is the opportunity for multiple technologies
00:25:28 but especially technologies like CCS that are receiving tax credits that the industry
00:25:33 is investing heavily in that we believe is competitive for reducing some of these climate
00:25:37 pollutants.
00:25:39 This week when a ranking member, Senator Capito, asked you to identify a coal-fired power plant
00:25:47 that achieves a 90% capture rate, you didn't answer a question.
00:25:52 Can you give us an example of a coal-fired plant in North America that adequately demonstrated
00:25:59 a 90% capture rate over the life of its systems operation?
00:26:02 Well, I think we have plants that have the potential to do so.
00:26:06 Again, this is a 90% capture rate in the future.
00:26:10 There's a runway here for that.
00:26:11 And so we have facilities like Petra Nova in Texas.
00:26:14 We have facilities in Wyoming and North Dakota that are demonstrating at a very high proficiency
00:26:20 rate that this is possible.
00:26:21 So what we're looking at, again, is a runway to allow for this technology to thrive so
00:26:27 that we can see these important reductions occur.
00:26:30 And there are billions, billions of dollars in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan
00:26:34 infrastructure law that lay the groundwork that utilities are currently taking advantage
00:26:39 of to meet what we believe is a reasonable goal.
00:26:41 So should we add on there, just potentially adequately demonstrated?
00:26:45 I mean, you say there are examples out there that have potential to do it, but there's
00:26:52 not one out there.
00:26:53 Well, we have adequately demonstrated evidence that these carbon capture technologies work
00:26:59 and can perform at high efficiency rates.
00:27:01 The question is, which we have a runway far out, the stringency that the rule requires,
00:27:08 there's time to develop a pathway to do that at that level.
00:27:12 Okay, I'm going to take your word for that.
00:27:16 If we could just go now to PM 2.5.
00:27:21 We understand that the particulate matter standard will make it nearly impossible for
00:27:26 new manufacturing projects, including EV battery plants.
00:27:30 Most projects need at least three micrograms per cubic meter of headroom to obtain an air
00:27:35 permit.
00:27:36 We understand that the background concentration, the average throughout the nation is eight.
00:27:42 With that revised standard, 89% of counties in the country now lack sufficient headroom
00:27:47 for economic expansion.
00:27:50 Prior to finalizing that rule, were you aware that this lack of permitting headroom would
00:27:54 force almost 90% of the country into permitting gridlock, stopping new manufacturing?
00:28:00 I think we have a difference of opinion in terms of numbers.
00:28:03 We project that when the PM NAAQS fully kicks in, 99%, 99% of counties will qualify for
00:28:12 the levels that we've set.
00:28:13 How can there be that much of a difference between one side saying that almost 90% aren't
00:28:19 going to be able to adhere to it, and you're saying 99% will be able to?
00:28:23 We've modeled it out.
00:28:24 Can you share that model with us?
00:28:28 I'd love for our staff to be able to talk about that.
00:28:29 Can I share an example with you?
00:28:30 We have the single largest economic development project in the history of our state in my
00:28:34 district.
00:28:35 It was approved before this rule went into effect.
00:28:39 It's the Hyundai EV plant.
00:28:41 We're very excited about it, very excited.
00:28:43 A $5.5 billion investment creating 8,100 jobs.
00:28:47 In my district, the background concentration is 7.3, and Hyundai estimates that it would
00:28:55 increase the concentrations by 2.5.
00:28:58 That would put them in violation.
00:29:00 If they were applying for the permit now, they wouldn't get it.
00:29:05 I'd love to talk to specifics about plants themselves.
00:29:09 I think when you're looking backwards, yes, they've applied for a permit.
00:29:14 They've qualified.
00:29:15 They're there.
00:29:16 Looking forward at the new standard, again, we've modeled this out.
00:29:20 99% of counties in this country will meet that standard.
00:29:25 There's 1% out there that we have to engage with.
00:29:28 I would really love for our staffs to talk and engage in this conversation because as
00:29:32 you pointed out, there's a big gap between the stats we're talking about and the stats
00:29:36 you're talking about.
00:29:37 There's a big gap.
00:29:38 Look, we're excited about this.
00:29:39 It would not have happened under these new rules.
00:29:42 That's just one example there.
00:29:44 I'm out of time.
00:29:45 I'm going to move on.
00:29:47 At this time, I want to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Representative
00:29:53 Tonko, for his five minutes of questioning.
00:29:56 I tried to give you a ... I know you did, but I appreciate that.
00:30:06 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
00:30:07 Thank you again, Mr. Administrator.
00:30:09 I have already mentioned the historic funding opportunities that you are overseeing to invest
00:30:14 in our nation to protect Americans' public health by improving water infrastructure,
00:30:19 cleaning up our brownfields, and deploying zero emission buses, and so much more.
00:30:23 You are also carrying out the agency's responsibilities to implement a complementary regulatory agenda.
00:30:31 Recently, EPA finalized new rules related to power plants.
00:30:35 While I certainly characterized the previously mentioned funding opportunities as historic,
00:30:40 I'm not sure the same can be said for the 111 rules.
00:30:43 Yes, these standards will limit carbon pollution from some power plants for the first time,
00:30:48 but they do so in a manner that is very consistent with past EPA efforts to limit pollution.
00:30:53 Is that correct?
00:30:54 Yes, it is correct.
00:30:55 One of the hallmarks of your leadership of the EPA has been a commitment to stakeholder
00:31:00 engagement in the rulemaking process.
00:31:02 Can you explain, Mr. Administrator, how EPA developed this proposal and how you sought
00:31:07 input from technical experts, including federal partners, states, and regulated entities?
00:31:13 Thank you for the question.
00:31:14 I have spent quite a bit of time with the industry on this rule.
00:31:17 As you know, it really looks at reducing carbon, but also mercury air toxics, affluent waste
00:31:24 discharged from these plants, as well as cleaning up the coal ass residue.
00:31:29 About two years ago, I spent some time with industry leaders in Texas at a nationally
00:31:36 recognized convention talking about the benefits of combining these regulations so that they
00:31:41 don't die from a thousand paper cuts.
00:31:43 I don't think we're arguing with the industry over the fact that we've coupled this, because
00:31:47 I think they like that in terms of long-term investment.
00:31:50 I think what we are debating at times is the stringency.
00:31:54 We have to look at the cost-benefit analysis of this rule.
00:31:58 The costs definitely are less significant than the benefits.
00:32:03 We're reducing mercury.
00:32:05 We're reducing carbon pollutants that impact public health and the environment.
00:32:09 We're cleaning up our waters.
00:32:11 This is a very effective rule that, again, we've had a number of conversations with the
00:32:15 industry about the technologies that are available and feel really comfortable about what we
00:32:18 proposed.
00:32:19 I appreciate the dialogue with the industry.
00:32:21 Did that robust process give you confidence that this rule will reduce pollution while
00:32:26 allowing for a reliable and affordable electric system?
00:32:30 We've spent time with Congressman Bill Johnson before he departed on this very issue.
00:32:35 Absolutely, we've got an MOU with the Department of Energy.
00:32:39 We met with grid reliability operators.
00:32:42 We have a very strong relationship and engaged with FERC, as well as across the federal family.
00:32:49 We know that what we propose will not impact reliability.
00:32:53 We believe that it is very cost-effective.
00:32:55 As a matter of fact, when we look at consumer costs, we estimate that it will increase less
00:32:59 than 1% over the span of this rule.
00:33:02 Is there anything else you'd like to add about the benefits compared to the costs of this
00:33:06 rule?
00:33:07 Well, listen, we're talking about lives saved, work days that are not missed, school days
00:33:13 that are not missed, reduced levels of cancer, reduced levels of asthma.
00:33:19 We're talking about increasing the health and vitality of not only public health, but
00:33:23 the economy as well.
00:33:25 And all done in concert with the industry.
00:33:27 On TSCA, in previous hearings, EPA has discussed the backlog of new chemical reviews.
00:33:33 When reforming TSCA eight years ago, Congress certainly required more work from the agency
00:33:37 to mitigate risks posed by chemicals before they indeed enter the market.
00:33:41 Our nation has learned that allowing chemicals to enter commerce without thorough review
00:33:45 has at times led to serious harm and even death.
00:33:49 Unfortunately, the previous administration did not set the agency up for success.
00:33:53 I know you and your team have been working diligently to remedy that.
00:33:57 Everyone would like to see timely reviews of chemicals, but I want to make certain that
00:34:01 we do so while ensuring that we are safeguarding public health.
00:34:05 So can you talk about what you and your team are doing to address the backlog while also
00:34:10 ensuring robust review of new chemicals?
00:34:12 How can Congress support the agency as it moves forward to implement TSCA?
00:34:18 Well, unfortunately, with some of the reductions that we're seeing in this budget, it means
00:34:23 slower approval for new chemistries that propel our semiconductor industry, automotive industry,
00:34:30 battery manufacturing industry, because we're just not able to keep pace.
00:34:35 With the increases that you all had given us just two years ago, we more than doubled
00:34:40 the number of new chemicals we review each month.
00:34:45 We've cleared out more than half the backlog cases, and we've prioritized the new chemistries
00:34:50 that the industry has asked us to do.
00:34:51 And so we're making progress.
00:34:53 And right now, it's just not the opportune time to reduce that funding, considering the
00:34:58 progress that we're making on TSCA.
00:35:00 Thank you.
00:35:01 Well, it sounds like it's indeed a function of human infrastructure to implement TSCA.
00:35:05 So appreciate the leadership again.
00:35:07 With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
00:35:09 Gentleman yields.
00:35:10 The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Representative Rogers, for
00:35:15 five minutes of questioning.
00:35:18 Administrator Reagan, EPA's recent regulatory actions put the agency in the middle of states'
00:35:23 responsibilities to assure an electric generation mix that provides reliable, affordable power
00:35:29 for their citizens.
00:35:31 The Clean Power Plan 2.0 requires states to impose costly and unproven performance standards
00:35:36 on new and existing power plants.
00:35:38 You just testified that no system right now has adequately demonstrated to capture 90%.
00:35:47 For existing plants, you rely on the same subsection of the Clean Air Act that the Supreme
00:35:50 Court said could not be used to force a transition to new generation sources to usurp state authorities
00:35:58 over their electricity systems.
00:35:59 Administrator, is it the EPA or the states that ultimately decide what the appropriate
00:36:04 emissions standards will be for existing plants?
00:36:08 For existing plants, so you're talking about coal or natural gas?
00:36:11 I'm talking about existing plants across the board.
00:36:14 Well, this rule only addresses existing coal.
00:36:17 It does not address existing natural gas.
00:36:20 So is it EPA?
00:36:21 Is the answer yes?
00:36:22 It's going to be EPA, not the states, determining what's the appropriate emissions standard?
00:36:27 Is that what I'm hearing?
00:36:29 What we do is we set federal standards and we work with our co-regulators to design state
00:36:33 implementation plans to meet that.
00:36:36 That's the way it's always been done.
00:36:38 That's the way that Congress wrote the Clean Air Act.
00:36:40 If I may take it back, Congress gave states broad discretion to implement emissions standards
00:36:47 for existing power plants.
00:36:49 Under your new rule, if a state chooses a less stringent standard, the state must demonstrate
00:36:54 to EPA why its assessment is fundamentally different than EPA's assessment.
00:36:58 How do you justify EPA, through the Clean Power Plan 2.0, taking discretion away from
00:37:04 the states?
00:37:05 As a former state regulator, I can assure you that we have not taken any power.
00:37:08 There's always been a co-regulation relationship that exists between the states and the federal
00:37:14 government.
00:37:16 States have delegated authority to execute and implement these federal laws.
00:37:21 We like to give states flexibility.
00:37:22 So I'm not quite sure the way you're positioning the question is not factually correct.
00:37:29 As a former state regulator-
00:37:30 If I may take this back, under the rule, if EPA could take away states' authority over
00:37:35 their power generation with a federal implementation plan.
00:37:38 There is no taking.
00:37:40 I just reject the premise that the federal government is taking anything from the states.
00:37:45 Is EPA going to issue a federal- if it disagrees with the state's implementation plan, will
00:37:49 EPA issue their own plan then?
00:37:51 That is the authority Congress has given to EPA.
00:37:54 So EPA- Congress gave the authority to the states.
00:37:58 EPA is taking it away.
00:38:00 And you've written a rule that the courts said could not be used to force a transition
00:38:06 to new generation sources or usurp states' authorities.
00:38:10 That's just not factually true.
00:38:11 We have not written a rule-
00:38:12 Okay, okay.
00:38:13 We're going to set that aside then.
00:38:14 I want to get to- well, I just- I have a problem with a lot of things that are going on right
00:38:19 now.
00:38:20 EPA, billions of dollars for a clean school program that has gone almost entirely to electric
00:38:25 vehicles contrary to the statute.
00:38:27 $27 billion in a Green Bank giveaway to groups littered with Democrat political operatives.
00:38:33 I guess you described them as investing in America.
00:38:36 EPA has avoided audit thresholds by manipulating the amount of grants awarded.
00:38:41 Hundreds of millions of dollars to regional grant makers under an environmental justice
00:38:45 program and those grant makers are not even located in the regions that they're intended
00:38:49 to serve.
00:38:50 But I want to get to home in eastern Washington because EPA recently listed Lake Roosevelt
00:38:55 above Grand Coulee as a Superfund site.
00:38:58 This is going to have huge impacts on the communities that I represent.
00:39:02 So I'd like to ask you, Mr. Administrator, why did EPA refuse to give the communities
00:39:06 a chance to do the studies and work together to clean it up?
00:39:09 We didn't.
00:39:10 The listing of this site, according to our federal authority, helps us expedite the cleanup
00:39:16 because it unlocks federal funding when we list these national sites.
00:39:20 Okay.
00:39:21 Can I ask you a question about funding then?
00:39:24 Because the White House recently announced the Columbia River Basin settlement, which
00:39:29 was negotiated by the White House, includes, it says it includes efforts to target at Superfund
00:39:36 sites.
00:39:37 Does EPA plan to use some of this money from the settlement to fund the cleanup of the
00:39:40 upper Columbia River?
00:39:42 It's my assumption that not only will we use settlement dollars, but we can unlock the
00:39:47 billions of dollars in the bipartisan infrastructure law to help these Superfund sites expedite
00:39:52 their cleanup all over the country.
00:39:53 That's the purpose of the program.
00:39:55 Okay.
00:39:56 Yet to be seen.
00:39:57 Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
00:39:58 For years, everything from old tires to raw sewage has been dumped into Puget Sound.
00:40:02 This is destroying the salmon populations in Puget Sound.
00:40:06 Salmon runs are in decline.
00:40:08 Will EPA commit to enforcing the federal water quality standards being ignored in Puget Sound
00:40:14 before continuing down a path of breaching the Lorisnick River dams?
00:40:18 Will we enforce federal standards?
00:40:20 Yes, because it hasn't been done for as long as I've been in Congress in Puget Sound.
00:40:24 The federal water quality standards.
00:40:26 We absolutely will enforce congressionally authoritative federal standards.
00:40:30 I'm waiting.
00:40:31 I'm waiting.
00:40:32 I yield back.
00:40:33 The gentlelady yields.
00:40:34 The chair now recognizes the former chair, our former ranking member of the full committee.
00:40:39 Some things change while you're gone.
00:40:42 The ranking member of the full committee, a gentleman from New Jersey, Representative
00:40:47 Palone, for five minutes of questioning.
00:40:49 You can call me whatever you like.
00:40:53 Congress successfully reinstated the Superfund tax in the bipartisan infrastructure law and
00:40:58 the Inflation Reduction Act.
00:41:00 But last year, the tax brought in more than $1.2 billion in receipts.
00:41:04 And this represents significant savings for American taxpayers, despite being lower than
00:41:09 Treasury's estimates.
00:41:10 But that's what I want to issue, Administrator.
00:41:12 I understand Treasury is responsible for estimating Superfund tax receipts each year.
00:41:18 How is the EPA adapting to significant discrepancies between the Treasury forecast and the actual
00:41:24 Superfund tax receipts?
00:41:26 Well, we are continuing to collaborate very closely with our partners in Treasury.
00:41:31 And as you've mentioned, you know, the projections that Treasury gave us fell short this time.
00:41:40 And so we're fine-tuning that system, which is why in this budget we are asking for $300
00:41:46 million in appropriated resources.
00:41:48 We believe that we can take that $300 million plus those tax receipts that we have seen
00:41:53 come in and keep pace in terms of cleaning up these Superfund sites, in addition to some
00:41:58 of the resources that you all have allocated through Bill.
00:42:01 The demand is higher than the resources that we have.
00:42:05 Many of our communities are not as economically as vibrant as they could be because they're
00:42:09 not as clean as they could be.
00:42:11 And so we believe that we can make up for that gap with this appropriated request.
00:42:16 And then the future will be brighter in terms of funding this program through tax receipts.
00:42:20 Well, I appreciate that.
00:42:21 And I do actually support having additional appropriations for Superfund.
00:42:26 You know, my fear always is, well, now we get the money from the tax and therefore we
00:42:31 lag on the appropriated amount.
00:42:33 So I'm glad that you're, I mean, this is $300 million more than last year, right, from what
00:42:40 I understand.
00:42:41 Well, let me ask you, what would happen to these cleanups if EPA does not receive the
00:42:46 full amount requested, including that $300 million?
00:42:49 Well, unfortunately, we'll see a slowing in our ability to clean up these Superfund sites.
00:42:55 I think that South Plainfield, New Jersey would have to wait on the cleanup of PCBs.
00:43:02 We know that we can do it.
00:43:04 We have the expertise.
00:43:05 We just need the resources to keep pace.
00:43:08 And again, when we are able to list these communities, do this work as quickly as possible,
00:43:14 we see our communities bouncing back, not just from a health standpoint, but from an
00:43:18 economic development standpoint as well.
00:43:20 And let me say, I understand you're saying you need the extra $300 million because of
00:43:25 lagging or possible lagging Superfund receipts, but I support additional funding from appropriations
00:43:32 beyond that anyway, because we always need more money.
00:43:34 And I don't want appropriations that just make up for Superfund receipts.
00:43:40 I think we should be doing both, frankly.
00:43:43 I also wanted to applaud the decision to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under
00:43:50 Superfund.
00:43:53 But I understand that you released a separate enforcement discretion policy to make it clear
00:43:57 that the agency will focus its enforcement on the polluters who significantly contribute
00:44:03 to the release of PFAS into the environment.
00:44:06 So what does that mean?
00:44:09 In other words, I know the water utilities, the farmers, they're concerned.
00:44:14 Does this separate enforcement policy make it clear that we're talking about manufacturers?
00:44:19 What are the different groups that you're talking about here?
00:44:22 Well, I appreciate that question.
00:44:24 And we have authority to have this discretion, which we've used before, whether it's regulating
00:44:30 lead or other listed pollutants.
