tv Senate Environment Committee Hearing on State Air Quality Programs CSPAN March 6, 2019 3:29am-4:59am EST
barrasso chair of the full committee. >> good morning. thanks everyone for being here today. this hearing of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee is called to order. first i'm going to turn to senator barrasso to make a few comments. >> thank you mr. chairman before we begin i want to take a moment to congratulate the senator on holding his first hearing is the chairman of the clean air and
nuclear safety subcommittee. she just joined the senate a few months ago and he's already established himself as a leader. i know you share my commitment to pursue innovative, practical solutions to improve the air that we breathe while allowing for our economy to grow. i look forward to supporting your work into the works of subcommittee will accomplish with you at the helm. today's hearing addresses a critical subject, states and washington working together to protect our environment. when i go back to my home state of wyoming i hear about the improved relationship regulators and businesses have with the environmental protection agency since president trump has taken office. so thank you for holding this important meeting. >> you're welcome. i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement before turning the floor over to the ranking member white house for five minutes. then we will hear from our panel of experts. coming to the subcommittee not just as a conservationist and
advocates, but as someone who knows how important clean air is from first-hand experience became a farmer and an outdoorsman way back in my hometown in jasper indiana at 16-years-old i took slides of our factories spewing out of coal dust in our communities, so my interest in this is deep-rooted. respecting and preserving our natural resources has been a priority of mine since i was young and even started a club in high school excited to be able to work with my colleagues on the subcommittee and with the trump administration to protect our environment in an economically responsible way. the purpose of this hearing is to hear your experiences implementing the concept of cooperative federalism under the clean air act in hopes of providing the subcommittee and
the public at large with a greater understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing states as they engage with the epa to implement clean air act regulations. on a subject box with the air of two or three weeks ago when it came to waters of the u.s. i had three different farmers ask me about how they navigate through the web of regulations in a simple process and they were confused by the intertwining of what they think is there and how it's even being implemented at the state level. despite what some stories may suggest, we've seen tremendous air quality improvements in the u.s. since congress passed the clean air act of 70 and at the same time our economy has grown. u.s. gdp has grown 324% since 1970.
while emissions and major air pollutants have dropped precipitously. over the same timeframe, emissions of six common solutions, glad, blair, o. zon, particles, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide have fallen 73%. a bunch of the history this was achieved through rulemaking, input from the industry, the states and the federal government was carefully considered to reach attainable targets. despite these successes the previous administrations eroded the doctrine creating inefficiencies and in ways both the federal and state levels. the obama epa mandated regulations with minimal collaboration with the states. the regulations also ignored and exaggerated the feasibility of commercially available control
technologies. this led to a lack of regulatory coordination between states and the epa in some jurisdictional lawsuits resulting. most notably, 26 states went to the supreme court and asked for relief from the clean power plant siting the epa lack of authority to issue that will. in an unprecedented move the court granted the states requested state the rule. the trump administration and the new epa administrator have recognized the need to reconsider controversial rules that have went way beyond their original and independent authority. this administration is committed to listening to the concerns of the states. our expert says today are state air officials who can bring in on the ground perspective as to how the decrease in federal litigation tidying up state
resources has affected their important work. north dakota in an example that we will hear about today have saved half a million dollars in litigation annually and can instead redirect that money towards environmental protecti protection. my regulatory philosophy is the government workas thegovernmente local level. i think there is regulation needed and it's been implemented when you are closest to the people. those being governed have skin in the game and i applaud the administrator's efforts to implement the law as intended by congress ensuring that those who make regulatory decisions are members of the communities that will live under those regulations. i look forward to hearing from the panel of expert witnesses today, and again i would like to emphasize my passion for this critical issue. now i'd like to recognize the ranking member senator white house for his opening statement.
thank you mr. chairman and congratulations on your hearing as the chair. chair. of almost 11 months ago the subcommittee held a hearing on the same subject that brings us here today, cooperative so-called federalism. at the hearing we heard a powerful testimony from the lead environmental officials in california and delaware who described the damage that the rising seas driven by carbon pollution are causing in the states. the witnesses from delaware also described the struggle of reducing air pollution when much of it flows in from power plants and a planned state. i lamented that then administrator scott pruett's governing philosophy wasn't so much cooperative federalism as it was corporatism serving the interests of the industry. and so here we sit 11 months later about to take testimony on the same subject. it occurs to me to wonder what the point is to these hearings. what has the epa done with respect to the last hearing held
on april 10, 2018. well, april 13, 3 days after the last hearing on the subject, the epa issued a final notice denying a petition about by connecticut under the clean air act asking the epa to make a determination that those power plant was responsible for its inability to meet air quality standards. so much for the epa concerned about the problem of the cross state air pollution. august 2 at the national highway traffic administration announced a proposal to freeze greenhouse gas emissions and corporate fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. this proposal would result in additional carbon pollution of almost 900 million metric tons for the model year is 2021 to 2025. the equivalent of adding almost 200 million to the road for one year and represents almost 20% of the u.s. total carbon emissions in 2018. who at the epa was paying attention when california and
delaware discussed with carbon pollution is linked to the coastal states august 21 they announced a proposal to replace the clean power plant. this would result in additional carbon pollution between 20 to 61 million short tons per year over the period 2025 to 2035 the equivalent of having between four to 12 million cars to the road. again with anyone at the epa paying any attention when california and delaware discussed with the carbon pollution is doing to coastal states. september 1 11 epa announced a proposed rule to begin monitoring and repair rule for the methane leaks oil and gas facilities. this proposal would result in additional carbon pollution of 380,000 short tons of methane over the period 2019 to 2025, and would create downwind air pollution problems. the equivalent of adding almost 2 million cars to the road for one year. again, was anyone at the epa
paying a slightest attention to those states in our last hearing on the subject? october 15 the epa denied the petitions won by delaware and one by maryland asking to make a final determination that out-of-state power plants were responsible for their inability to meet air quality standards. december 6, after all the work of members of the committee had done to encourage carbon capture technologies, the epa proposed eliminating storage technologies of the best system of emission reduction for new and modified power plants. at december 22 epa proposed eliminating the legal justification for the rules limiting emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants that rhode island must live with. february 21, 2019 the trump administration announced it would end negotiations with california over the auto rule ended in short, the epa completely ignored the last hearing on this subject. what else since april 10?
there's the ever growing mountain of evidence of the epa's cooperative corporatism. former ep epa administrators cat prove its litany of scandals many related to improper relationships with the fossil fuel industry was supposed to be regulating became so long he was finally forced to resign after his resignation he was given a child by a cold air and into the revolving door spins. meanwhile, who did h we come frm to replace him through the revolving door came to lobbyist andrew wheeler. we shrugged off the fact that the u.s. chamber of commerce and association of manufacturers and fossil fuel industry front groups to rigid recruit and the american council for clean coal electricity dot essentially exactly their proposal to replace the clean power plants and guess what, the head of epa's office was responsible for this proposal used to have the utility group as his client the revolving door just keeps
spinning. we turned a blind eye to the marathon petroleum's role in doing greenhouse gas emission fuel economy standards for automobiles and various front groups that received a minimum of $196 million from fossil fuel industry interests all will be to roll back the standards instead of companies and the americaamerican fueled and petrochemical manufacturers. so forget federalism at epa come it's become ever more apparent that the trump epa has zero intention of listening to the states in every intention of kowtowing to the fossil fuel industry. we ought to be holding hearings on the capture by the industry that it's supposed to regulate but instead has been turned into exploit plaything. thank you mr. chairman. >> as you can see from the opening statements we are going to have a robust conversation here today. [laughter] we will now hear from our witnesses. the chief of the environmental
health section of the north dakota department of health. becky, director arkansas department of environmental quality, greg, assistant chief counsel california air resources board. very pleased to have our witnesses today have representatives from states here in our own subcommittee. i will start with senator cramer to introduce the witness from north dakota and after that, senator boozman while introduced a guest from arkansas. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here and thanks for inviting me to testify today. i think there is an exceptional story regarding the subject of today's hearing and i look forward to your testimony. i can't think of anybody better prepared than dave to testify on this topic. he's a native from north dakota and received his bachelor's degree in biology and masters in
environmental engineering from north dakota state university famous for lots of things not the least of which out of the eight national championships and we celebrated yesterday with the president o at the white house s a great day so thanks for being here. dave spent 35 years at the department of health. he's been the chief of environmental health for the department fodepartment for the6 years. he has over the course of 35 years obviously has worked with lots of administrations of different political stripes and looking at relationships have different philosophies and all the while as north dakota's air, water, land resources at the heart of every part of his job and we've seen that. when i was a regulator of the public service commission, we always have great confidence because he was looking out for
the air we breathe so with that perspective, dave, thank you for being here and we look forward to your testimony. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator boozman. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to give a special thanks to becky of little rock arkansas for being here today to testify. becky has an impressive job history which has made her uniquely qualified at this hearing to testify. becky served as the of the arkansas department of environmental quality since 2015 and prior to her role as director, she served as the deputy director from 1996 to 2006 and was subsequently appointed to serve on the geological commission from 2006 to 2009. currently the president of the environmental council of the united states which we are very proud of. an arkansas native, she has a
degree in chemical engineering from our mutual alma mater and the university of arkansas. we can't brag that we are getting very well right now the trv building. as an arkansas native, we really do appreciate all that she's done and appreciate her being here today and look forward to your testimony. thanks for all your hard work and the different areas for the people of arkansas. >> thank you, senator. finally, craig is the assistant chief counsel of the california air resources board where he is responsible for litigation and implementation of many of the board's climate and clean air programs. previously a staff attorney at the sierr sierra club sierra cle mitigated any of the issues we will discuss today. also a formidable clerk of the honorable u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.