00:44:32 But I want to be very clear that we are focused on the polluters.
00:44:37 We are focused on the manufacturers that have deposited this into our water, into our air.
00:44:42 This enforcement discretion policy makes it very clear that we have the discretion not
00:44:47 to pursue or go after the farmers, the water systems, those who are also being victimized
00:44:53 by the dumping of this PFAS as well.
00:44:55 So we wanted the public to be clear of who we were pursuing and who we're not.
00:45:00 Well, thank you.
00:45:02 One last question I want to say, you know, obviously I would like to see all the PFAS
00:45:05 elements, you know, designated as hazardous substances.
00:45:11 I know that's difficult because there's so many and you've designated now PFOA and PFOS.
00:45:18 But are we going to see other elements of PFAS also designated at some point?
00:45:23 Is that what's going on?
00:45:25 We will.
00:45:26 I think when we look at cleanup and PFAS in our drinking water, we are pursuing the processes.
00:45:31 The proper process is to look at the health and the economic impacts of these forever
00:45:38 chemicals and we will go through a rulemaking process.
00:45:40 We've done that for cleanup for these two.
00:45:43 We've done six for drinking water.
00:45:45 We have 29 more listed.
00:45:46 And so we're making our way through that list.
00:45:49 Too many people have been impacted by these pervasive forever chemicals and we're going
00:45:54 to stay focused on the job.
00:45:56 Thank you very much.
00:45:57 Thank you for all you do.
00:45:58 I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
00:46:01 Chairman yields.
00:46:02 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Representative Palmer for five minutes
00:46:06 of questioning.
00:46:07 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:46:09 In the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, I call it the Income Reduction Act, provided
00:46:14 $27 billion for a green New Deal bank that the EPA is administrating.
00:46:21 I ask one of your senior advisors, Mr. Zeeland Hoover, if he could guarantee that none of
00:46:28 that $27 billion would wind up going to China.
00:46:32 And his response was that that answer is a little more complicated rather than give me
00:46:38 a simple yes or no.
00:46:40 Is that, do you think that question is too complicated?
00:46:46 What I would say is that the program is designed for all of that money to be invested domestically.
00:46:51 Yes, it's designed for that, but that's not the question.
00:46:54 It's a simple yes or no.
00:46:56 So will any of that money wind up going to China, any of its affiliates, any of its manufacturers?
00:47:03 The program is designed.
00:47:04 No, sir.
00:47:05 It's a yes or no.
00:47:06 No, it's not a yes or no question.
00:47:08 Yes, it is, because we already know that you-
00:47:10 If someone inappropriately invests money and it gets to China, there will be repercussions
00:47:16 to that.
00:47:17 The program is designed for domestic investment.
00:47:18 I mean, China controls 70% of the cobalt, 75% of the world's lithium-ion battery megafactories
00:47:24 are in China.
00:47:25 China controls the refining of 68% of the nickel, 59% of the lithium, 73% of the cobalt.
00:47:31 There is no way that you can say that none of that money will wind up in China, because
00:47:36 we can't make that stuff without parts from China.
00:47:40 We don't process critical minerals or rare earths over here to any great degree.
00:47:45 We don't have a major refinery, and as a matter of fact, there's not one in the Western Hemisphere,
00:47:49 to my knowledge.
00:47:50 So there's no way you can say that.
00:47:51 Let me ask you this, how much have you budgeted for the administration of that $27 billion
00:47:57 through the EPA bank?
00:47:59 As far as I know, the EPA never really had bankers, so how much are you spending of that
00:48:04 $27 billion just for the administration of it?
00:48:07 Well, Congress allotted a very small amount of the $27 billion.
00:48:10 But I asked you how much you're spending.
00:48:12 I didn't ask you how much Congress allotted.
00:48:14 We're only spending what Congress allotted for us to use for the program.
00:48:17 Okay, we'd like for you to give us a hard number on that.
00:48:20 I'd like to ask you something else.
00:48:23 This report's nine years old, but there was a report from Open the Books about the number
00:48:30 of special agents that the EPA hired, the weapons that they're provided with.
00:48:35 At that point, you stockpiled over 600 guns, 500,000 rounds of ammunition.
00:48:41 You had a whole host of military equipment, camouflage, and other deceptive equipment,
00:48:46 night vision, passenger troop transport vehicles, unmanned aircraft, and some pretty large caliber
00:48:54 artillery type shells, anti-tank type shells.
00:48:56 Do you still have that?
00:49:00 You read off a huge list of things that I don't have.
00:49:02 Do you have any military style weapons?
00:49:04 I don't have an inventory.
00:49:06 We don't have any weapons that Congress has not allowed for our agents to use.
00:49:11 I didn't ask you that.
00:49:12 I asked you, does the EPA possess military style weapons?
00:49:14 We can get you a full accounting of the inventory of weapons that our agents awfully illegally
00:49:19 have.
00:49:20 I expect that.
00:49:21 Let me ask you this.
00:49:22 Do you believe the EPA has the authority to make laws?
00:49:25 Absolutely not.
00:49:26 We enforce laws and we implement laws.
00:49:27 Okay, let me ask you this.
00:49:29 If you're issuing rules and guidance and someone fails to adhere to that, are there criminal
00:49:35 penalties?
00:49:37 We're only issuing guidance and regulations.
00:49:40 You're not answering the question.
00:49:43 I will ask another member to yield time to me if I have to, but you need to answer the
00:49:47 question.
00:49:48 If someone violates an EPA rule or guidance, are there criminal penalties?
00:49:52 Yes.
00:49:53 Okay, how's that different from a law?
00:49:56 We don't make laws.
00:49:57 Congress makes laws.
00:49:59 They give us the authority to write regulations and rules.
00:50:02 If you don't abide by those regulations and rules, there are penalties.
00:50:05 The Supreme Court in EPA versus West Virginia kind of rolled that back.
00:50:10 I know that's hard on you guys because you really disagree with that.
00:50:14 If the Supreme Court does the right thing and dispenses with the Chevron deference,
00:50:21 it's really going to fall back where it should to the people's elected representatives instead
00:50:26 of allowing bureaucrats at the EPA or any other federal agency to make laws that bypass
00:50:32 Congress.
00:50:33 That's really what's going on here.
00:50:36 My friend from Texas, Mr. Paluga, will have some other questions about some of the things
00:50:39 that are going on, particularly the methane tax and things like that.
00:50:43 What the EPA has done is it has grossly overstepped its bounds.
00:50:48 Then it's enforcing these laws with armed agents that show up, full body armor, weapons
00:50:55 drawn.
00:50:56 I know this for a fact because it happened in Dothan, Alabama with the city waterworks.
00:51:00 I could give you a whole list of that if you'd like me to provide a list.
00:51:04 I'm very concerned.
00:51:05 Okay, I'll tell you.
00:51:06 It's in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and like I said, Alabama.
00:51:11 Yes, I would.
00:51:12 You need to look into this.
00:51:13 When we service these enforcement actions, we're doing it with other law enforcement
00:51:17 agencies.
00:51:18 You did not do it.
00:51:19 This happens time and time again.
00:51:20 You did not do it in Alabama.
00:51:21 Homeland Security and others.
00:51:22 You did not.
00:51:23 You could have called the US Marshals.
00:51:24 You could have called the state troopers, the local county sheriff.
00:51:26 You did not do it.
00:51:27 I yield back.
00:51:29 Gentleman yields.
00:51:30 The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Representative DeGette, for five
00:51:34 minutes of questioning.
00:51:35 Thank you so much.
00:51:36 Administrator Reagan, I myself want to thank you and your entire agency for the work you
00:51:42 do to protect the health and welfare of all Americans and in particular my constituents.
00:51:48 I want to apologize for the unnecessary abuse that you are suffering in this hearing from
00:51:56 some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, asking you questions that have
00:52:00 multiple parts that you can't possibly answer in order just to get a soundbite at.
00:52:05 I apologize for that.
00:52:07 I also think it's kind of ironic that my colleagues are 100% opposed to what the EPA does unless,
00:52:15 of course, it's cleaning up environmental contamination in their districts.
00:52:19 They want to know why you didn't do it yesterday even though they keep trying to cut your budget.
00:52:24 You don't have to respond to that.
00:52:25 I just want to let you know it does not go unnoticed.
00:52:32 Mr. Palmer was referring a little bit to methane and I want to talk to you just for a few minutes
00:52:38 about methane because it's something I've worked a lot on.
00:52:42 Methane is responsible for about one-third of the current warming our planet is experiencing.
00:52:48 Is that right?
00:52:49 It is.
00:52:50 And it's true that oil and natural gas operations are our nation's largest industrial source
00:52:57 of methane.
00:52:58 Is that right?
00:52:59 It is.
00:53:00 Yes.
00:53:01 In 2021, June of 2021, President Biden signed into law a congressional review act invalidating
00:53:09 the Trump administration's 2020 methane rescission rule which tried to block EPA's authority
00:53:15 to regulate methane from existing sources.
00:53:19 Now I led the effort to invalidate this rule on the House side and what it did was it reinstated
00:53:28 two Obama-era methane emissions rules that set stricter limits on the amount of methane
00:53:33 the oil and gas industry can release from drilling sites.
00:53:37 Now so, Administrator Reagan, the administration's final methane rule addresses emissions from
00:53:42 both new and existing oil and gas operations.
00:53:45 Is that right?
00:53:46 Yes, it is.
00:53:49 And this enforcement the EPA takes, it's within the purview of the authorities that is given
00:53:55 to it by Congress.
00:53:57 Is that right?
00:53:58 Yes.
00:53:59 Now, why is it important to address existing sources of methane in the oil and gas industry?
00:54:05 Well, these existing sources, as you've correctly pointed out, are some of the most potent contributors
00:54:11 to greenhouse gas emissions which are exacerbating not only climate disadvantages but also disparate
00:54:19 impacts to health as well.
00:54:20 And so we're focused on these existing sources and these new sources because we're reducing
00:54:25 not only methane, we're also capturing the volatile organic chemicals and other toxic
00:54:30 pollutants that are disproportionately impacting neighborhoods around them.
00:54:34 That's right.
00:54:35 And speaking about some of those neighborhoods, it's not just methane.
00:54:40 In many districts, including mine, there are really vulnerable communities.
00:54:50 Typically they're low-income, disadvantaged minority communities.
00:54:53 They face multiple sources of pollution that compound upon one another, which has a negative
00:54:58 effect on a community's health.
00:55:01 And I think you know about one of those communities, Globeville-Elyria-Swansea, which is in North
00:55:07 Denver.
00:55:08 And I invited you to come there.
00:55:11 I think you went there, but I was voting.
00:55:13 So I'm inviting you to come back with me to see some of the impacts there.
00:55:18 I'm wondering what actions EPA plans to take to alleviate the environmental and health
00:55:23 risks of cumulative impacts for environmental justice communities.
00:55:28 Well, we're laser-focused on these cumulative impacts coming from multiple sources.
00:55:33 Thankfully, we started cross-programmatic efforts to take into account cumulative impacts.
00:55:40 But Congress, through the Inflation Reduction Act and bill, have given us the resources
00:55:44 to empower communities to also help us help them with solutions that they've had for decades.
00:55:50 So we have carrots as well as sticks in order to encourage the best behavior possible to
00:55:56 reduce these pollutants.
00:55:57 And how does the fiscal year 2025 budget, in tandem with these investments that you
00:56:02 just referred to, allow the EPA to work towards achieving those goals?
00:56:06 Well, it helps us to really focus on the areas that were not funded by bill and IRA.
00:56:12 We have some very core programs, whether it's looking at our emergency response.
00:56:17 We have situations, unfortunately, like East Palestine or like the bridge in Baltimore
00:56:22 or the wildfires in Maui.
00:56:24 We want to keep pace with TSCA to be sure that we don't have some of these chemicals
00:56:29 that are not the best out on the market and give us the ability to review and put new
00:56:34 chemicals out there.
00:56:36 We want to be sure that some of these congressionally mandated projects that are happening in districts
00:56:41 all across the country have the technical resources and availability to carry out that
00:56:46 spending.
00:56:47 And so we really need some core functions that benefit from the appropriated budget
00:56:53 that were not accounted for, nor should they have been, in the Inflation Reduction Act
00:56:57 and Bill.
00:56:58 Thank you.
00:56:59 Thank you so much.
00:57:00 I yield back.
00:57:01 The gentlelady yields back.
00:57:02 The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
00:57:06 Representative Joyce, for five minutes of questioning.
00:57:10 First I want to thank Chairman Carter for holding today's hearing and Administrator
00:57:13 Regan for coming to testify.
00:57:16 I've become very concerned about the punitive regulations and mandates that the Biden administration,
00:57:22 especially the EPA, have come out with recently.
00:57:26 I represent one of the poorest congressional districts in the country.
00:57:31 Over 100,000 families in my district live on less than $50,000 a year.
00:57:38 And that's the average cost of an EV.
00:57:41 Administrator Regan, I think that we share concern of the high energy costs impacting
00:57:45 people who can least afford it.
00:57:48 Are you not worried that your latest onslaught of regulatory actions will only serve to increase
00:57:54 the heating and the transportation costs for those who are most economically vulnerable?
00:58:00 We've taken a look at all of that.
00:58:03 And you share that concern with me, that the vulnerable will be most impacted?
00:58:06 Say yes or no.
00:58:08 We've shared the concern throughout the process.
00:58:10 I think we all have to share that concern.
00:58:13 Which is why we designed the regulations.
00:58:14 We're the most vulnerable.
00:58:15 I think that's part of our mission statement.
00:58:17 Moving on, I would like to ask a few questions related to one of the mandates, the California's
00:58:22 request for Clean Air Act waiver to implement the ACC2 program, which would ban the sale
00:58:29 of internal combustion engines by 2035.
00:58:34 Administrator Regan, states that align their vehicle emissions and standards with California
00:58:39 standards such as New York and Washington represent approximately 40% of the auto market.
00:58:45 Based on that fact, would you agree that the regulatory impacts of this rule go beyond
00:58:50 California impacting other states as well?
00:58:53 Well, California legally has the ability to petition us or submit a waiver.
00:58:59 We legally have the obligation to review that.
00:59:02 And so we're reviewing all of the waivers.
00:59:03 Would you agree that these regulatory impacts go beyond California?
00:59:07 Well, we'd have to take a closer look at these waivers.
00:59:10 Each waiver is being looked at individually and are under consideration right now.
00:59:15 So putting aside whether these impacts are good or bad for Americans, would you agree
00:59:19 that granting a Clean Air Act waiver to California will generally have significant impact on
00:59:26 the U.S. economy?
00:59:27 Well, again, it would depend on the waiver that has been submitted, but I've pledged
00:59:30 to follow the law and the law gives California the right to submit waivers and EPA legally
00:59:36 has to review those waivers.
00:59:37 EPA's national tailpipe emissions mandate mentions ACC2 13 times.
00:59:44 13 times it's mentioned.
00:59:45 Do you agree it appears to be significant enough for EPA to use it as justification
00:59:50 for a national emissions standard?
00:59:53 We did a separate focus on our national standard that was supported by the big autos, the Auto
00:59:59 Alliance, the UAW.
01:00:01 So EPA's efforts were independent.
01:00:03 We take into consideration all states, whether they be law—
01:00:05 And yet you took time to mention 13 times the ACC2 mandate.
01:00:10 That's mentioned 13 times in the national tailpipe emissions mandate.
01:00:15 That has to have impact of your decision making process.
01:00:18 Whether you're in North Carolina or California, we've taken every state into consideration.
01:00:22 It's a national law and we focused on it being nationally appropriate.
01:00:28 When Assistant Administrator Goffman testified before this committee just nine months ago
01:00:32 in June of last year, he stated that EPA's understanding is that, quote, "Auto manufacturers
01:00:38 have striven to avoid more than just one national fleet."
01:00:42 Do you agree that auto dealers will have to alter their national fleet to make the emissions
01:00:48 standards set by California and others in Section 177?
01:00:52 I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, so we'd have to get you more details on that.
01:00:57 I look forward to the follow up there.
01:01:00 If this rule has significant economic impact, and I think we agree it does, in affecting
01:01:05 consumers and markets in multiple states, will that impact competition and innovation
01:01:11 in domestic markets?
01:01:12 And would you agree that this qualifies as a major rule?
01:01:16 What I would say is California has submitted a waiver that we're evaluating.
01:01:20 I can't give you an answer on the finality of the waivers because we haven't approved
01:01:25 or disapproved those waivers.
01:01:27 Mr. Regan, during a hearing in front of this committee last year, you told me personally,
01:01:31 unequivocally, that you do not support a ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles
01:01:37 starting in 2035.
01:01:39 That was your answer to me.
01:01:40 Do you still oppose a ban on new gas-powered cars?
01:01:45 Absolutely.
01:01:46 We have not proposed a rule or finalized a rule that bans internal combustion engines.
01:01:51 When your agency considered California's ACC2 waiver, did you find that the regulatory impacts
01:01:57 of the ACC2 waiver were significantly greater than the impacts that EPA analyzed during
01:02:03 their reconsideration of the waiver withdrawal for ACC1 in 2022?
01:02:09 I'll have to get back to you on the specifics of these waivers.
01:02:10 These are two areas that I would really appreciate that you do get back to us.
01:02:15 My constituents are affected by this.
01:02:18 America is affected by this.
01:02:20 Your follow-up is welcomed and expected.
01:02:23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
01:02:24 The gentleman yields.
01:02:25 The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative Schakowsky, for five
01:02:31 minutes of questioning.
01:02:33 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much, Administrator Regan.
01:02:38 I want to say how much I appreciate your agency and the work that you do.
01:02:46 I also want to give a shout-out to Deborah Shore, who is our Region 5 administrator,
01:02:54 a good friend on all the work that she has done, including in East Palestine when she
01:03:00 went personally to deal with that issue.
01:03:04 Your team is just fantastic.
01:03:07 I'm from Chicago, so I have a special interest in that.
01:03:12 I have two issues that are important to my district, and I wanted to bring them to your
01:03:18 attention and see what the EPA is doing.
01:03:24 Soot pollution certainly is a big problem for us.
01:03:28 One in about ten Illinoisans experiences asthma.
01:03:34 That's a lot of people.
01:03:35 When it comes to children, there are communities when one out of three children suffer from
01:03:41 asthma.
01:03:43 The other are lead service lines.
01:03:47 Illinois has the second largest number of these lead service lines.
01:03:54 There's about a million of them in Illinois.
01:04:00 We're making some progress.
01:04:01 I want to thank the EPA, did make a contribution to our doing that.
01:04:08 We have a long way to go.
01:04:11 That means that our children and families are drinking water that could produce lifelong
01:04:20 consequences when it comes to health.
01:04:23 I know that the health and safety of our people is number one.
01:04:27 I'm wondering if you could comment on both of those.
01:04:30 >> Yes, and thank you for that question.
01:04:33 In addition to what I said about the PMNAGS being fully implementable by 99% of counties
01:04:40 in this country, we know that that rule would prevent close to 4,500 premature deaths and
01:04:48 eliminate close to 290,000 lost work days.
01:04:53 That by our estimate equates to about $46 billion in health benefits.
01:05:00 Very significant.
01:05:02 We have too many mothers that I personally met with whose children are drinking lead
01:05:06 poison water.
01:05:07 We are thankful for Congress's approval through the bipartisan infrastructure law of $14 to
01:05:14 $15 billion for lead replacement.
01:05:17 I believe just this year, Illinois will receive about $240 million going towards lead replacement.
01:05:24 >> Thank you for that.
01:05:26 >> Your state was very competitive and proved that they knew how to spend that money responsibly.
01:05:31 Identified those lead pipes and we won them out.
01:05:34 The president has pledged 100% lead pipe removal and we're going to do everything in our power
01:05:39 to see that vision through.
01:05:43 >> That's lead pipes, but also the issue of the soot pollution.
01:05:49 I know that you've had approved a stronger rule and there was some criticism about that.
01:05:59 I think it's so important.
01:06:00 You want to talk a little bit about that?
01:06:02 >> Yes.
01:06:03 That's what I was referring to in terms of the NAAQS rule that I was referring to earlier.
01:06:08 That is where we get those lives saved.
01:06:11 Avoiding 4,500 premature deaths.
01:06:15 For nearly $1 spent from that rule, we could see as much as $77 in human health benefits
01:06:22 by the year 2032.
01:06:24 Soot is such a dangerous pollutant for so many people in this country.
01:06:29 Especially those who have respiratory challenges already.
01:06:32 So it is incumbent upon us to eliminate that pollution.
01:06:36 If we see this pollution going from state to state, we have the federal authority to
01:06:42 help states manage that pollution and rein it in.
01:06:45 It's about fairness and transparency.
01:06:49 We want to be sure that every state is doing its fair share not to pollute their own communities,
01:06:54 but definitely not communities in neighboring states.
01:06:57 >> Thank you for that.
01:06:58 I want to say we have heard, particularly from my Republican colleagues, criticism of
01:07:05 some of the spending by the EPA.
01:07:09 I want to thank you for that spending because the priority then is the health of our community,
01:07:17 our environment, the things that you are doing.
01:07:21 Often what I hear in the hearings is corporate interests who say that they're going to suffer.
01:07:27 I think you're on the right page and I appreciate your work.
01:07:30 I yield back.
01:07:31 >> Thank you.
01:07:32 >> The gentlelady yields back.
01:07:33 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Representative Weber, for five minutes
01:07:38 of questioning.
01:07:39 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:07:40 Administrator Reagan, when you came here today, I don't mean to pry, but did you bring one
01:07:47 of those gas-powered automobiles you're so much in favor of or did you ride the train
01:07:52 to the federal triangle?
01:07:53 >> I came with my security detail.
01:07:57 >> Was that a gas-powered vehicle that you're in favor of?
01:08:00 >> Yes.
01:08:01 >> Okay.
01:08:02 In your exchange with Diana DeGette, she asked you if the oil and gas industry was the largest
01:08:08 suppliers of methane and you said yes, you agreed.
01:08:11 >> Yes.
01:08:12 >> Okay.
01:08:13 So, would you also agree that the oil and gas industry is the largest provider of energy
01:08:18 to the American public so that they can freely move around from their home to work to vacation
01:08:24 and shopping and help encourage the economy to grow?
01:08:28 Would you agree with that?
01:08:29 >> Oh, absolutely.
01:08:30 >> Okay.
01:08:31 And is it also, is it true that the oil and gas suppliers are also the largest suppliers
01:08:38 of energy to our great American military?
01:08:41 >> I believe that is correct, yes.
01:08:42 >> Well, I hope so.
01:08:43 They pump it out of the ground so that they got to get it somewhere.
01:08:47 So and they protect America and our great military protects America and Americans and
01:08:51 our allies.
01:08:52 You'd agree with that?
01:08:53 >> I do.
01:08:54 >> Okay.
01:08:55 >> And the oil and gas industry provides a pretty good function, wouldn't you agree?
01:08:58 >> Well, absolutely.
01:08:59 And we designed our rulemaking with that absolutely in mind.
01:09:02 >> And then you also had Dr. Joyce who said that has implications for the economy and
01:09:08 you agreed with that as well.
01:09:10 >> We take that into account with everything we do.
01:09:13 >> Okay.
01:09:14 So, my question really is one of the things that has happened under the TSCA, or Toxic
01:09:22 Substance Control Act, recently the EPA released a final rule directing how TSCA risk evaluation
01:09:28 should be done and the rule removed, quote, the definition for, quote, the best available
01:09:35 science, thereby undercutting the requirement in the law that Congress passed.
01:09:41 So while you recognize that the oil and gas industry plays a very viable function in a
01:09:48 myriad of ways, that's very, very important for Americans and for the economy and indeed
01:09:53 for our military and for security, not just for Americans but for our allies, don't you
01:09:59 feel kind of strange that removing that from the rule has absolutely overridden Congress's
01:10:06 intent when they wrote that law?
01:10:09 >> Removing, you said the best available science?
01:10:11 >> The rule removes the definition for, quote, best available science, end quote, which thereby
01:10:17 undercuts the requirement that Congress wrote in the law.
01:10:21 >> I'm not quite sure in what context that's written.
01:10:23 >> The TSCA Act.
01:10:24 >> We absolutely, in TSCA and everything we do, use the best available science, the best
01:10:30 science available, scientific integrity.
01:10:33 So I'd have to have a little bit more context in how that frame is being used.
01:10:37 >> Well then, if you don't mind, let's get back to me on that.
01:10:41 But I do want to get you on record, if I can.
01:10:44 You would agree that if EPA overrode Congress's desire in rulemaking, that something would
01:10:49 be wrong with that picture?
01:10:50 >> We absolutely want to stay in line with Congress.
01:10:52 >> So you strive diligently all the time to make sure that you all follow the wishes of
01:10:56 Congress?
01:10:57 >> Yes, we try not to ever exceed our congressional authority.
01:11:01 >> Do you ever raise a flag if you all look at something and you think that it's not practical
01:11:07 or that it would hurt the American public or American industry or American military?
01:11:11 >> Absolutely, and I think a number of CEOs in this country would say that I have.
01:11:15 >> Who do you report that to?
01:11:17 >> Report?
01:11:18 >> When you have an issue, you want to raise a flag, who do you communicate that to?
01:11:24 >> It depends on the issue.
01:11:26 Give me an example.
01:11:27 >> Well, for example, the rules in TSCA, for example, if you all remove the best science
01:11:31 available, that has implications.
01:11:34 That you overrode Congress's original law.
01:11:37 So who do you communicate with on that?
01:11:39 >> I'm not conceding at all that we remove the best available science.
01:11:42 >> Okay, but if you did, it would be an issue?
01:11:45 >> Yes, if we did, it would be an issue.
01:11:47 >> And who would you go to?
01:11:49 >> More than likely, our inspector general would be investigating that.
01:11:52 >> Okay, but you personally, if that was a concern, would you raise that issue to the
01:11:56 IG?
01:11:57 >> Well, if it was a concern about me, number one, I'd raise it to those who report directly
01:12:00 to me to get to the bottom of it.
01:12:02 But two, I met with my IG just last week.
01:12:04 We have a great relationship, and yes, we pursue full transparency on any exceedances
01:12:09 of the law.
01:12:10 >> Okay, well, I want to make sure that you keep the American public first and foremost.
01:12:13 And then American industry, too.
01:12:15 You know, the health of the American public is important.
01:12:16 And industry, too, they have to make money.
01:12:18 And then our great military has to have energy.
01:12:20 So we don't want to do things that, you know, hamper the energy industry.
01:12:24 Earlier this month, EPA finalized subpart W revisions that would add a new emissions
01:12:29 category, which shift to a site-specific measurement, utilize parametric monitoring, and revise
01:12:36 estimation methodologies for pneumatic controllers and pumps.
01:12:40 Did the EPA consider the significant financial liability assumed by oil and gas companies,
01:12:46 again, industry, when you do that?
01:12:48 And I'm out of time.
01:12:49 So get back to me on that, because it's important.
01:12:52 Mr. Chairman, thank you.
01:12:53 I yield back.
01:12:55 >> The gentleman yields back.
01:12:56 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Sarbanes, for five
01:13:00 minutes of questioning.
01:13:01 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Administrator Regan.
01:13:03 I think you're doing a terrific job.
01:13:05 Keep it up.
01:13:06 It's not easy.
01:13:07 But the Biden administration is setting the standard we need.
01:13:09 We're going to protect our environment, combat climate change, and do what's right for the
01:13:13 planet.
01:13:14 So thank you for that.
01:13:15 As you know, we're at a very critical point in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay,
01:13:19 the nation's largest estuary, one of the most productive bodies of water in the world.
01:13:23 And it's an invaluable natural and cultural resource.
01:13:27 In 2014, the seven jurisdictions in the watershed, Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Pennsylvania, West
01:13:32 Virginia, Delaware, and New York, came together with the EPA to sign a new Chesapeake Bay
01:13:37 watershed agreement that set goals and outcomes to restore the bay by 2025.
01:13:43 Much of the implementation of the Bay Agreement is managed through the unique regional partnership
01:13:47 of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, as you know, which coordinates restoration efforts across
01:13:52 states, agencies, and stakeholders.
01:13:55 There's just no substitute for EPA's role here, which is both as an enforcer of pollution
01:14:00 reduction targets and a valued convener of all the partners who have committed to reaching
01:14:07 our restoration outcomes.
01:14:09 And recently I met with Adam Ortiz, who's the Region 3 administrator.
01:14:13 Of course, you know that.
01:14:14 And Martha Shymkin, who's the director of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, to talk about
01:14:20 this very, very important role that EPA plays.
01:14:24 Could you just describe some of the goals that the Bay Program is pursuing with the
01:14:29 record level of appropriations we've been able to muster here, as well as the supplemental
01:14:33 funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law?
01:14:36 Well, thank you for that question.
01:14:37 And congratulations on your retirement.
01:14:40 We're going to miss your leadership.
01:14:41 I would say that since 2022, we've awarded more than $114 million in bill funding to
01:14:48 accelerate all of the programs that are designed to protect this national treasure.
01:14:54 And we are very fortunate with some of the regional leadership that we have and the scientists
01:14:58 that we have on board to engage as many of our partners as possible on the science, on
01:15:08 the economics, and on the latest and greatest best management practices and technologies
01:15:12 to restore the Bay.
01:15:14 As we look beyond 2025, because obviously we have fallen short of those goals we set,
01:15:20 we are excited to prepare recommendations for the Chesapeake Executive Council this
01:15:25 fall, which will contain a lot of recommendations for the very things that we've done and the
01:15:30 lessons learned there.
01:15:31 So we have been laser focused on this.
01:15:35 We've worked with all of the states surrounding to reduce their pollution into the Bay.
01:15:39 And we recognize not only the ecological and ecosystem dynamism of the Bay, but also the
01:15:46 economic and the recreational aspects as well.
01:15:50 Thank you.
01:15:51 Obviously, looking beyond 2025 now is absolutely critical.
01:15:56 The Bay Partnership has an opportunity this year, led by the Bay Program, to lean into
01:16:02 the restoration effort, reaffirming, updating the Bay Agreement, keeping it strong and robust
01:16:08 incorporating new science, streamlining administration, and revising goals according to what we found
01:16:14 works to clean up the Bay and its waterways.
01:16:18 I assume you would like to see a very robust update of the agreement between the Chesapeake
01:16:22 partners.
01:16:23 Absolutely.
01:16:24 The expectations are high, I want you to know, certainly within our delegation, but I think
01:16:29 beyond.
01:16:30 If you look at members of Congress who serve from the watershed, the kind of geography
01:16:36 of the watershed, they bring high expectations of the EPA's role, what it can do to, again,
01:16:43 as I say, lean into the new horizon when it comes to strengthening these protections of
01:16:50 the Bay and meeting important goals and setting important goals, and using the authority that
01:16:56 the EPA has under various authorities, et cetera, to make sure that everybody is cooperating,
01:17:05 that convener role is as strong as it can possibly be.
01:17:10 You mentioned the Chesapeake Executive Council coming up in December, which is made up of
01:17:15 the signatories to the Bay Agreement.
01:17:18 That's going to be happening in Annapolis.
01:17:20 It's to decide what the next steps are for meeting those expectations, those high expectations
01:17:25 beyond 2025.
01:17:27 Having you personally join that meeting would send a very powerful message about EPA's and
01:17:34 your support for the Bay cleanup.
01:17:36 I'd love to get a commitment today that you'll attend in December.
01:17:39 Is that something that you're planning to do?
01:17:42 It's on the radar.
01:17:43 The date hasn't been selected, but we're going to do our best to time that date with our
01:17:48 schedule.
01:17:49 I would give it the highest priority if you could.
01:17:51 I think, again, it would send a very powerful message.
01:17:54 I think your absence from it might, unfortunately, send the counter message in terms of focus.
01:18:01 We'd love to see you there.
01:18:02 Again, I want to thank you for your leadership in restoring this national treasure that we
01:18:08 certainly cherish in Maryland.
01:18:12 Thank you for your good work.
01:18:13 I look forward to collaborating as we move forward.
01:18:15 With that, I yield back.
01:18:16 The gentleman yields back.
01:18:18 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Balderson, for five minutes
01:18:22 of questioning.
01:18:23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:18:25 Administrator, thank you for being here today.
01:18:29 The EPA has claimed it addressed the reliability concerns posed by its recently finalized Section
01:18:37 111 power plant rule, the so-called Clean Power Plan 2.0, by including minor tweaks
01:18:44 such as allowing a one-year compliance deadline extension subject to EPA's approval.
01:18:50 Utilities need to start making resource decisions today and can't bank on the so-called flexibilities.
01:18:56 If a plant is shut down because of this rule, it can't just be turned back on in an emergency
01:19:00 situation.
01:19:01 The fact is, the power plant rule will threaten greater reliability.
01:19:06 Just last week, the largest grid operator in the nation, PJM Interconnection, which
01:19:10 covers the state of Ohio and the Ohio's 12th congressional district, made it clear this
01:19:16 rule threatens reliability.
01:19:17 Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter to the record the PJM's May 8th statement on the newly issued
01:19:24 greenhouse gas regulations, please.
01:19:27 Without objection.
01:19:30 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:19:32 Administrator, do you believe that you and the EPA are better experts on what is needed
01:19:37 to maintain grid reliability than the actual grid operators?
01:19:41 Well, I think we've made our decisions with consultation from the grid operators, FERC,
01:19:47 and others who specialize in grid reliability, along with our own experts.
01:19:52 Is it in your opinion that PJM is wrong in their assessment of this rule?
01:19:56 Will it threaten the grid reliability?
01:19:58 I'd love to read that report and have my staff analyze the threats that they perceive to
01:20:03 be there.
01:20:04 We consulted with PJM, so we'd love to continue to engage with PJM.
01:20:08 If you could let us know what your thoughts are after you and your staff read that.
01:20:14 In the light of these serious concerns from PJM, will you commit to asking the North American
01:20:18 Electric Reliability Corporation and the RTOs, the ISOs, for an independent review of the
01:20:23 reliability impacts of this regulation and the others?
01:20:26 EPA recently finalized on fossil fuel fired units.
01:20:30 We look forward to a lot of engagement with multiple industries and entities that are
01:20:36 responsible for the grid and delivering power.
01:20:39 Those conversations will continue to go.
01:20:41 Thank you.
01:20:42 In the state of Ohio, new data centers, I'm sure you're hearing about this, and manufacturing
01:20:46 sites are adding significant demand on the grid.
01:20:50 Just this week, AEP Ohio said they have agreements for new demand from existing and additional
01:20:55 customers to add 4,400 megawatts of power to central Ohio by 2030.
01:21:01 The EPA's final power sector rule will lead to the premature retirement of reliable generators
01:21:06 and prevent new gas resources from coming online as demand is growing rapidly.
01:21:12 This is a recipe for disaster.
01:21:15 Two weeks ago, the Secretary of Energy repeatedly told the committee that EPA's new power sector
01:21:20 rules for greenhouse gases no longer included standards for existing natural gas plants.
01:21:27 She failed to mention that those standards are coming.
01:21:30 In the new power sector rules, EPA states it intends to issue a new, more comprehensive
01:21:35 proposal regulating greenhouse gases from these existing sources.
01:21:40 EPA says that the proposal will focus on achieving greater emissions reductions from the sources.
01:21:48 Will this future rule on existing natural gas fire plants be more strict than the Section
01:21:53 111 rule that EPA finalized last month?
01:21:58 The reason we have given more time is because industry, the environmental community, justice
01:22:04 communities asked us to.
01:22:06 It will be more comprehensive, meaning the proposed rule only had the largest included.
01:22:11 We're looking at a more comprehensive approach, but we're also looking at additional flexibilities
01:22:16 and additional technologies that the industry asked for us to consider.
01:22:19 So we're starting a more elongated process to be sure that we have a more comprehensive
01:22:24 look, and that comprehensiveness goes towards coverage as well as technologies, best management
01:22:30 practices and the like.
01:22:32 Thank you.
01:22:33 The EPA has only received a few comments so far.
01:22:36 Given the impact of the rule covering existing gas plants we have, will the EPA extend the
01:22:40 deadline for comments?
01:22:42 I will circle with my staff about where we are with the process and the comments that
01:22:47 are coming in and what we need to do to accommodate a full engagement from all of our stakeholders,
01:22:52 because we need that.
01:22:53 Okay.
01:22:54 Thank you.
01:22:55 Thank you, Administrator.
01:22:56 I do appreciate you being here today, but I strongly disagree with your views on the
01:22:59 EPA's latest rules covering fossil fuel fire plants.
01:23:02 I believe it is important that this committee, as well as the House and Senate, continue
01:23:06 to push back on the EPA's rules that will threaten reliability and lead to ruling blackouts,
01:23:11 brownouts for our constituents.
01:23:13 To that end, I will be introducing a CRA resolution with Senator Capito to disapprove of the Clean
01:23:19 Power Plan 2.0.
01:23:21 I urge my colleagues to support this effort and make it clear that we will not sit on
01:23:24 the sidelines as the EPA wages war on the reliable baseload power that our constituents
01:23:29 rely on.
01:23:30 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:23:31 I yield back.
01:23:32 The gentleman yields back.
01:23:33 The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Representative Peters, for five
01:23:38 minutes of questioning.
01:23:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:23:40 Good morning, Mr. Administrator.
01:23:41 Thank you for being here.
01:23:42 Good morning.