he's a graduate of the university of chicago and the stanford law school. thank you for being here today. i want to remind the witnesses to your full written testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record. please keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have time for plenty of questions. look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman we are not good as primary environmental protection agency responsible for implementation such as the clean air act as background north dakota is mostly a rural agricultural states which leads the nation and thinthe production of many agricultural crops.
in addition we are second in the nation for oil production and we are a net energy exporter distributing energy throughout the region following and i'll get a philosophies utilizing abundanabundant coal, oil, natus and renewable resources the state has routinely been recognized for its quality and environmental program compliance and overall quality of life. i needed today to briefly discuss my observations after 35 years working with the department of the federadepartmd state working relationship that's been referred to as a relationship and cooperative federalism and in principle the federal government works with states as equal partners in the pursuit of environmental and public health protection. under this doctrine, the federal government sets the standards to provide national consistency and the states are tasked with implementation of the standards for federal oversight. due to the diverse nature, the climate biology, cultural and
political elements vary widely and it is important for states take a lead role in the implementation of environmental programs in fact the doctrine has matured over the years where the states are directly responsible for over 90% of the program implementation and enforcement activities. where the states are the primary implementers of the programs, innovative cost-effective approaches to environmental protection or the role and not exception. we live in the communities we regulate and where transparency responsiveness accessibility and accountability are not just buzzwords expectationbuzzwords f helping those we serve. working in various capacities, i have observed the following. more cooperative federalism is embraced by epa and states with respect to air quality and the results of and lasting a cost-effective solution and the state under this doctrine sites have been cost-effectively close in a timely manner and use of compliance assistance technologies such as optimal cameras were introduced for use
in the oil fields and epa acknowledged and adopted a state developed minor source to permitting program that enhance the epa regulatory presence on tribal land and cooperative environmental health protection follows. setting the establishment of states have consistently and methodically increased their technical expertise and competency to the point where they are at par or exceed the federal government in many areas of environmental protection. the states excel in areas where they follow good science into the wall into the technical expertise is applied to the state specific environmental conditions or industrial operations. states direct involvement with environmental challenges has also identified certain areas where the expertise may be limited and federal input is appreciated and needed such as the establishment of the standards. federal regulatory does not follow the doctor in order to de
state specific concerns that has resulted in challenges and considerable expenditures of the state dollars for the epa hasn't taken the time to listen to the state specific challenges and has instead created numerous and sometimes onerous regulations while treating the states as a single entity has resulted in less cooperation and more litigation during the past administration they spend over $7,000 challenging environmental regulations such as the clean powerplant that did not account for the specific nature of the environment or the industry or the direct and indirect impact on the citizens of the state. the state viewed regulations as an arbitrary federal overreach with little or no environmental benefit. our expenditures expand in the current administration is a little over $100,000 which has been primarily expended to address the actions from previous administrations. in the current working relationship with our federal partners there's been more listening and cooperation than prescriptive directives in the
field of excessive funds spent on litigation would be better spent on the compliance and improvement actions. it's important to note the quality remains at high levels of compliance rates have not decreased in the state of mortal sin and flexible cooperative approach in this administration. states are constant in the change each new administration typically starts out declaring a new wave of environmental protection. it's been my experience when a federal partner has outlined a new approach to environmental regulation, they believe they be will be ait willbe an improvemee actions however these iterations seem to discount the actions by the states and the unique necessary role they play in the environmental protection. it is my experience that the federal regulatory pendulum can swing from one administration to another while the state regulatory pendulum moves less radically. although states do not agree on every issue in the foundation of all state-level actions have
historically been accessible accountable environmental and public health protection. last, the right of states to and from a desire for the protection and controls must be applied judiciously with great responsibility of caution. athe request to improve environmental challenges should not negatively impact the sovereign state jurisdictions outside of the borders. negative regulatory impacts include additional cost to the state with no perceived or actual benefit. we have experience with issues such as this related to the energy production and how an adjoining state attempted t to direct the development and industry standards of north dakota. this concludes my testimony and they will stand for the questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you. >> chairman, ranking member white house and committee members, i' i'm the director of arkansathearkansas that departmd it's an honor to appear before this committee.