01:23:43 San Diego, as you know, continues to endure one of the most significant environmental
01:23:47 catastrophes in the Western Hemisphere, the flow of untreated sewage and toxic waste across
01:23:53 the border from Mexico through the Tijuana River Valley watershed and into San Diego.
01:23:58 Recently a story from the San Diego Union-Tribune illustrates the seriousness of this circumstance.
01:24:03 The report highlights how a combination of increased sewer gas concentrations, obviously
01:24:07 contaminated water, and higher temperatures exacerbates respiratory illnesses, headaches,
01:24:12 and other health problems for my constituents and for the Navy SEALs that train in the water.
01:24:18 The San Diego Congressional Delegation, in partnership with our Senators and the Biden
01:24:21 Administration, and joined by the Republican members of this Congress, many of whom served
01:24:26 and trained in these waters themselves, have started to make some progress, and I want
01:24:30 to thank you for your help.
01:24:31 I also know you have personally made the trip to see and to smell this issue for yourself
01:24:37 because it is an experience you have to actually meet to understand.
01:24:42 So I want to thank you for coming out.
01:24:45 In the 2024 Appropriations Package, we secured a funding increase for the International Boundary
01:24:50 Water Commission's construction account, along with language to provide additional flexibility
01:24:55 for the Commission to repair critical sewage treatment infrastructure at the South Bay
01:24:59 International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the United
01:25:03 States government.
01:25:04 Again, thank you for your attention to this crisis.
01:25:08 Have you, as EPA and related stakeholders, have you identified potential funding sources
01:25:12 for IBWC with this new authority?
01:25:15 If so, can you provide a list of those agencies to my office?
01:25:18 And what more is the EPA doing to work with IBWC on this particular issue?
01:25:22 Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue and for securing that $156 million in
01:25:29 fiscal year 2024 for the South Bay Treatment Plant.
01:25:33 I do remember seeing it firsthand and was very struck by it, and we have been committed
01:25:38 to it ever since.
01:25:40 IBWC plans to use the money from this appropriation to make repairs, and we're also in contact
01:25:47 with them.
01:25:48 As the projects come in, we're prepared to provide the remaining funding of $290 million
01:25:54 for the expansion needed to safeguard these waters.
01:25:59 This is absolutely a whole-of-government approach, and so this past January, EPA and IBWC finalized
01:26:06 an interagency agreement to transfer the USMCA funds to the IBWC for treatment expansion
01:26:14 projects.
01:26:15 And so we are wisely using these funds.
01:26:18 We are strengthening our partnerships.
01:26:21 We're also using our international relationships to continue to hold Mexico accountable for
01:26:27 this pollution as well.
01:26:28 So all of the burden is not on the American taxpayers.
01:26:31 Thank you.
01:26:32 I want to spend the rest of my time talking about methane, just to refresh people's memory.
01:26:36 Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that's much more dangerous in the short term
01:26:40 than carbon dioxide, but it leaves the atmosphere much more quickly.
01:26:45 And so the opportunity to get rid of methane is really the low-hanging fruit in dealing
01:26:49 with climate change.
01:26:50 And to the extent that that comes from the oil and gas industry, I've gone to Texas a
01:26:57 number of times to suggest that that's something we could work on together.
01:27:01 As natural gas is going to be continued to be used, we can make ours cleaner.
01:27:05 I think that's very worthy.
01:27:06 And I want to commend you for your leadership when it comes to methane.
01:27:10 Analysis has shown that the final methane rule that you proposed will drive an 80% reduction
01:27:15 in methane emissions from what otherwise would be in the air without the rule.
01:27:19 Let's just talk for a minute about how we tackle the remaining 20%.
01:27:22 First of all, have you engaged the smaller oil and gas producers so that they can take
01:27:28 advantage of the methane emissions reduction program?
01:27:30 We put money in there to help them comply because we know how tough it is for some of
01:27:34 them to make ends meet.
01:27:36 There's money in the bill that we passed to help those folks.
01:27:39 How have you engaged with them to let them know that that's out there?
01:27:41 Well, we've engaged with them directly from day one on the rule, which I would say is
01:27:46 technologically advanced and very innovative that took into consideration the smaller producers.
01:27:52 But Congress, EPS partnered with DOE to provide over $1 billion in financial assistance for
01:27:58 some of the smaller operations.
01:28:00 So we are engaging directly to better understand what their needs are.
01:28:06 Last December, we announced $350 million to 14 states, $22 million to California, to focus
01:28:13 on super emitters and cutting emissions from wells and focusing on some of the smaller
01:28:18 producers.
01:28:19 So we're engaging directly.
01:28:21 We're having direct conversations with these smaller emitters.
01:28:24 We know what the needs are.
01:28:26 We're thankful for the billions of dollars Congress has given us through the Inflation
01:28:29 Reduction Act.
01:28:30 And we're going to make sure that they get those resources.
01:28:32 Again, I've heard from my colleagues in Texas this is an issue.
01:28:35 I think this money is available for compliance.
01:28:38 And for the record, I'm going to have to ask you a last question if you'll respond in writing.
01:28:42 I need an understanding of the number of abandoned or orphaned wells that are out there that
01:28:47 are leaking that have to be closed, plugged, and what the amount of money that would be
01:28:52 required to accomplish that task.
01:28:55 We'll provide that question in writing and ask you to respond.
01:28:58 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:28:59 I yield back.
01:29:00 The gentleman yields back.
01:29:01 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Allen, for five minutes
01:29:05 of questioning.
01:29:06 Thank you, Chairman Carter, for holding this important hearing on the Environmental Protection
01:29:12 Agency's fiscal year 2025 budget.
01:29:15 I want to thank Administrator Reagan for testifying in front of the subcommittee.
01:29:20 Thank you for being here today.
01:29:21 Good to see you.
01:29:22 Good to see you.
01:29:23 Unfortunately, during the past three years, we've seen some burdensome regulations coming
01:29:29 out of the EPA that harm innovation, manufacturing, increase energy prices for Americans across
01:29:35 the country.
01:29:36 We've talked about those already.
01:29:39 I have a lot to get through here, so I'm going to have to jump right in.
01:29:43 Many of our farmers in my district are worried they soon may also not be able to use the
01:29:47 crop protection products they rely on, dicamba and asafoetide, two important pesticides for
01:29:53 cotton growers especially are currently at risk of disappearing.
01:29:57 In the case of dicamba, a federal court ruling earlier this year vacated the current label.
01:30:04 They are a major dicamba.
01:30:06 Testified manufacturer has developed a new label, and I expect that other companies will
01:30:10 follow suit.
01:30:12 I want to encourage you to expedite these new labels through the process.
01:30:15 In the case of asafoetide, not the courts, but your agency has begun the process of banning
01:30:22 this pesticide.
01:30:24 We can't expect our farmers to continue to operate if we strip them of the critical tools
01:30:29 at this time.
01:30:31 The yields that they are providing are unprecedented, and if we restrict those yields, we're going
01:30:36 to run out of food, sir.
01:30:38 I hope that the EPA standards understands how critical these pesticides are and will
01:30:44 work with our farmers on this, and I would suggest that you get out there in the fields
01:30:48 and talk with them about it and how we're using it in Georgia safely.
01:30:52 Next I'd like to move on to the Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule, which will essentially shut
01:30:57 down reliable generation.
01:30:59 The electric cooperatives in my district provide electricity in some of Georgia's lowest income
01:31:04 and most disadvantaged communities, which is a hallmark of electric cooperatives across
01:31:08 the United States that collectively serve 92 percent of the country's persistent poverty
01:31:13 counties.
01:31:14 Personally, I think ensuring energy affordability is one of the most important things I can
01:31:18 work on in Congress, particularly for my rural constituents in the district.
01:31:24 Administrator Reagan, do you think it's fair to ask the rural energy consumers of the 12th
01:31:28 district to foot the bill for the Niset carbon capture technology that is required in this
01:31:33 rule?
01:31:34 No, we're not asking the rural electric cooperatives to do that.
01:31:39 My understanding is that no carbon capture system required by the power plant rule has
01:31:44 achieved the performance specifications demanded.
01:31:47 Is that yes or no?
01:31:48 I answered that question inaccurately earlier.
01:31:51 The answer is yes.
01:31:52 Petra Nova in Texas has achieved that 90 percent.
01:31:55 Next, I'd like to talk about the particulate matter PM 2.5 rule that EPA finalized this
01:32:02 year.
01:32:03 I believe this rule is disastrous for manufacturing, especially in my home state of Georgia, which
01:32:09 is consistently the top state to do business in.
01:32:12 That's why I introduced the CAR rule for this.
01:32:16 I'd like to clarify, you said your modeling says that 90 percent of counties will be in
01:32:21 attainment under the new PM standards.
01:32:24 Mayor Carter's point is that 90 percent of counties will not have the room or headspace
01:32:29 to permit new manufacturing.
01:32:33 This is a problem.
01:32:36 Georgia is also the number one forestry state in the country, providing high paying and
01:32:41 stable jobs for many of my constituents.
01:32:44 Controlling wildfire risk through prescribed perms is essential for the health of forests
01:32:47 and safety of nearby communities.
01:32:49 According to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, from 2019 to 2021, there were 37
01:32:57 exceedances of the daily particulate matter standard attributable to exceptional events.
01:33:03 25 of those were because of prescribed burns.
01:33:07 Unfortunately, exceptional event demonstrations have typically been restricted to events that
01:33:12 spike PM 2.5 concentrations above 35 micrograms.
01:33:18 I'm afraid that because of the lowered standards, with no changes to exceptional events threshold,
01:33:25 land managers and states are being dissuaded from using prescribed burns to manage wildfire
01:33:31 risk.
01:33:33 Why did the EPA tighten the PM 2.5 standard without addressing the threshold for exceptional
01:33:40 event demonstrations?
01:33:42 We absolutely addressed the exceptional events.
01:33:47 We engaged with all of our forest managers across the country.
01:33:51 So you have addressed those?
01:33:53 When you look at wildfires, exceptional events, yes.
01:33:56 That data that hits those monitors is not contributing to any kind of exceedances.
01:34:01 Continuing with the PM 2.5 and exceptional event demonstrations, I'm concerned that even
01:34:06 when states can submit demonstrations, the agency is not addressing them in a timely
01:34:11 manner.
01:34:12 Is that true?
01:34:13 No.
01:34:14 I think they're very responsive.
01:34:15 If there are some cases that you can point to, I would be glad to look into those.
01:34:19 We will do that.
01:34:20 Last year, the GAO published a report showing the EPA is falling behind with a growing number
01:34:24 of submissions being on hold or under review.
01:34:28 The President's budget request does not address exceptional events and any of its air quality.
01:34:33 Is processing exceptional events a priority for the EPA, given its crucial role in preventing
01:34:38 areas from slipping into non-attainment?
01:34:41 It is.
01:34:42 Okay, well I am out of time.
01:34:44 Thank you, Mr. Administrator, and I yield back.
01:34:47 Thank you, sir.
01:34:48 The gentleman yields back.
01:34:49 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Representative Pflueger, for five minutes
01:34:53 of questioning.
01:34:54 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:34:55 Administrator Regan, do you intend to place the Permian Basin into a status of non-attainment
01:35:01 regarding ozone?
01:35:03 We're going to continue to work with both Texas and New Mexico to manage this process.
01:35:07 Are you aware that there are only three monitors in the entire Permian Basin, and do you know
01:35:12 where those monitors are?
01:35:13 I'm sorry?
01:35:15 Are you aware that there's only three monitors, and do you know where those monitors are located?
01:35:19 I personally don't know where the monitors are, but my staff does.
01:35:22 They're in New Mexico.
01:35:23 Do you know how big the Permian Basin is?
01:35:25 I have an idea, yes.
01:35:26 Have you been there?
01:35:28 I have not.
01:35:29 I want to commend Dr. Nance for coming.
01:35:32 Do you make the decision on non-attainment?
01:35:37 I'm not quite sure.
01:35:38 Do you make the decision as the administrator of the EPA?
01:35:41 No.
01:35:42 You don't?
01:35:43 We have a program that determines non-attainment.
01:35:44 Who makes that decision?
01:35:46 Our Office of Air and Radiation makes that decision.
01:35:47 Are you the principal advisor to the President on air quality?
01:35:52 I am.
01:35:53 So, do you make the decision on non-attainment?
01:35:55 No, I don't personally make the decision on non-attainment.
01:35:57 There's a program that evaluates.
01:35:59 What I heard today was you visit a lot of communities that you're worried about, right?
01:36:03 I absolutely do, yes.
01:36:04 Are you worried about the Permian Basin?
01:36:06 That's why Dr. Nance was there last week.
01:36:08 Are you personally worried about it?
01:36:10 I am, but when I can't make it everywhere, all 50 states, that's why our A's go and make
01:36:15 these visits that she made with you last week.
01:36:17 Tell me how much methane intensity has been reduced in the Permian Basin in the last 10
01:36:21 to 15 years.
01:36:22 I could have staff answer those questions for you.
01:36:24 This is a really important area.
01:36:27 It's the most important area for energy production in the entire world.
01:36:32 Wouldn't you think you would know what the intensity decrease was over the last 10 to
01:36:36 15 years?
01:36:37 As the administrator of a very large agency, I don't walk around with those specific facts
01:36:41 in my head, but there are people that do.
01:36:44 That's why we're having this hearing.
01:36:45 Will you commit to coming to the Permian Basin before a final decision is reached?
01:36:49 I will commit that we'll have senior management come to the Permian Basin.
01:36:52 I think this is why we're having problems.
01:36:54 Do you think the EPA should be authorized by Congress?
01:37:00 Do I think it should be?
01:37:01 Do you think your organization should be authorized by Congress?
01:37:04 I guess President Nixon in 1970 and Congress in 1970 thought that.
01:37:11 We'll ask those questions later.
01:37:12 We're talking about the most important secure supply of energy in the entire world.
01:37:18 The economic impact, the amount of production, the low price, affordable, clean energy, 32
01:37:25 plus percent is the reduction in methane intensity in the Permian Basin over the last 10 to 15
01:37:30 years.
01:37:31 At the very same time, we've increased the production fivefold from a million barrels
01:37:35 a day to six million barrels a day.
01:37:36 I'm very disappointed that you don't know that because that is exactly why we are concerned
01:37:41 about the overreach of the EPA, not having those facts, saying you don't walk around
01:37:46 with those facts.
01:37:47 You have to walk around with those facts.
01:37:49 We're talking about energy security for our entire country here.
01:37:53 This is the area that you should come visit.
01:37:55 Of all the areas, this is the area that you personally should come visit.
01:38:00 Did you write, did you review the subpart W final rule?
01:38:04 The last time you and I talked, you asked for me to send Dr. Nance.
01:38:08 Now today, as a gotcha, you've never invited me before and now you're inviting me.
01:38:14 We supplied Dr. Nance to come see you.
01:38:16 We have invited her and I'm glad she came and visited.
01:38:18 I try to oblige your ask whenever you make them.
01:38:20 This is the most important energy production area in the entire world.
01:38:23 You asked Dr. Nance.
01:38:24 You as the EPA director should come visit it because if you're worried about methane
01:38:28 intensity you would know that we've reduced it by 32%.
01:38:31 I am absolutely worried about it.
01:38:33 Did you review the subpart W?
01:38:34 I honored your request of Dr. Nance coming to visit you.
01:38:38 Did you review the subpart W rule personally yourself?
01:38:42 Of course I was briefed on the subpart W rule.
01:38:43 Did you review the rule?
01:38:45 Of course I was briefed on the subpart W.
01:38:47 Do you know how many pages that rule is?
01:38:49 I don't count pages in rules.
01:38:51 We do.
01:38:52 I mean you might think that I have time to do that, but I don't have time to count pages
01:38:55 in rules.
01:38:56 That's such a ridiculous question.
01:38:58 I feel like you're getting very defensive in these questions.
01:38:59 No, I'm not defensive.
01:39:00 I just like reasonable questions.
01:39:02 Let me tell you how many pages in rules.
01:39:04 I think you would know because you know how many pages it is?
01:39:07 It's 2,685 pages.
01:39:09 How many pages are in the electric vehicle?
01:39:10 Administrator Regan, I'm going to reclaim my time.
01:39:11 How many pages are in the clean cars rule?
01:39:13 I'm going to reclaim it.
01:39:14 I've got lots of rules to count pages on.
01:39:16 Mr. Chairman, can we suspend?
01:39:17 We'll reset that clock for a second.
01:39:18 I'm not sure exactly how much time, but I'll wait until we get it back.
01:39:44 Thank you.
01:39:45 2,685 pages.
01:39:46 You earlier testified today that you have been engaging with small energy companies
01:39:51 from day one.
01:39:52 Is that true?
01:39:53 Yes.
01:39:54 Do you know how many companies your agency has actually engaged with?
01:39:57 From Mr. Goffman to my office?
01:40:00 Eight.
01:40:01 Eight companies.
01:40:02 I asked him the same question I'm going to ask you.
01:40:06 Which small producers have you engaged with regarding methane, ozone, or any of the finalized
01:40:14 rules?
01:40:17 We will get you a complete list.
01:40:18 It was given to me.
01:40:19 It was eight companies, and not a single one of them were small independent producers.
01:40:24 We will get you a complete list.
01:40:26 These are not gotcha questions.
01:40:29 This is to demonstrate the fact that I don't believe you personally have taken the time
01:40:33 and interest in an area that is producing 43 plus percent of our country's oil and gas
01:40:38 production.
01:40:39 It is a gotcha question.
01:40:40 You're asking me to ask my regional administrator to visit you, and we do that.
01:40:45 By the way, the visit was—
01:40:46 You're not appreciative of that, and you say I haven't gone.
01:40:49 The visit was very much appreciated.
01:40:51 The gentleman's time has expired.
01:40:52 You are invited, and I would appreciate you getting back to me.
01:40:56 2,685 pages is way too much to understand anything about how to enforce these rules,
01:41:04 how they're going to impact economically.
01:41:06 I know my time has expired.
01:41:07 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:41:08 I appreciate the invitation.
01:41:09 The gentleman yields.
01:41:10 I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative—I'm sorry.
01:41:14 The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Representative Barragán.
01:41:21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:41:23 Administrator Regan, I want to thank you for your tireless work to strengthen our air and
01:41:28 our water protections and invest in environmental justice communities.
01:41:32 It was great to have you in my district last month to announce EPA's Clean Ports Program,
01:41:37 which I was proud to secure funding for in the Inflation Reduction Act the Democrats
01:41:42 fought to pass.
01:41:43 I'm sorry you have to deal with questions about pages and things of that nature, because
01:41:50 if I sat here and asked a member of Congress how many pages one of their bills was, they
01:41:54 probably wouldn't know the answer to it.
01:41:56 Or if I asked the member of Congress the meetings they took six months ago and with whom and
01:42:01 where, I would probably have to get back to my staff.
01:42:04 So I apologize you have to get gotcha questions and instead focus on the work that you're
01:42:11 doing for the American people, which is so critical.
01:42:15 One of those is EPA and lead in aircrafts that I want to ask you about.
01:42:21 Last fall, the EPA issued an endangerment finding that lead emissions from aircraft
01:42:27 are harmful to public health.
01:42:30 The science is clear, there is no safe blood level of lead.
01:42:34 And exposure to lead can have permanent detrimental health impacts on children.
01:42:40 My constituents live near Long Beach Airport, suffer from this lead pollution where planes
01:42:46 emit almost 1,600 pounds of lead each year into neighborhoods.
01:42:51 Now that the endangerment finding has been finalized, EPA is obligated to propose regulations
01:42:57 for lead emissions from aircraft that use leaded fuel.
01:43:01 Can you tell us where the EPA is in the process and what are your next steps to address leaded
01:43:07 aviation fuel?
01:43:09 Well thank you for that question and thank you for your leadership.
01:43:12 Yes, because we have issued an endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to
01:43:18 propose and promulgate standards.
01:43:21 So our subsequent regulatory action will be done in concert with FAA.
01:43:25 We're going to be working together to carefully consider the technology, the cost, the lead
01:43:30 time, the safety.
01:43:31 We are well on our way having those conversations and we're working on regulatory options that
01:43:36 address these potentially harmful emissions and we're going to keep doing that in partnership.
01:43:43 Great.
01:43:44 Well, when a rulemaking process is launched, I would respectfully ask the EPA to hold a
01:43:51 public hearing in Long Beach, California so my constituents can have an opportunity to
01:43:56 give public comment and certainly would love that engagement.
01:44:00 Great.
01:44:01 Mr. Administrator, moving on to my next question.
01:44:03 The Inflation Reduction Act included $3 billion for the Environmental and Climate Justice
01:44:08 Grant Program.
01:44:09 Based off of my bill, the Climate Justice Grants Act, how have the initial grants from
01:44:15 this program benefited environmental justice communities and is EPA on track to award the
01:44:20 remaining $2 billion in community change grants by the end of this year?
01:44:25 Well, thank you for that and yes, we are on track.
01:44:29 As of last November, we launched our new Community Change Grants Program, which will invest $2
01:44:34 billion in activities that benefit disadvantaged communities.
01:44:37 As you know, many of these communities have had solutions for decades.
01:44:41 They just haven't had a seat at the table.
01:44:43 This is a significant opportunity to do that.
01:44:46 In December of 2023, we announced $600 million for 11 selected grant makers under the Environmental
01:44:52 Justice Thriving Communities Grant Program.
01:44:54 So we're ensuring that we're soliciting partnership with those who have been on the ground, who
01:45:00 understand where these investments should go and we're very confident that we're on
01:45:03 track doing that.
01:45:04 Great.
01:45:05 Thank you.
01:45:06 There are eight adopted California climate and clean air rules waiting on federal waivers
01:45:10 from EPA.
01:45:11 These rules include zero emission standards for tugboats, locomotives and trucks.
01:45:16 I know you've heard me already ask you privately, so publicly, will EPA prioritize the review
01:45:21 of these waivers?
01:45:23 We absolutely will.
01:45:24 We have.
01:45:25 We've been working with CARB.
01:45:26 They are eight waivers.
01:45:28 They are very ambitious waivers and so we want to give the correct technical evaluation
01:45:33 to them.
01:45:34 So we've been having those conversations and we've begun to prioritize those eight waivers
01:45:39 in response to how California is also advising the priority of those eight waivers.
01:45:44 Great.
01:45:45 Thank you.
01:45:46 If EPA were to approve all these waivers, nearly 9,000 lives could be saved and California
01:45:49 would see over 75 billion public health benefits.
01:45:53 This also has national implications since other states can opt into California standards.
01:45:57 So I just urge EPA to make these waivers a priority.
01:46:02 For my next and last question, for the President's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget, there is
01:46:07 a significant requested increase for EPA's civil rights program, which enforces compliance
01:46:14 with civil rights laws to address environmental injustice in communities.
01:46:17 Can you provide greater detail on how EPA plans to use these additional funds to address
01:46:21 environmental and public health disparities?
01:46:23 Absolutely.
01:46:24 We are responding to an unprecedented volume of civil rights complaints filed with the
01:46:29 agency.
01:46:31 These resources will represent about a $20 million increase and that will help us advance
01:46:37 this very important work.
01:46:38 It will help us to not only give a close review of these complaints, but also engage with
01:46:45 those who have filed these petitions in a timely manner and provide a level of transparency
01:46:51 on that civil rights program.
01:46:52 So that request is in, is sorely needed, and we look forward to the partnership in receiving
01:46:59 those funds.
01:47:00 Great.
01:47:01 Thank you.
01:47:02 I yield back.
01:47:03 The gentlelady yields.
01:47:04 I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative Pence.
01:47:08 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Regan, for being here.
01:47:12 As a little side note, at one time in my life, I was the Chief Deputy Commissioner of the
01:47:17 Indiana Department of Environmental Management, so you and I have a little bit of background
01:47:22 in that.
01:47:23 I've got a Richmond coal plant, Richmond, Indiana.
01:47:26 I'm in the Indiana 6th District, and it's one of those plants that when it gets two
01:47:31 degrees like it did in December, they turn it on, and when it gets real hot in the summer,
01:47:35 they turn it on, but it doesn't run all the time.
01:47:38 I got a question about an aspect of some new recent regulations.
01:47:43 Your current coal combustion residuals policy was overtly silent on beneficial reuse, but
01:47:49 the new rule covertly, retroactively regulates it through the EPA's new position that the
01:47:54 CCR cannot be beneficially used on site.
01:47:57 Was this intentional?
01:47:58 If not, can you correct that?
01:48:00 I'll take a look at the level of specificity on that.
01:48:05 Obviously our crew looked at the health disbenefits of some of that coal ash and how it was being
01:48:12 stored and how it was being reused.
01:48:15 This one's nowhere near the waterway.
01:48:18 This has been going on for over 100 years, still in the same containment.
01:48:21 I wish you would do that.
01:48:22 We'll take a look at that.
01:48:24 It's owned by the city of Richmond, 37,000 people.
01:48:30 We need it as base load until an alternative can be and not just shut down and wipe out
01:48:39 base load when we need it most.
01:48:41 See, I'm taking a kinder, gentler approach to you.
01:48:45 Giving you a break.
01:48:46 How's that sound?
01:48:48 Last time we spoke, we talked about RINs, e-RINs.
01:48:54 While the EPA decided to remove e-RINs from their final RFS rule, they cannot be taken.
01:48:59 They have not taken the idea off table for future regulations.
01:49:03 At a June 2023 hearing in front of this committee, Assistant Administrator Joe Goffman stated
01:49:09 your agency would be leaving the door open for e-RINs.
01:49:15 Has the EPA had any further internal discussions about the e-RIN program?
01:49:20 We're still in that evaluation mode.
01:49:23 We got a lot of comments on that program ranging from how it could be done in an efficient
01:49:30 way to questioning the legal authority to do so.
01:49:34 We're taking our time and giving that careful deliberation.
01:49:37 One of the things that you and I talked about the last time we met, having spent my life
01:49:42 in distributing petroleum product and moving, buying, selling RINs and seeing the effect
01:49:50 that that had on some groups versus other groups, I'm very concerned that this is going
01:49:56 to, while it may create credits for some, particularly in my manufacturing area, it
01:50:04 may increase costs drastically.
01:50:07 Would e-RINs be something that a manufacturing facility, if they weren't buying clean energy,
01:50:14 would they have to get in that game?
01:50:17 Let me have my folks get back to you on that.
01:50:19 After laying out the conundrum that we're in, it's very complex.
01:50:23 We don't want to have any unintended consequences.
01:50:25 We want it to be fair and transparent.
01:50:27 That's one of the reasons we put a pause on it and we're doing this thorough evaluation
01:50:31 of it.
01:50:32 Certainly, as you know, RINs intentionally or maybe not intentionally pick winners and
01:50:37 losers and cost one segment a great deal of money to continue to operate.
01:50:42 The whole idea of e-RINs and using clean energy covers, as you just said, and I hope you focus
01:50:52 on that, could cover a whole bunch more people than anybody intended and could be a real
01:50:59 moneymaker for Wall Street.
01:51:01 The trading of those, as I saw with RINs in and of themselves, became a very hot commodity
01:51:10 and in some cases were worth more than selling the petroleum was.
01:51:17 Would e-RINs become more valuable than clean energy on a market traded?
01:51:23 Have you discussed that?
01:51:27 We're looking at all of those options.
01:51:29 Again, that is one of the reasons we didn't move forward.
01:51:32 There's a lot of things that need to be looked into.
01:51:34 I hope that our teams can continue to talk because we want that input if and when we
01:51:39 move forward with e-RINs.
01:51:40 Well, great.
01:51:41 I hope you find the right thing there.
01:51:45 See, wasn't this a better line of questioning than you have?
01:51:48 I'm a Republican.
01:51:49 With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
01:51:52 The gentleman yields.
01:51:53 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Dr. Ruiz.
01:51:57 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
01:51:59 Mr. Reagan, thank you for joining us today and for your dedication to improving air quality,
01:52:04 expanding clean water access, and promoting environmental conservation.
01:52:09 These are three initiatives that greatly impact the people I represent.
01:52:14 I'm going to speak about them and ask you questions about them.
01:52:18 First, in terms of air pollution, my district consistently gets F-grades by the South Coast
01:52:25 Air Quality Management District for their air quality.
01:52:31 We have the highest rates of asthma in the entire state of California.
01:52:36 In March 2024, the EP announced a rule to strengthen air quality standards, lowering
01:52:41 the particular matter threshold from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter.
01:52:47 This adjustment will significantly reduce the harmful impacts of fine particulates in
01:52:51 the air.
01:52:52 Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues seek to impede the progress and undermine the agency's
01:52:57 ability to protect the public's health.
01:53:00 Can you speak to the projected public health benefits of the stronger standard and how
01:53:04 it can help our community, specifically our most vulnerable members?
01:53:08 Absolutely.
01:53:09 Thank you for your leadership on this issue and for your advocacy for proper monitoring
01:53:15 and programs for your district.
01:53:17 The new standard will absolutely save lives and avoid illnesses, preventing up to 4,500
01:53:24 premature deaths and 290,000 lost work days.
01:53:28 We know that that number disproportionately impacts some segments of the population.
01:53:36 We have designed a public health standard that we believe is most protective of those
01:53:40 who are most vulnerable.
01:53:41 It also yields $46 billion in net health benefits by the year 2032.
01:53:47 The thing that's really impressive is for every dollar spent from this action, there
01:53:51 could be as much as $77 in human health benefits through the duration of this rule.
01:53:56 It is focused on public health for everyone, but especially those who have been disproportionately
01:54:01 impacted.
01:54:02 Thank you.
01:54:03 Secondly, over the past decade, my district has consistently been categorized by the EPA
01:54:07 as a non-attainment due to unhealthy air quality exceeding the 2012 standard of 12 micrograms
01:54:13 per cubic meters.
01:54:14 Could you highlight the tools that the EPA is using to help underserved rural and minority
01:54:19 communities like mine reduce their pollution levels and come into attainment?
01:54:24 Absolutely.
01:54:25 Number one is we are trying to up our game in the monitoring of these areas to be sure
01:54:29 that we have our finger on the pulse, which I believe we do.
01:54:33 Secondly, there are a lot of technical assistance grants and opportunities that we're deploying
01:54:38 at the local level so that we can see local innovation and creativity match with state
01:54:43 and federal obligations.
01:54:46 When you look at what can be done at a local level in a unique way, but also if you add
01:54:52 some of the federal regulations that we are doing to rain and tailpipe emissions, to look
01:54:56 at fugitive emissions and others, we believe that cumulatively that will help those communities.
01:55:01 Thirdly, the residents in my district have struggled with getting access to clean water.
01:55:07 For years, I've collaborated closely with the EPA to improve the water supply at the
01:55:11 Oasis Mobile Home Park where residents face toxic high arsenic levels in their water supply.
01:55:20 Since at least 2019, the Oasis Mobile Home Park has faced recurring water issues.
01:55:24 The EPA has issued emergency orders that year due to arsenic levels in the water system
01:55:30 being up to nine times the maximum containment level, with two more orders following since
01:55:35 then.
01:55:36 Could you highlight the steps the EPA is taking to address arsenic in underserved communities
01:55:40 like Oasis?
01:55:41 Well, absolutely, and no community should have to face what Oasis is facing.
01:55:46 We've been taking action.
01:55:48 As you know, EPA and DOJ filed a complaint against these operators.
01:55:52 We're hoping for an anticipated trial date as early as, I believe, next year, but we
01:55:58 have assumed direct oversight of 20 water systems since 2020.
01:56:03 As of January 6th, have returned to compliance because of EPA's action.
01:56:08 We're going to continue to focus on those 14 that are left, but rest assured, the Department
01:56:14 of Justice and EPA plan to hold Oasis accountable for this travesty and ensure that we try to
01:56:20 make that community as whole as possible.
01:56:22 I hope so.
01:56:23 A 17-year-old young man died of renal cancer, which is a possibility of arsenic consumption,
01:56:33 chronic high loads of arsenic consumption.
01:56:35 He had no other risk factors from Oasis Mobile Home Park.
01:56:40 Lastly, the Colorado River Basin, which supplies water to over 40 million people in major U.S.
01:56:46 cities, is experiencing its driest period in over 1,000 years.
01:56:51 Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law, the administration
01:56:55 was able to allocate $15.4 billion for Western Water Resources to bolster drought resilience.
01:57:01 Could you highlight how EPA funds such as these will properly allocate and distribute
01:57:07 to advance the conservation efforts in the region?
01:57:10 Absolutely.
01:57:11 First, we're working closely with the White House, Reclamation, and other agencies to
01:57:14 be sure that we're leveraging every single dollar.
01:57:18 We have highlighted drought resilience, eligibilities, and priorities in the implementation of the
01:57:22 bipartisan infrastructure law.
01:57:24 In particular, our Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund has delivered more than $2.5 billion
01:57:30 to the basin states for drought resilience and other critical water infrastructure.
01:57:34 We've not only prioritized it in terms of EPA's goals, but also ensuring that from an
01:57:39 interagency standpoint, we're doing the same thing.
01:57:41 Thank you.
01:57:42 I yield back.
01:57:43 The gentleman yields.
01:57:44 The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa, Dr. Miller-Meeks.
01:57:49 Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Administrator Regan, for testifying before the committee.
01:57:52 I actually have a lot of questions for you today, so I'd appreciate it if you can keep
01:57:56 your responses brief.
01:57:57 However, it bears repeating, and I've said this numerous times in this hearing when we're
01:58:01 talking about health benefits, health consequences, that 5 million people die globally every year
01:58:08 due to exposure to excessive hot or cold.
01:58:12 The vast majority of those, 8 percent, die from cold eight times more than from heat.
01:58:16 4.5 million annually.
01:58:18 2019 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that by driving down natural
01:58:23 gas prices due to the fracking revolution has saved more than 11,000 American deaths
01:58:29 in winter per year from 2005 to 2011.
01:58:33 That hypothesis, actual deaths, and death, I would say is a severe health consequence.
01:58:38 The draft proposals put forward by the EPA to allow electric vehicle manufacturers to
01:58:43 participate in generating renewable fuel standard credits were unprecedented and highly concerning,
01:58:49 if finalized.
01:58:50 I know you addressed this with Representative Pence, but I think it bears repeating because
01:58:54 Iowa has some of the highest production of biofuels, be it ethanol, biodiesel, or compressed
01:59:00 renewable natural gas.
01:59:01 We also know that if in the United States we aren't producing those things, they will
01:59:06 be produced elsewhere at much more significant environmental consequences.
01:59:11 The RFS was not meant for electricity generation from an electric vehicle, even if that electric
01:59:17 vehicle is charged using biogas that creates electricity.
01:59:21 Minister Regan, can you commit that the EPA will not move forward with a rule to allow
01:59:25 electric vehicle manufacturers to qualify for RIN credits under the RFS?
01:59:30 We are, again, we're taking a very close look at that.
01:59:33 One of the things that I'm most proud of is the RVOs that we put in motion.
01:59:38 We have taken great pride and strides there, and so we are evaluating.
01:59:42 I would love to have a commitment from you.
01:59:43 I'm going to move on.
01:59:46 I'd like to revisit a question that you didn't have the answer to last year when I asked,
01:59:52 and I'm going to ask it again.
01:59:53 I don't consider these gotcha questions.
01:59:56 Perhaps it's what I expect of myself as a standard, both in Congress and as a physician
02:00:01 and as a military veteran.
02:00:03 Are you aware how many passenger vehicles are on the road in the U.S. today?
02:00:07 I am not.
02:00:09 279 million.
02:00:12 Are you aware how much energy it takes to get a single 100-mile charge on an electric
02:00:18 vehicle?
02:00:19 These are passenger vehicles.
02:00:20 Sure.
02:00:21 I don't have that.
02:00:22 30 kilowatt hours.
02:00:23 The reason I ask that question, if you're going to make a rule that has such consequential
02:00:29 impact to people's personal lives, to their health, to their ability to visit family,
02:00:35 to the ability of our economy to work in the United States, I would think I would expect
02:00:41 of myself to know, because 279 million vehicles and 30 kilowatt hours comports to approximately
02:00:50 9 trillion kilowatt hours needed for energy for electric vehicles on the road today.
02:00:56 And this is at a time when the EPA is trying to force closures of coal plants under the
02:01:02 Clean Power 2.0 rule and has plans to go after natural gas plants next, and the EPA's plan
02:01:08 to meet the electricity demand for the remaining requiring 69% of cars to be electric by 2032.
02:01:15 My point is, before issuing a rule, you would need to know an assessment of what it is and
02:01:22 a plan for how to generate that electricity.
02:01:25 And there's no such, I think, illustration that the EPA has even taken any of that into
02:01:31 consideration.
02:01:32 We have.
02:01:33 I can guarantee you we have, and our staffs can connect on the type of thorough analysis
02:01:38 we've done on the demand that would be required and the reliability factors that we've used
02:01:43 there.
02:01:44 I'm speaking to most of Congress and most Americans who want to have choice in their
02:01:48 vehicles.
02:01:49 Do you also need a reminder on the disaster this past January of electric vehicles and
02:01:53 charging stations in Chicago not holding a charge during subzero temperatures?
02:01:59 It does kind of get cold up north.
02:02:01 Does the EPA not believe that consumer choice is important when selecting a vehicle that
02:02:06 reliably fits their needs every day of the year, regardless of weather?
02:02:11 Absolutely, which is why we didn't issue a mandate.
02:02:13 If you take a look at that, there's internal combustion engines, plug-in hybrids, hybrids,
02:02:18 and electric vehicles.