i bring greetings from the governor hutchison and our great natural resourcgreatest naturale and a hello from home to you senator boozman. i was here seeking the body of assistance in putting the relationship to the federal andl government and state file they called on states to be partners with epa that states were more pawn in parker and not only were states excluded from the environmental policy solutions, we were not even part of the equation. i'm here once again representing arkansas and much has changed. in addition to my duties i now serve as the president of the environmental council state and since my first testimony, states have gone from asking for a seat at the table to a discussion of what happens when we arrived. we are now advocating for a standard operating procedure of shared decision making and decid protection, shared problem-solving and programmatic development between the states and epa. when federalism is at its purest it's als also about its rawest saying that the agencies and epa
are required to simultaneously regulate from the position of sovereign and support it and that is compounded by the dynamic and unpredictable subject matter of which we are asked to regulate. often our most challenging days are ones that cannot be imagined just the day before. protecting and preserving the environment requires environmental regulators to stand at the ready to respond to such as acts of congress and natural disasters. our challenges are at the same time unique to our locality but yet universal to the larger national community and each answer is both a part in the whole. each of our voices is essential to the effective management of the nations air, land and wildlife to understand and navigate the future relationship of the epa witness to an understanding of the past administration and i understand you have experience in the logistics company and i'm sure in working extensively with vehicles you notice the size of the windshield in relationship
to the rearview mirror. there is a reason the windshield is larger than the rearview mirror. certainly the future for them the past but it serves an undeniable purpose. in order to understand where we are going we must first understand where we've been. missteps of the past with a way of catching up to us after we have since passed them by hand like a rearview mirror, these objects may be closer than they appear however by looking through the windshield we can see the test innovation and exploration into the path forward should be paved with greater responsibility and flexibility of the state level. the argument for the decent regulation is not an argument for eliminating the federal environmental protection but rather an argument for redefining the federal state balance. states today bear little resemblance to the 1960s and our role in environmental protection has fundamentally changed. we've been transformed by growth of professional staff, vigorous two-party systems, use of referendum to make policy, procedure requirements to assure
greater public participation in the decisions and many aspects of environmental protection have been assimilated into state and local politics. 70% of environmental legislation enacted by the states now have little or nothing to do with national policy and only 25% approximately $2.8 billion is the total amount states now spend annually on environmental and natural resources that come from washington. states are responsible for nearly all the enforcement of environmental laws and continued to dominate decisions in the areas of land use and waste disposal. ..
taking record investment of solar energy and energy performance solutions with greenhouse gas emissions that were mandated under previous regulatory agenda as. "this is it" isolated all states have unique regional experiences and success that allow us to deal with and for seen challenges the texas louisiana and the state's national guard, department of health to help us distinguish the expansive underground fire that threatened air quality in one of our communities. these challenges we are battling remind us even the most robust programs with the expert and novice depending on the challenge where the epa could be the difference maker it is frustrating to both of us the epa has been limited by current law so looking through
that windshield we must find a better path there hasn't been a substantial modification and not use those epa resources and considering the flexibility offering support on with a supporting role with the progressive programs to benefit from a central source of support program happy to report changes on the horizon. and then to discuss the road ahead. and then to focus through the windshield and i commend to him that the wisdom the difficulty in every opportunity the optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty. thank you very much. we are one of the oldest bodies in the country and in the world given the tens of millions of people that desperately have protection with air quality there are a few points that are elaborated the first that we have heard is the clean air act is built on the framework that recognizes two critical points that they need to be their primary regulators and second to strong and consistent federal partner that protects their work so the hallmark of
that program is the clean air act california has been regulating vehicle omissions before there was the epa and to recognize that and without laboratory for innovation. like the check engine light and the catalytic converter and those that are around the country to see dramatic increases with that shared collaboration in the democratic issues. with those dramatic decreases and enormous benefits looking at 20 trillion as a result of the clean air act.