02:02:19 There's a combination of options for the American people.
02:02:22 I think the American people would very much like to see the rationale behind the rule.
02:02:27 And Minister Regan, are you aware that the U.S. manufactured goods are 80% more carbon
02:02:31 efficient than the world average?
02:02:33 Yes.
02:02:34 If the particular matter 2.5 level has been found safe by the EPA at 12 micrograms per
02:02:39 cubic meter since 2012 for the last 14 years, what alarming new research has come to rationalize
02:02:46 why the EPA would rush to drastically lower the approved amount by three points outside
02:02:51 of the regulatory statutory process?
02:02:53 We're still seeing premature deaths.
02:02:55 We're still seeing lost workdays.
02:02:57 We're still seeing the disbenefits from a health standpoint on the economy.
02:03:02 And so that lowering of the standard is more protective, especially for those who are disproportionately
02:03:06 impacted by these pollutants.
02:03:08 I think the effect on the economy will be drastic, as will the effect on health by not
02:03:12 having affordable energy and not having an economy that can grow and compete internationally.
02:03:18 Thank you.
02:03:19 With that, I yield back.
02:03:21 The gentlelady yields.
02:03:22 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith.
02:03:25 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
02:03:28 I appreciate it.
02:03:29 The EPA published its coal combustion residual rule on coal ash disposal and on expanding
02:03:35 jurisdiction to all CCR ponds with a standard that only allows for closure.
02:03:40 Isn't that correct?
02:03:41 I'm sorry, could you repeat that, sir?
02:03:45 EPA published its coal combustion residual CCR rule on coal ash disposal on expanding
02:03:51 jurisdiction to all CCR ponds with a standard that really only allows for closure.
02:03:56 Isn't that correct?
02:03:59 No, I think that there are opportunities where you could have the proper monitoring in place
02:04:07 and the proof that there is no contact with groundwater that would allow for a remedy.
02:04:13 All right.
02:04:14 In 2015, the same EPA regulated coal ash under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation Recovery
02:04:20 Act, implying that ash is solid waste, not hazardous waste.
02:04:26 In 2015 regulation, the EPA specifically mentions how coal ash has beneficial uses and is not,
02:04:33 I repeat, this was from the EPA, is not classified as hazardous waste.
02:04:38 So why would you restrict other uses in the 2024 rule by only requiring closures or this
02:04:46 system where you have it completely shut off from any contact with water?
02:04:51 Well, I think we have the science that proves, like in my home state of North Carolina where
02:04:59 this coal ash was not properly disposed of, we've seen the contact, we've seen the consequences
02:05:04 to groundwater and drinking water.
02:05:05 So the science proves that when you have the leaching of this coal ash into drinking water,
02:05:10 groundwater, that it definitely impacts public health and especially those neighborhoods
02:05:14 and communities that are in close contact to these coal ash facilities.
02:05:18 Do you anticipate any enforcement actions against coal ash users who buy coal ash from
02:05:25 CCR impoundments?
02:05:29 The regulation is focused on the proper storage of coal ash.
02:05:34 This is focused on if the facility that has been responsible for generating the ash is
02:05:41 not properly disposing of it, then that is where EPA's focus is.
02:05:45 So I guess I'm trying to figure out, have you decided now it is a hazardous waste?
02:05:53 We know that coal ash is hazardous.
02:05:55 We know that from just looking at the health disbenefits of it and the rule gives the proper
02:06:00 prescription for how to dispose of it.
02:06:01 So here's the concern I have.
02:06:04 The rules changed from 2015 to 2024.
02:06:09 If it is considered hazardous, then does everyone who has a product like a cinder block building
02:06:16 that was built out of cinder blocks that used coal ash, do they need to be worried about
02:06:22 liability or abatement because they come into contact with water?
02:06:27 No.
02:06:28 Abatement or worry about having to remove it like you do with asbestos?
02:06:32 That product has gone through a process that has stripped or removed most of the toxics
02:06:37 or potentially all of the toxics from it.
02:06:40 So those byproducts are not what we're regulating.
02:06:42 We're regulating that raw ash that has been improperly stored for a number of years.
02:06:51 One of my concerns is that that's what the EPA says today, but in 2015 it wasn't even
02:06:57 considered hazardous.
02:06:58 Now it's considered hazardous and what will it be in 2033?
02:07:03 Hazardous.
02:07:05 It'll be hazardous, but what about those people with the cinder blocks?
02:07:09 I'm just saying I think the rule, if I had a cinder block building and I do, I might
02:07:13 be worried about that.
02:07:17 Do you all intend for companies to have to amend their closure plans for existing units
02:07:21 which were required to be developed years ago in order to meet the new rule?
02:07:25 I'll have to get back to the specifics.
02:07:27 It depends on the facility and what they're currently doing to monitor and if there is
02:07:31 no groundwater contact or if there's adequate monitoring, then I'm sure there's a plan for
02:07:35 it.
02:07:36 They've already developed a plan years ago.
02:07:38 You're saying they could be required to shut down under the new rule and have to come up
02:07:41 with a different plan.
02:07:42 Not necessarily shut down, but they'll have to take a look at the existing plan to see
02:07:47 if it meets the new requirements to ensure that there is little to no groundwater contact
02:07:52 or that they are monitoring the contact that's occurring.
02:07:54 Let me ask you this.
02:07:55 If there's a pond out there that's been closed for years, doesn't meet the new rule requirements,
02:08:00 and there's been no problem and the EPA doesn't find any problem, why would you require the
02:08:06 utility to uncap, dig up, and then send numerous dump trucks through what is likely small community
02:08:12 for weeks if not months and years in order to move the product that you say is hazardous
02:08:16 from a facility where apparently it's been stored for years safely?
02:08:19 I'm not sure you'd have to do that.
02:08:21 That scenario you just laid out, we'd have to look at the pond.
02:08:23 But if it comes in contact with some water but hasn't been a problem, I think you...
02:08:29 We may not know if it's been a problem unless it's been properly monitoring, which is why
02:08:32 monitoring is a key in this conversation.
02:08:34 All right.
02:08:35 I yield back.
02:08:36 My time is up.
02:08:37 The gentleman yields.
02:08:39 The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Representative James.
02:08:42 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:08:45 Thank you, Mr. Regan.
02:08:47 I appreciate you making yourself available today for a frank discussion on EPA's policies.
02:08:51 For the sake of time, I'll just jump into my questions.
02:08:53 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Michigan employs approximately 165,000
02:08:59 workers in automotive manufacturing, many of which are union employees.
02:09:03 Because electric vehicle assembly requires fewer employees than combustion engines and
02:09:06 eliminates the need for three-quarters of the current vehicle workforce, estimates project
02:09:11 that Michigan will suffer almost a 117,000 job loss if 67% of new vehicle sales are electric.
02:09:21 This comply or die EV agenda will put 77,000 manufacturing jobs in Michigan's 10th Congressional
02:09:28 District alone in jeopardy and great risk of extinction.
02:09:32 Are you concerned about the impact that these regulations are going to have on Michiganders
02:09:38 who currently rely on these jobs?
02:09:40 I've had a significant number of conversations with President Sean Fain about this very issue.
02:09:47 I think we have a plan in place to protect these workers, which is why the UAW, the Big
02:09:52 Three, the Automobile Alliance all gave positive statements when this rule was issued on the
02:09:58 day that we made the announcement.
02:10:01 Just for the benefit of Congress here, can you share a little bit about what that plan
02:10:06 is?
02:10:07 You said you had a plan with the UAW?
02:10:10 To transition the workers?
02:10:11 Yes.
02:10:12 Yes, to retool workforce development?
02:10:14 Yes.
02:10:15 We can provide you the details that were provided to us by the experts, by the UAW, by labor,
02:10:20 by others, again, who have said that we need to do this in an appropriate way.
02:10:26 In the plan, was there any money associated with this plan in retooling and retraining?
02:10:31 Anything that was released recently?
02:10:33 There are resources coming from the administration at large, not coming from our regulation.
02:10:38 Last week was about $100 million.
02:10:40 Are you aware of what penalties Stellantis and General Motors paid based upon their noncompliance
02:10:47 with already unrealistic regulations thus far for the automotive model years 2018 and
02:10:54 '19?
02:10:55 GM and Stellantis supported this rule.
02:10:57 Because they're afraid of getting crushed by overburdened some regulation coming from
02:11:02 the government.
02:11:03 It was over $300 million.
02:11:06 The $100 million that is being proposed to help with this retooling and retraining pales
02:11:11 in comparison to the over $300 million that's already been taken away from automotive manufacturers.
02:11:16 What happens, bless you, what happens is the bonuses of these UAW workers are reduced further
02:11:24 when they're paying penalties that do not go into retraining or retooling.
02:11:28 It goes into general fund and does not benefit either reducing climate emissions or retraining
02:11:35 workers.
02:11:36 My next question, automakers are losing roughly $6,000 on every EV they sell at a price point
02:11:41 of $50,000.
02:11:42 There are even instances of American automakers, job creators based in Michigan reporting losses
02:11:46 of more than $100,000 for every EV delivered in the first quarter of this year.
02:11:51 Consumers are paying more because of this mandate and American automakers are losing
02:11:54 money.
02:11:55 Administrator Regan, wealthy people receiving tax credits to subsidize an EV market that
02:12:00 is being offset by increasing prices on combustion engine vehicles is not sound policy.
02:12:06 When you also consider that the heavier vehicles are destroying our roads, barriers are no
02:12:11 longer capable of stopping this amount of force, putting people in jeopardy of increasing
02:12:16 fatalities due to crashes which are already high.
02:12:19 You look at parking structures collapsing, a grid that's not ready, technology that's
02:12:23 still being developed.
02:12:25 Why does the UTA support raising costs and reducing consumer choice for average Americans,
02:12:30 particularly when infrastructure trust funds are relying on gas taxes?
02:12:35 Have those been considered?
02:12:36 Yes, all of what you've laid out has been considered and discussed.
02:12:40 I wouldn't say we've come to the same conclusion.
02:12:42 I won't speak for the auto workers in the UAW.
02:12:45 I'll let them speak for themselves.
02:12:47 They supported the rule.
02:12:48 I won't speak for GM and Stellantis and others who are running $7 million Super Bowl ads
02:12:53 either.
02:12:54 The future is electric, but our rule isn't an EV mandate.
02:12:58 It provides lots of combinations of options.
02:13:01 Your rule isn't a mandate?
02:13:02 It's not a mandate.
02:13:03 No.
02:13:04 Okay.
02:13:05 If you look at the compliance options that they have, which by the way, Toyota and others
02:13:09 weighed in heavily.
02:13:10 We increased the number of hybrids, plug-in hybrids.
02:13:14 There are internal combustion engines that are qualifying as well.
02:13:17 When you look at the options that they have to pursue this rule, I personally don't believe
02:13:22 the auto ...
02:13:23 I get your intent, but intent is not impact.
02:13:26 What I see is whatever you intend with these rules, the impact will be is that the uptake
02:13:32 is only 7%.
02:13:34 Over the span of the next 5 to 10 years, expecting this will absolutely crater American
02:13:40 jobs.
02:13:41 It's going to hurt people in Michigan's 10th congressional district and it's not going
02:13:43 to achieve the goals that you say are going to be achieved.
02:13:46 With that, I have to yield the rest of my time.
02:13:49 The gentleman yields.
02:13:50 The chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Representative Clark.
02:13:54 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
02:13:56 I thank our ranking member and I want to thank you, Administrator, for being here testifying
02:14:02 before us today.
02:14:04 As you know, the transportation sector accounts for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, more
02:14:09 than any other sector in the United States and is the fastest growing sector emitting
02:14:15 greenhouse gas emissions.
02:14:17 Last year, I sent you a letter along with Congresswoman Matsui and Senators Markey and
02:14:22 Padilla urging the EPA to expeditiously finalize strong phase three greenhouse gas emission
02:14:29 standards for model year 2027 through 2032 heavy duty vehicles.
02:14:37 While EPA ultimately did not choose to finalize the most stringent alternative, I want to
02:14:43 commend EPA for finalizing a robust rule that protects public health, sets performance-based
02:14:50 standards as required by the Clean Air Act and accelerates our transition to cleaner,
02:14:55 greener transportation technologies.
02:14:58 Senator Reagan, can you please describe the public health benefits and cost savings that
02:15:03 the American people can expect to see thanks to this rule?
02:15:06 Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue and the final standard will provide
02:15:11 $13 billion in annual benefits, health benefits to society, especially for the folks who are
02:15:19 72 million, to be exact, who are living in close proximity to these roads and not to
02:15:25 mention that we expect truck and bus owners to see approximately $3.5 billion in savings.
02:15:31 We believe that this is a win-win-win.
02:15:32 It's a win for the truckers.
02:15:33 It's a win for the economy.
02:15:34 It's a win for public health.
02:15:36 And there's one more win and that's for the environment.
02:15:38 Very well.
02:15:39 And despite the immense cost savings and public health benefits, my Republican colleagues
02:15:44 are baselessly attacking this rule, keeping in line with their polluters over people agenda
02:15:50 and going as far as to introduce Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the rule
02:15:55 and prevent the EPA from taking substantively similar action in the future.
02:16:00 I strongly oppose this short-sighted effort to overturn this critical regulation.
02:16:07 Arguments that this rule is part of some radical green agenda are misguided and frankly, ridiculous.
02:16:13 These achievable performance-based standards are finalized after an extensive stakeholder
02:16:18 engagement process, which include industry.
02:16:21 Administrator Reagan, how did you address industry concerns with the proposal in the
02:16:26 final rule?
02:16:27 Well, we took a lot of comments and we took it to heart.
02:16:32 We looked at what we perceived to be the available technologies.
02:16:37 You mentioned that we did not choose the most stringent and we proposed a number of options.
02:16:44 We looked at the cost benefit, the technology available and the reductions and we landed
02:16:49 with a very stringent final rule that the industry indicated from a technological standpoint,
02:16:55 a feasibility standpoint could be accomplished.
02:16:59 That is going to save a tremendous number of lives.
02:17:03 It's going to be cost effective.
02:17:05 It's going to reduce cost on maintenance.
02:17:06 And so, you know, I never pretend to represent others like some do, but when you look at
02:17:12 the manufacturers that stood with us when we announced these rules, when you look at
02:17:17 some of the comments out there from labor, I believe that we've threaded a needle that
02:17:22 is protective of public health and the environment.
02:17:25 Very well.
02:17:26 This final rule is proof that the EPA can prioritize protecting public health and the
02:17:30 environment while providing regulatory flexibility and achievable compliance pathways for regulated
02:17:36 parties.
02:17:38 Strong regulations drive innovation and I'm confident that this achievable final rule
02:17:43 will do just that.
02:17:44 Administrator Reagan, it is my understanding that this regulation completes the EPA's
02:17:50 clean trucks plan.
02:17:52 And now that the rule has been finalized, what other actions is EPA taken to promote
02:17:58 clean heavy duty transportation?
02:18:01 Well, there are a number and thank you for asking that question.
02:18:04 It's because of your vote and others in terms of the resources we have from the Inflation
02:18:09 Reduction Act that will give us a lot of financial incentives to continue to clean up heavy duty
02:18:16 vehicles, to clean up our ports.
02:18:19 We've got a $2 billion announcement for community change grant programs.
02:18:24 There are a lot of local solutions that these grant programs will reach that will help tailor
02:18:29 the types of reductions and activities required.
02:18:33 And so we're really excited to see some of the innovation and entrepreneurship of some
02:18:37 of our local communities as they tackle some of these freight issues.
02:18:41 Absolutely.
02:18:42 Strong regulations supported by historic federal investment are putting us on a path to greener,
02:18:47 cleaner future that benefits all Americans.
02:18:50 I thank the Administrator for being here today and for his tireless work on reducing harmful
02:18:55 pollution from the heavy duty transportation sector.
02:18:58 With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
02:19:01 The gentlelady yields.
02:19:02 The chair recognizes a gentleman from Michigan, Representative Wahlberg, for his five minutes
02:19:06 of questioning.
02:19:07 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:19:09 And I want to make a statement for the record that we do not want pollution.
02:19:15 May I say that again?
02:19:16 As a Republican, conservative, and a vice chairman of the conservative climate caucus,
02:19:23 I do not want pollution.
02:19:27 That's waste.
02:19:28 It's waste of human lives.
02:19:29 It's waste of energy.
02:19:30 It's waste of all sorts of things.
02:19:31 So this polluters over people mantra, because we don't have the ability to speak about truth
02:19:38 in the way we ought to, is disgusting.
02:19:43 But thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here.
02:19:46 I come from the out-of-state of Michigan, so I'll carry on with my colleague, John James,
02:19:51 further on this EV standard, the final rule, and all that goes with it.
02:19:57 We have a long history in Michigan with the auto industry.
02:20:03 We are the auto state, the auto capital.
02:20:07 We're proud of that fact.
02:20:09 I'll never forget as a freshly minted freshman member of Congress sitting next to the dean
02:20:17 of our delegation, dean of the house, former chairman of this august committee, John Dingell,
02:20:23 a respected highly, talking to one of the titans of the auto industry about the CAFE
02:20:28 standard back then, and giving him information on it, and then the titan of the auto industry
02:20:37 said to him respectfully, Mr. Chairman, give us a reasonable standard and get out of the
02:20:45 way, because between our research, our engineers, and our customers, we'll make it happen.
02:20:53 Don't tell us how to make it happen.
02:20:57 This standard, this tailpipe standard, tells us how to do it.
02:21:02 And while we can say it's not a mandate in verbiage, yet there is no vehicle that has
02:21:08 a tailpipe that can meet the standard.
02:21:10 You know it and I know it.
02:21:12 And it's going to hurt the auto industry, it's going to hurt the consumer, and it's
02:21:18 going to crush the taxpayer, especially lower income taxpayers.
02:21:23 Auto companies like Ford halted production of their EV like the Ford F-150 Lightning,
02:21:30 a hot rod of a truck, but it doesn't do the job, and it costs too much.
02:21:37 Tesla laid off more than 10% of its global workforce due to failing sales.
02:21:43 Administrator Reagan, is EPA considering the tailpipe emissions rule, EV sales projections,
02:21:49 seeing as countless American families are rejecting the EVs?
02:21:53 We took a very strong look at what the market demand was, and we consulted very closely
02:22:00 with the industry, and I think-
02:22:02 They're wusses.
02:22:03 They're unwilling to push back against you.
02:22:05 They're afraid of what else would come.
02:22:07 Did I say that too strongly?
02:22:10 I'd like to see people like that titan of industry, rest his soul, he no longer lives,
02:22:14 to stand up and say, "Listen, we're delighted to do what you want us to do, but get out
02:22:21 of our way.
02:22:22 Give us that basic standard that's reasonable and rational, and we'll get her done."
02:22:28 And we had a lot of those tough conversations.
02:22:31 I think you might have seen the proposal was much more stringent and maybe too prescriptive.
02:22:37 What we finalized was basically a recommendation by the industry that says, "Listen, we know
02:22:43 how to meet some of these emission reduction goals.
02:22:46 We don't want to meet it necessarily with the percentages and combinations that you
02:22:50 propose, so let us propose how we can meet those emission reductions."
02:22:54 And I think that's why you see a much heavier penetration of plug-in hybrids and hybrids,
02:22:59 a lot more-
02:23:00 Only 13%, as I understand it, will make up this deal.
02:23:06 We can exchange information about those percentages, because I think you really have to look at
02:23:11 the combinations.
02:23:12 Number one is the penetration of the product and how many of those products are on the
02:23:15 market and what offsets, what we had predicted or modeled would come from EVs will no longer
02:23:21 come from-
02:23:22 What impact will this have on low-income families?
02:23:26 We think that low-income families will be competitive for vehicles that have less maintenance.
02:23:32 There are lots of incentives to-
02:23:33 They've got to buy it first.
02:23:35 To produce a lot more affordable vehicles.
02:23:38 I've taken a look personally at the affordable vehicles that are on the market.
02:23:43 There's diversification coming from these auto industries.
02:23:45 And so, yes, we believe we're not going to leave these communities behind.
02:23:50 This rule, I believe, will inevitably increase costs for American taxpayers.
02:23:54 The EPA, I believe, has tried to hide the bill.
02:23:57 The Congressional Budget Office initially estimated that EPA tailpipe emissions rule
02:24:03 would add $224 billion to the national deficit.
02:24:07 EPA has tried to conceal the program's real costs from Congress and the American people.
02:24:13 EPA's analysis estimated lower costs by utilizing faulty assumptions.
02:24:18 For example, they assumed that without the rule, battery electric vehicle sales reached
02:24:22 39% of vehicle market in 2030.
02:24:27 Is it true that the light-duty vehicles rules cost-benefit analysis does not account for
02:24:33 the first 39% of battery electric vehicles sold?
02:24:37 I'm not quite sure about that calculation.
02:24:39 I will say that the rule does account for the battery manufacturing uptick that we're
02:24:45 seeing here domestically.
02:24:47 And has taken into account, again, some of the product readiness that the companies have
02:24:51 directly discussed with us.
02:24:53 That's for battery, but that's also for plug-in hybrids and traditional hybrid and internal
02:24:58 combustion as well.
02:24:59 I tell you what, this administration probably won't have the opportunity to see the ultimate
02:25:07 impact.
02:25:08 We'll be gone before that impact is there.
02:25:13 But it'll be tragic for the auto industry, but more importantly for the consumer.
02:25:18 With that, I yield back.
02:25:19 The gentleman yields back.
02:25:20 The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida.
02:25:23 Representative Kastner for five minutes of questioning.
02:25:26 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:25:27 Ambassador Reagan, thank you for your devotion to hardworking American families.
02:25:31 You recently said that one of the biggest challenges facing our nation is man-made pollution
02:25:37 that damages our air, our water, our land.
02:25:42 Not only is this pollution a major threat to public health, but it's pushing our planet
02:25:46 to the brink.
02:25:47 I agree.
02:25:49 Pollution and the resulting climate crisis, they're driving up the cost of living for
02:25:55 all Americans.
02:25:57 Back home in Florida, skyrocketing electric bills because of gas price spikes.
02:26:04 We have to run our air conditioners longer because there are too many hot days, well
02:26:09 over 90 degrees.
02:26:12 We have a property insurance crisis in Florida.
02:26:15 All of this is really hitting my neighbors, really hitting them hard.
02:26:21 That's why it was so important to see EPA tackle harmful climate pollution from power
02:26:25 plants.
02:26:28 Last year, I led a letter to you from about 100 of my Democratic colleagues that urged
02:26:34 EPA to finalize the strongest possible carbon pollution standards for power plants and at
02:26:41 the same time encouraged the engagement with workers and unions and frontline communities.
02:26:48 I want to say thank you for delivering last month with the agency's historic rules to
02:26:55 cut pollution from existing coal and new gas plants as we do all that we can to help lower
02:27:04 the cost and deliver cleaner, cheaper energy and a more resilient electricity, electric
02:27:12 system all across the country.
02:27:15 Administrator, my Republican colleagues continue to ignore the cost of the overheating climate.
02:27:22 They assert that clean energy is at odds with grid reliability.
02:27:28 They'd have us believe that we need to burn more coal and rely on dirty energy sources
02:27:33 to keep the lights on just as we started in the 1800s.
02:27:40 What is EPA's policy on new innovations like energy storage and solar that can help the
02:27:48 U.S. deliver cleaner, cheaper energy to power communities when it's needed?
02:27:54 We encourage it and we believe that we've designed flexible regulations that encourage
02:27:59 innovation, whether it be looking at how we control methane, using satellite data, robotic
02:28:06 dogs.
02:28:07 We're using the most technologically advanced equipment to detect these leaks and reduce
02:28:13 the pollution.
02:28:15 When we look at innovative technologies like carbon capture and storage, we believe that
02:28:20 it's within reach and many are using it.
02:28:23 Some are using it right here, right now, today.
02:28:26 The idea is for the agency to be agnostic, to be technology neutral, but to promote the
02:28:34 latest and greatest technology that provides the best public health benefits and environmental
02:28:39 protection to this country.
02:28:41 That's what we've done through our congressionally mandated authority.
02:28:45 It's pretty remarkable.
02:28:46 Over time, we're not importing energy as much as we used to.
02:28:52 The same goes for electric vehicles.
02:28:54 It's been kind of hard to listen to some of the criticisms.
02:28:59 We want to build the electric vehicles in America with American workers and American
02:29:04 component parts.
02:29:05 That's what the Inflation Reduction Act was all about, empowering our communities.
02:29:11 So many of my Republican colleagues, their communities are benefiting from these huge
02:29:15 investments in whether it's the battery plants or the EV plants.
02:29:20 The future is bright.
02:29:23 It's not without stops and starts and challenges like anything, but I think it's an exciting
02:29:29 future.
02:29:30 The same goes for the recent announcement on solar for all.
02:29:36 When the Democratic-led Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, we intended to help
02:29:42 put money back into the pockets of our neighbors back home through cleaner, cheaper energy.
02:29:51 I already mentioned the high electric bills back home in the so-called sunshine state,
02:29:56 largely because of the regulators there and the politicians have kept us hooked on gas.
02:30:03 Meanwhile, we have abundant free resources from the sun.
02:30:09 So thank you very much for following through on what we intended through solar for all.
02:30:14 What do you say to communities that want to tap these resources?
02:30:19 How do they find out about them?
02:30:20 Well, you know, they can go to EPA.gov and we've got it prioritized on our website.
02:30:25 This is, solar for all is such an awesome program, $7 billion.
02:30:30 It's going to help over 900,000 families access cleaner, more affordable energy.
02:30:37 As you know that this program is targeted towards low-income families and we project
02:30:42 that it'll save low-income Americans $350 million annually.
02:30:46 This is $350 million going back into the pockets of people that need it the most without pollution.
02:30:54 And so, listen, I think that to the point you just made, domestic manufacturing of batteries
02:31:00 and solar panels and high-tech vehicles, we can own the future.
02:31:06 We will own the future.
02:31:07 We want them to be American jobs designed here through American ingenuity and not be
02:31:13 reliant on China.
02:31:14 There's a global competition out here and quite frankly, this administration and some
02:31:18 of these regulations are putting us in a position to be globally competitive and globally superior.
02:31:23 Thank you very much.
02:31:24 I yield back.
02:31:25 The gentlelady yields.
02:31:26 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Representative Crenshaw, for five minutes
02:31:30 of questioning.
02:31:31 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:31:32 Thank you, Mr. Regan, for being here.
02:31:34 We'll talk at the 30,000-foot level about the EPA.
02:31:38 So according to the EPA's website, the core function of the EPA is to protect human health
02:31:41 and the environment.
02:31:42 And that's important because the word health, it's not just health incidents related to
02:31:47 pollution.
02:31:48 Your health is affected by your ability to work, buy electricity, transport yourself
02:31:52 and your gasoline or electric-powered car, or utilize the latest medical technology created
02:31:58 from advanced polymers made from fossil fuels.
02:32:01 Balance is always the key.
02:32:02 If you see your role as only protecting the environment without serious regard for human
02:32:06 flourishing, then the logical conclusion would be ceasing all modern processes in manufacturing
02:32:12 and just going pre-industrial.
02:32:14 No serious person actually says they want that, of course.
02:32:17 I get that.
02:32:19 But actions speak louder than words.
02:32:22 And under your leadership, the EPA, in my opinion, has become the most dangerous agency
02:32:26 in America.
02:32:27 Now, why do I use the word dangerous?
02:32:29 Because it's the only agency actively targeting and attempting to reverse the economic activity
02:32:33 that creates human flourishing.
02:32:36 More focused on appeasing the more radical environmentalist activists than creating pragmatic
02:32:41 regulations that draw this essential balance between protecting the environment and protecting
02:32:46 human flourishing.
02:32:47 We're in an era of increasing demand for energy.
02:32:50 Gasoline prices are at 52 percent since Biden took office.
02:32:53 The price of electricity has increased 30 percent.
02:32:56 And yet, your EPA's regulations are likely to risk the retirement of more than 155,000
02:33:02 megawatts of dispatchable energy.
02:33:03 That's according to industry experts.
02:33:05 The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has explicitly cited EPA regulations as a
02:33:10 threat to grid reliability.
02:33:13 Grid reliability is a big part of human flourishing.
02:33:16 At the same time, in the midst of all this, over the past 50 years, air pollution has
02:33:21 dropped nearly 80 percent.
02:33:22 Our CO2 emissions have dropped to 1990 levels.
02:33:25 It's not like we haven't been doing anything.
02:33:27 It's not like we don't care.
02:33:29 So we have an increasing demand for the most basic of modern necessities and an increasingly
02:33:34 cleaner environment.
02:33:35 And yet, the EPA continues to adopt this perplexing mindset that if one regulation was good, then
02:33:40 more must be better.
02:33:41 It doesn't have to be this way.
02:33:43 We could lower emissions by focusing on innovation in carbon capture and nuclear energy.
02:33:47 We could export more natural gas to countries that primarily burn dirty coal.
02:33:51 We could acknowledge the shocking fact that CO2 emissions are, in fact, global and primarily
02:33:55 come from China.
02:33:56 Rules and regulations should be seriously considering the costs and benefits, not just
02:34:01 blindly following the demands of some radical fools that glue themselves to museum art.
02:34:06 Ironically, most likely using glue made from petroleum-based resins.
02:34:10 I want to get to a couple of questions, specifically on chemicals.
02:34:15 The Toxic Substances Control Act.
02:34:19 There are nearly 400 pre-manufacturing applications still awaiting a risk determination.
02:34:24 Over 90 percent of those have passed the statutory deadline of 90 days.
02:34:28 Can you comment on that and why that's taking so long?
02:34:32 The budget was cut this year specifically for that program.
02:34:36 We received budget increases.
02:34:39 But this backlog, exactly, this backlog predates this year's budget cuts.
02:34:44 Predates me.
02:34:45 Just appropriate.
02:34:46 It predates this administration.
02:34:48 We fought hard.
02:34:49 I think we did have, in all honesty, we had a great productive conversation about this.
02:34:54 We made some headway.
02:34:55 You all gave us more resources.
02:34:57 We more than doubled the reviews each month with that increase.
02:35:01 And now this year, we're seeing a reduction.
02:35:03 Understood resources could be an issue.
02:35:04 But are they using the best science?
02:35:06 I mean, are they really using the best, most logical science when it comes to assessing
02:35:12 each application?
02:35:14 We are.
02:35:15 As a matter of fact, we are incentivized to get as many new products on the market as
02:35:19 possible.
02:35:20 The courts have been hampering us for years.
02:35:23 We haven't had the resources.
02:35:24 We finally got the resources from you guys.
02:35:26 We've been using the best science, putting more products on the market.
02:35:30 And now the funding is getting cut.
02:35:31 I believe you that the courts try to hamper you.
02:35:32 I understand that the courts are often weaponized by outside groups.
02:35:36 But look, here's one of my concerns.
02:35:39 It's hard to explain a draft risk evaluation for formaldehyde that sets the safe limit
02:35:44 at 11 parts per billion, which is actually below the level found in ambient air.
02:35:50 There's another one that claims that the safe level of ethylene oxide should be lower than
02:35:54 what it is naturally found in the human body.
02:35:57 When I ask about the good science, that's where it's coming from.
02:35:59 And I think that's worth looking into.
02:36:02 Natural gas.
02:36:03 This isn't your area.
02:36:04 The Department of Energy has stopped our natural gas exports.
02:36:08 But last time you were here, you acknowledged, and I think thoughtfully, that if we were
02:36:12 to export more natural gas to dirty coal-burning countries, it would be better for the environment.
02:36:16 Right?
02:36:17 So at least from the environmental perspective, do you still agree with that?
02:36:20 I think that, according to my understanding, DOE has put a pause on that to get a better
02:36:26 handle around science.
02:36:27 But I, in no way, am reading that as a permanent pause on LNG or natural gas.
02:36:34 We know that natural gas is cleaner-
02:36:35 That's comforting, because you know more about the administration's policies than I do.
02:36:38 So if you think that that's coming back, boy, that is comforting.
02:36:42 And again, I just want to get on the record that, from the environmental standpoint, sending
02:36:47 more natural gas to countries that primarily burn coal is overall better for global emissions.
02:36:52 Right?
02:36:53 Cleaner burning natural gas is absolutely better than coal.
02:36:57 Thank you.
02:36:58 Thank you.
02:36:59 The gentleman yields.
02:37:01 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Representative Cardenas, for five
02:37:06 minutes of questioning.
02:37:09 Thank you very much, Chairman.
02:37:12 Thank you, Administrator Regan, for being with us today to answer our questions in full
02:37:16 view of the public about what we're doing and not doing and what you're doing out there.
02:37:21 As you are aware, every day over 20 million children across the country use a school bus
02:37:26 to get to school.
02:37:28 Unfortunately, these buses are often fueled by diesel, which pollutes the air our children
02:37:32 breathe and leads to high rates of respiratory illnesses, health complications, and missed
02:37:37 days of school.
02:37:39 Simply put, this is an injustice to our youth and to our communities.
02:37:43 In 2021, I worked with Congresswoman Hayes and Senators Badia and Warnock to introduce
02:37:49 the Clean Commute for Kids Act, the bill which addresses harmful diesel pollution that impacts
02:37:54 our children, school teachers, and communities, went on to serve as the inspiration for the
02:37:59 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Clean School Bus Program.
02:38:03 I'd like to thank you, Administrator, for your work and the work of your team at the
02:38:08 EPA on the implementation of this vital program.
02:38:13 The response from school districts has been nothing short of tremendous, and to date,
02:38:18 every funding opportunity made available under the Clean School Bus Program has been oversubscribed.
02:38:23 Throughout the rollout of the program, the applicant pool has included submissions from
02:38:28 all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
02:38:34 and federally recognized tribes.
02:38:37 And in fact, it's my understanding that many of my colleagues on the other side of the
02:38:41 aisle of their districts have submitted for this program extensively as well and represent
02:38:47 school districts and applied for funding through this program to buy cleaner school buses throughout
02:38:53 America.
02:38:54 Administrator Regan, can you provide an update on how we've seen communities and school districts
02:38:59 respond to the Clean School Bus Program in both blue and red districts?
02:39:04 Well, it's just been, thank you for your leadership on this topic.
02:39:08 This is one of the most enjoyable programs I've ever managed.
02:39:13 Getting some of these dirty school buses off the roads and seeing some of these electric
02:39:18 buses, these natural gas buses replaced that dirty diesel has just been great.
02:39:24 Not just for us to see as staff, but watching the celebration of school superintendents,
02:39:28 principals, teachers, bus drivers, and children all over the country, as you said, in red
02:39:34 and blue districts.
02:39:35 Yes, thank you.
02:39:37 And one of the school bus drivers in Los Angeles told me that one of the children enlightened
02:39:42 him that the child said, "I can hear the person next to me when I'm talking to them."
02:39:47 Just think about that, the peace and quiet, and also the ability for them to go to and
02:39:52 from school without being harmed.
02:39:54 So it would be safe to say that school districts in both Republican and Democratic districts
02:39:59 are showing that they are ready and want to replace diesel buses with cleaner vehicles.
02:40:05 Absolutely.
02:40:06 Whether it's in your district or Alma, Kansas, population less than 5,000, we're seeing applications
02:40:13 that far exceed the amount of resources that we have.
02:40:17 Thank you.
02:40:18 It's clear that a clean ride to school for our kids is widely beneficial, popular, and
02:40:21 should not be a partisan issue.
02:40:24 That's why this Congress, I've continued to work with my colleagues to ensure that this
02:40:27 program has the resources it needs to continue to replace dirty school buses throughout the
02:40:34 country.
02:40:36 I'm thrilled to be joined by 140 of my House and Senate colleagues in writing to the leaders
02:40:41 of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees to build off of the down payment
02:40:46 made in the IIJA and request an additional $300 million for the Clean School Bus Program
02:40:51 for the fiscal year 2025.
02:40:54 Administrator Regan, if appropriated, could additional funding for the Clean School Bus
02:40:59 Program help meet the immense demand from school districts and tackle the monumental
02:41:04 task of cleaning up the nation's school bus fleet?
02:41:07 Absolutely.
02:41:08 As you said earlier, we're over-prescribed every year.
02:41:12 The bus manufacturing base here in the United States is prepped and ready and meeting that
02:41:17 demand.
02:41:18 It's good for jobs.
02:41:19 It's good for the environment.
02:41:20 It's good for our kids.
02:41:21 Good.
02:41:22 And I think we're demonstrating to the rest of the world that we can clean up our act
02:41:26 and that they can follow suit as well.
02:41:29 I understand that you recently committed to Senator Padilla in a Senate Committee hearing
02:41:34 that you'll be visiting Southern California, hopefully soon, in the near term?
02:41:39 Absolutely.
02:41:40 Good.
02:41:41 I think you've raised some unique and pressing air quality issues that him and many of the
02:41:45 Southern California delegation would like to have you see for yourself.
02:41:49 Hopefully we can see you out there soon.
02:41:51 Having clarified that question, I can now go back to my apartment tonight and tell my
02:41:55 roommate Senator Padilla that I did my job today.
02:41:59 So thank you very much and thank you for your leadership.
02:42:02 And also, please go back and tell your team how much we appreciate them and how much we
02:42:06 do appreciate the amazing work that they've done, unprecedented work that this country
02:42:10 is now embarking on.
02:42:11 So thank you so much.
02:42:12 My time has expired.
02:42:13 I yield back.
02:42:14 Thank you.
02:42:15 The gentleman yields back.
02:42:16 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Representative Curtis, finally, for
02:42:20 five minutes of questioning.
02:42:22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:42:23 Good afternoon, Administrator.
02:42:25 The last time you and I talked and we met in this setting, we discussed how the EPA's
02:42:30 lack of adherence to statutory deadlines was directly impacting the pace of American innovation.
02:42:36 And by the way, much of that innovation is targeted at a cleaner environment.
02:42:41 And by not approving these, we're using older methods that are not as effective.
02:42:46 At the time, you told me that everything would be better if you could get more staffing and
02:42:50 funding.
02:42:51 I pushed back.
02:42:52 This is not always an issue of money.
02:42:56 It's an issue of organization and it's an issue of will.
02:43:00 But I will say in the last eight years, EPA has administratively raised user fees more
02:43:05 than 14-fold and you just recently doubled it.
02:43:09 Since today's a budget hearing, I want to spend a little time on your budget and starting
02:43:12 with our conversation from last year.
02:43:15 EPA's new chemicals program applications have dropped from 600 annually to just over 200.
02:43:22 In the last two calendar years, without regard for a deadline that is a legal deadline, EPA
02:43:29 made 95 and 101 determinations, respectively.
02:43:33 Bluntly put, I think we can still agree that's an F rating.
02:43:37 You're required by law to return fees if you miss deadlines.
02:43:42 However, EPA has never returned the fee to an applicant when EPA misses its deadline
02:43:49 because the applicant always coincidentally suspends or withdraws their application.
02:43:56 Can you explain why applications always withdraw or suspend their application just in time
02:44:02 to allow EPA to keep their money for nothing in return?
02:44:06 I was unaware that applications were being withdrawn by force from EPA, so we'd have
02:44:13 to kind of really zero in on which applications, what the conditions were, circumstances.
02:44:18 I'm pleased that you're willing to look at that because you can tell just on the surface
02:44:22 if that's correct, that's not good.
02:44:24 We've been told, I've been told that EPA is effectively threatened by phone to ask them
02:44:30 to suspend or withdraw their applications.
02:44:34 I'm going to take your word for it that you don't have any knowledge of this, but I would
02:44:37 like you to look into it and come back and share with us your findings because, as you
02:44:42 can see, that would be hugely problematic.
02:44:44 I commit that to you.
02:44:45 Excellent.
02:44:46 Thank you.
02:44:48 For those watching, Section 26 of the TSCA permits EPA to charge user fees of 25% of
02:44:55 this program's budget's cost.
02:44:57 In the last years, I mentioned that you've increased those fees 14-fold and recently
02:45:01 doubled it.
02:45:03 Now turning to your budget, the EPA's estimate of TSCA direct costs are substantially more
02:45:10 than the 25% of the appropriated budget.
02:45:14 So it won't surprise you, but I'm perplexed about how you can spend that money if it's
02:45:20 not coming in.
02:45:21 In other words, in EPA's view, that it can charge fees of 25% predicted regardless of
02:45:28 the cost?
02:45:31 I'd have to look into that.
02:45:33 I mean, I want to really interrogate this assertion because I'm not quite sure we agree
02:45:38 on the premise of where this is coming from.
02:45:41 I think we need to take a look at, number one, the performance over the past three years
02:45:46 with the increased budget that we did receive, which the number of new chemicals we were
02:45:51 reviewing each month has doubled.
02:45:53 We've cleared backlogs.
02:45:55 So we need to reconcile what you're saying in terms of our performance over the past
02:46:00 three years versus these fees and charges.
02:46:02 And I'd love to have a deeper conversation about that.
02:46:04 I invite that conversation because this is important.
02:46:10 It's important for your agency.
02:46:11 It's important for America.
02:46:12 There's been a lot of discussion today about a cleaner future.
02:46:15 Much of these ideas could lead us to that and the fact that they're being backlogged.
02:46:21 And then having the problem of being withdrawn without the fees being returned.
02:46:26 And I appreciate your commitment to do that, whether it's with me personally or back here
02:46:31 in this committee room.
02:46:32 I welcome that and look forward to those conversations.
02:46:34 Absolutely.
02:46:35 Thank you.
02:46:36 Mr. Chairman, I yield.
02:46:38 The gentleman yields.
02:46:39 The chair now recognizes the general lady from Michigan, Representative Dingell, for
02:46:43 five minutes of questioning.
02:46:45 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
02:46:47 Good to see you here, Administrator Regan.
02:46:51 I suspect you may have wanted to have been in a dental chair more than today, but I hope
02:46:55 it hasn't been that bad.
02:46:57 I know that there's already been some discussion, but I would like to talk about the vehicle
02:47:02 emission standards starting there.
02:47:06 Obviously, many of us care about the future of the automotive industry and keeping it
02:47:11 here in the United States and keeping the jobs here.
02:47:16 And we've got to accelerate the domestic development, manufacturing, deployment of EVs and other
02:47:22 types of technology.
02:47:23 We should be talking about hydrogen and others, which you and I have, to achieve our climate
02:47:28 goals, but also maintain our competitiveness with China and other countries.
02:47:33 We're competing in a global marketplace, as you and I both now.
02:47:37 It's also equally crucial that we ensure that the hardworking men and women who have built
02:47:42 the auto industry are not left behind in the transition and that everybody has access and
02:47:48 can buy an electric vehicle, afford it, and be able to charge it.
02:47:54 And we want to make sure these vehicles of the future are made here in the United States
02:47:57 of America.
02:47:58 As we shift towards these clean vehicles, concerns have been raised, some by my colleagues,
02:48:04 about a just transition and how we aren't going to leave anyone behind.
02:48:11 How do you plan to continue to work with the automakers, labor unions, state and local
02:48:16 governments to ensure a just transition and implementation of EPA's vehicle emission standards?
02:48:23 Well, thank you for the question and thank you for your leadership on this topic, especially
02:48:27 helping us connect the dots to the labor and auto workers, to the industry, and those communities
02:48:33 that we don't want to leave behind.
02:48:35 Listen, as you know, we have really engaged the auto industry to look at the goals of
02:48:40 these performance standards.
02:48:42 They themselves are indicating that they're diversifying their fleets, their cars are
02:48:47 becoming much more affordable, but by no means is this an EV mandate.
02:48:52 We are really looking at a stronger penetration of plug-in hybrids, hybrids, hydrogen, more
02:48:58 efficient internal combustion engines.
02:48:59 We believe that we're offering the industry the right combination of products to meet
02:49:04 and potentially exceed the emission reduction goals that we've set.
02:49:08 And we believe that we can do it bringing everyone along.
02:49:11 That's important.
02:49:12 I may ask you some more questions for the record on that so we can establish the record
02:49:16 on some of the work that's been done.
02:49:18 Since you walked in the door of this job, you know that I always talk about water, safe
02:49:23 and affordable water is a basic human right.
02:49:26 However, communities with aging infrastructure all across the country, many in Michigan,
02:49:32 have faced both lead and the pervasive threat of forever chemicals known as PFAS.
02:49:38 I thank you for the work that you've done.
02:49:40 You said you were going to do it.
02:49:42 I'm pleased that EPA's final drinking water and PFAS super fund designation rules are
02:49:47 strong and that they build on standards which are part of our bipartisan PFAS Action Act.
02:49:55 It's been long overdue.
02:49:57 Can you tell us as EPA implements these rules, how do you plan to work with local communities,
02:50:02 water systems and other stakeholders on the ground to ensure that these standards are
02:50:07 met and that all Americans have access to safe drinking water?
02:50:11 Well absolutely.
02:50:12 Number one, this rule, this final rule will protect over 100 million people who are drinking
02:50:21 water in this country.
02:50:23 Most of the water systems in this country are already meeting the standard.
02:50:28 But we are working with communities that are not providing technical assistance.
02:50:32 We have money that flow through traditional programs.
02:50:34 Thanks to your leadership and the President's leadership and to Congress, we have billions
02:50:38 of dollars to help smaller water systems, rural water systems, not only comply with
02:50:43 this rule but just provide safe, affordable drinking water to every single person in this
02:50:47 country.
02:50:48 So there's a combination of technical assistance, bill and IRA dollars as well as our traditional
02:50:54 budget that will ensure everyone is drinking clean water and no one's overburdened and
02:50:58 it's done in an affordable way.
02:51:00 Thank you.
02:51:01 We're at 28 seconds.
02:51:02 So I'm going to ask you quickly because I'm very proud of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
02:51:08 Fund and Republicans keep making attacks in it.
02:51:12 Can you explain how these funds allow EPA to continue to provide strong oversight of
02:51:18 the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and why it does matter?
02:51:22 Well it matters because Congress granted us the $27 billion to ensure that we could have
02:51:30 everyone in this country, low to moderate income, black and brown and tribal communities
02:51:34 participate in the low carbon economy.
02:51:37 We're going to take this $27 billion and pull hundreds of billions of dollars of private
02:51:41 capital off the sideline to invest in affordable clean energy.
02:51:46 We want to have the right staff to implement this program and so we need the staff because
02:51:52 we didn't get that staffing resource from the Inflation Reduction Act.
02:51:55 We got the resources to design the program.
02:51:58 Now we need to maintain the program.
02:52:00 We've also asked for resources for our Inspector General so that we can continue to partner
02:52:04 in terms of oversight and ensuring that it's done the way it was intended to be done.
02:52:08 Thank you very much and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
02:52:11 The gentlelady yields back.
02:52:12 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Representative Obernolte for five
02:52:17 minutes of questioning.
02:52:18 Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Administrator Regan, thank you very much for your testimony
02:52:23 today.
02:52:24 I'd like to discuss something that is a vital consequence to my constituents in California's
02:52:31 23rd District.
02:52:33 Recently the California Air Resources Board applied to the EPA for a waiver that would
02:52:38 allow them to implement what they call the in-use locomotive rule in California.
02:52:44 They're seeking to require all line locomotives to operate in a zero emissions configuration
02:52:52 starting in the year 2035 and to prohibit the use of any locomotive that's older than
02:52:57 23 years old.
02:52:59 The problem with that is that there are currently no locomotives available that are even close
02:53:06 to meeting the definition of that requirement.
02:53:10 If you just look at the amount of energy required to move, the weight that those locomotives
02:53:15 move, a diesel locomotive has the equivalent of about 100 megawatt hours of energy.
02:53:22 The best all-electric locomotives that we have now that are in testing are around the
02:53:27 order of five to eight megawatt hours.
02:53:29 So we're not even close to even having a locomotive available that will meet that rule.
02:53:35 Another problem, and this is one that affects my constituents directly, is that BNSF Railways
02:53:41 is in the process of constructing a new one and a half billion dollar intermodal transfer
02:53:47 facility in my district in the town of Barstow.
02:53:50 That's going to add about 20,000 jobs to my district.
02:53:54 It's also going to have the effect of taking millions of truck hours off the roads in California
02:54:00 because it will allow freight to be offloaded off of ships in the ports of Los Angeles and
02:54:06 Long Beach, transferred by rail to the intermodal facility in Barstow, and then distributed
02:54:11 by rail to other parts of the country instead of being on trucks.
02:54:15 And as I'm sure you're aware, given your position, it's about ten times more efficient to transport
02:54:20 freight by rail than by truck.
02:54:23 It's much less carbon in the atmosphere.
02:54:24 It's better for everyone to do this.
02:54:26 The problem is if you, if the EPA approves CARB's waiver request, BNSF is not going to
02:54:33 build that transfer facility in Barstow because they would be required to have all electric
02:54:37 locomotives that don't exist.
02:54:39 And so they're going to put that facility in Arizona.
02:54:41 So in a way, I should thank CARB.
02:54:44 I've gotten more constituent engagement on this issue than on any other issue in my 19
02:54:49 years in elected office.
02:54:50 And I brought you a little gift here.
02:54:53 This is several thousand letters from my constituents that they've written in, all of them opposing
02:55:01 the waiver request from CARB that they would need to implement this.
02:55:05 So first question for you, can you tell me what the timing is on the EPA's ruling on
02:55:10 the waiver request on this issue?
02:55:12 Well, I can tell you that all of the issues that you've raised, we're hearing as well.
02:55:18 And listen, by law, California has the right to submit these waivers.
02:55:23 There are eight waivers that are before us, including this locomotive waiver.
02:55:27 And so we're working with CARB to try to prioritize these waivers because they require, as you
02:55:31 just laid out, a lot of technical rigor and the appropriate resources to make the right
02:55:36 decision.
02:55:37 I'll have my team follow up with you on the timing for all of the waivers, including locomotive.
02:55:42 But I can tell you that we're going through a very thorough evaluation right now, and
02:55:46 we've got a lot of things to consider.
02:55:49 Thank you.
02:55:50 Do you have a timing on whether or not, on when you're going to make a decision on the
02:55:53 waiver?
02:55:54 I'll have our teams connect on that.
02:55:56 I don't have the specific timing of that waiver and where it is in that process.
02:55:59 All right.
02:56:00 Thank you.
02:56:01 I appreciate that.
02:56:02 Absolutely.
02:56:03 As you have just pointed out, CARB has the right to make the request, but the EPA has
02:56:08 the right to approve or deny the requests.
02:56:12 And the Clean Air Act explicitly preempts state regulation of interstate commerce assets,
02:56:20 such as locomotives.
02:56:21 Why on earth would we as a federal government allow a state to create their own regulations?
02:56:27 I mean, wouldn't that, when we have 50 different state regulations on locomotives, wouldn't
02:56:32 that completely destroy our ability to have a locomotive go from state to state?
02:56:38 One of the reasons that we are spending time and giving careful consideration to these
02:56:41 waivers is I have pledged, and so have my team members, to follow the science and follow
02:56:47 the law.
02:56:48 We have to be sure that any action that we take does both of those things, especially
02:56:52 follow the law.
02:56:53 And so we're giving some careful consideration to these waivers.
02:56:56 We're going through the evaluation process.
02:56:58 I don't want to get ahead and project or predict whether we're going to deny or approve.
02:57:03 I will say that we're going to go through a thorough process.
02:57:05 It will be transparent.
02:57:06 And I'd love for our staffs to keep working with yours on where we are in the process
02:57:10 to be as transparent as possible.
02:57:12 I look forward to doing that, and happy to partner with you on that issue.
02:57:16 I am confident that if we follow the science, it's going to be very clear that, first of
02:57:22 all, the technology to implement this does not exist.
02:57:25 And second of all, that forcing freight off of ports onto trucks instead of being transported
02:57:32 by rail is actually much worse for the climate than trying to force electric locomotives
02:57:39 that we currently don't have the technology to comply with in the first place.
02:57:45 So I've sent yesterday a letter to you signed by 74 members of Congress.
02:57:51 Every single member of the Republican California congressional delegation has sent you a letter
02:57:56 on this issue.
02:57:57 Over half of the members of this committee have sent you a letter on this issue, including
02:58:01 all of the Republican members.
02:58:03 And so I would ask that you work with us on this and recognize the serious consequences
02:58:11 of allowing CARB to go forward with this very misguided proposal.
02:58:15 You have my commitment to work with you all, be transparent, and be fair.
02:58:19 And so we're going to, again, go through this process, evaluate it very carefully, and there
02:58:24 will be no surprises.
02:58:25 I look forward to that.
02:58:26 Mr. Chair, I yield back.
02:58:28 Gentleman yields.
02:58:29 Okay, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff
02:58:35 hearing documents list without objection, so ordered.
02:58:38 I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record and
02:58:42 I ask the witnesses to respond to the questions promptly.
02:58:47 Thank you, Administrator, for being here today, for your diligence.
02:58:50 Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
02:58:53 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Recommended

1:28
I
Up next
Sadiq Khan is ‘tackling’ homelessness with charity football game
The Independent
1:08
Mishal Husain’s final message to BBC Radio 4 listeners after 11 years on air
The Independent
0:50
Car removed from swimming pool after driver crashes through fitness center’s wall
The Independent
3:44:29
House Rules Committee Debates Anti-ICC Bill After Arrest Warrants Issued Of Israel's Netanyahu
Forbes Breaking News
43:38
BREAKING NEWS: GOP Senators Tear Into Biden Over New Executive Order On Border Security And Asylum
Forbes Breaking News
3:53
Raul Ruiz Asked Point Blank: 'What's Your Position On Gain Of Function Research?'
Forbes Breaking News
3:56
Top Dem Defends 6-Foot Social Distancing After Bombshell Fauci Admission It 'Wasn't Based On Data'
Forbes Breaking News
0:33
AOC: 'Patently Unproductive' To Have Israel's Netanyahu Address Congress
Forbes Breaking News
14:50
Chuck Grassley Calls Out Hillary Clinton & Crossfire Hurricane In Response To Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
14:38
'We Should've Been Honest': Brad Wenstrup Confronts Fauci Over His Handling Of COVID-19 Pandemic
Forbes Breaking News
2:26
JUST IN: Hunter Biden Arrives At Wilmington, Delaware, Federal Court For Hearing In His Gun Trial
Forbes Breaking News
31:46
BREAKING NEWS: Speaker Johnson, House GOP Leaders Rip 'Sham Trial' That Led To Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
13:33
Bernie Sanders Slams 'Netanyahu And His Extremist Government' After Biden Announces Ceasefire Deal
Forbes Breaking News
7:08
BREAKING NEWS: Matt Gaetz Directly Confronts Merrick Garland About 'Lawfare Against Trump'
Forbes Breaking News
1:19
BREAKING NEWS: First Lady Dr. Jill Biden Arrives At Federal Court For Hunter Biden’s Gun Trial
Forbes Breaking News
4:01
'I Know Where You're Going': Fauci Grilled By GOP's Lawyer About Gain-Of-Function Research
Forbes Breaking News
31:31
WATCH: GOP Lawyer Spends Half An Hour Questioning Dr. Fauci About Vaccine Mandates, 6-Foot Rule
Forbes Breaking News
2:22
Dr. Fauci Asked Point Blank About How 6-Foot Social Distancing Rule Came About
Forbes Breaking News
1:10
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Funding Government 'Does Not Matter' After Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
1:07
VIRAL MOMENT: John Rose’s Son Steals The Show Making Funny Faces Behind Dad’s House Floor Speech
Forbes Breaking News
7:42
JUST IN: Senate Democrats Warn Of Threats To Reproductive Rights After Dobbs Decision
Forbes Breaking News
11:28
'Enormously Disappointed': Chrissy Houlahan Fires Back At Beth Van Duyne Over Abortion Amendment
Forbes Breaking News
1:19
JUST IN: Famed Sex Therapist, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, Dies At 96
Forbes Breaking News
4:05
Political Scientist Reveals Issues In Minnesota Under Gov. Tim Walz
Forbes Breaking News
7:25
‘SBA Has Failed To Substantially Produce Documents’: Beth Van Duyne Presses Offical On Delay
Forbes Breaking News