with a 40 / one cost-benefit ratio and this is critical is at risk today that treat states with contempt so again my core example is the vehicle program the trump administration said it will never finish negotiating with california but they never started but we have been regulating greenhouse gases successfully those that we develop gently and with any opinions of that role they still have not even answer that so the bottom line is a frozen process is not rooted in science the experts publishing condemning their
approach and on the basis of their body record but the proposal is $168 billion of cost to the country conservatively and with public investments with the enormous amount of air pollution. with those federally mandated air quality standards and those flexibility and then to increase powerplant omissions. with those air-quality
standards and then it was so ethically corrupt that is that wholesale agency capture. to my third point and there's only a decade left to change course it is a rule of law with that framework set forward by the congress and those going on half a century but if interest groups are swept aside with those narrow cost to the economies so it is to reassert the prerogative of
oversight and care for public policy there isn't much time left we need your help and we need it now. think you spin i think you witnesses for your testimony we now turn to the senators for questions and i recognize myself for five minutes and stick as close as we can the epa under the obama administration are co- sovereign and protecting the environment can you state you have seen that responsibility yes. in several ways. that overall initial
relationship with the obama administration is what have you been up to lately that now what can we do to help? and actually allowing us to do environmental protection so we look forward to that relationship to be the same it's about compliance at the end of the day. not gotcha and we appreciate that approach we have taken clear example and started out working with the epa their assistance to make sure that the law was invaluable. in the past they would have remained silent waited for public comment that approach us in that gotcha moment that's not how you do
government. >> we see the cooperation of this administration we had many things that were cold for decades if not longer in terms of permanence policies arkansas is benefiting directly from the state regional plan with the eye one - - without the added billion of unnecessary controls that were mandated under the federal plan from the previous administration as well as the staff in dc and outreach has been effective to bring us to the table ahead of issues and
the state regulators with the particular process with the effective and good outcome for the environment. >> and then to make sure we know where the oil wells are developed who is developing them initially the epa was critical of that but once they took a look they adopted that program and implemented it on the reservation improving environmental quality on the reservation. if we can permit at the state level it can be done quicker in a matter of days versus weeks or not at all with the
epa. >> likewise with those minor sources that don't fall to the level that also have what we believe is protective to allow the flexibility this is been very effective with that administration so we look forward to that interaction. we also have the permit programs on those key issues and to bring a final resolution through ongoing debate to the state and local government.
>> and briefly for the same two witnesses when the epa developed the clean powerplant did they consult to determine feasibility? or did they ignore your input quick. >> they did consult with us but it was superficial. meeting with the administrator in north dakota it was 0 degrees i expressed is not always that warm that these changes in the power grid would result in true public health implications so they consulted the final rule looked - - did not look at all like the proposed rules and they did not listen to us at all. >> we were consulted only toward the final proposal that arkansas has the base of nuclear power but a diverse energy supply it was important to have a plan that works for
us going forward and we are seeing benefits of that flexibility using technology to improve the greenhouse gas emissions. >> i guess the point i would like to work with the neighboring states clean air as a downwind states mine cannot regulate the spewing power plants pennsylvania or west virginia or ohio there's nothing we can do about that those states think they have been released of onerous stimulation but i live in a world that i have heard the
radio say that air is unsafe to breathe in my state that they should stay indoors on a nice summer day because nobody will tell the polluted power plants in their states to knock it off and clean up their act. so until rhode island is protected we are from downwind states it is a big difference in our lives talk about the windshield feature i would add headlights so we can see ahead for what is coming at us. and the headlights are science. so those that through legitimate scientist off the
advisory board to ignore the scientific reports and they will take a real beating. we don't have that much to give away folks. several feet of sea level rise is not funny and the fact epa will not take an interest in this issue is very frustrating. but i have a different fight to protect my own state here and what i see is very selective cooperative federalism. it is cooperative federalism of interest of the state aligns with the fossil fuel industry that they are all cooperative as get out bricco
but when california and rhode island café standards when they have worked together and put together a rule to withstand the test of time over decades? this approach to cooperative federalism is no. and we will completely ignore the 14 states that have done this for a long time. this isn't right and it will come home to roost because you can stop science you can stop fax of the biological and geological rules that we know so this will show the true north was not federalism but whatever the fossil fuel industry told it to do in my
experience that has been the true north. those that are down - - downwind states when there is a power plant the epa walks away there are coastal states not just me but moody say it will have municipal debt will be rated based on sealevel risk on communities. freddie mac has coastal property values crash as a result of the 2008 mortgage meltdown. freddie mac is not the sierra club. they are all about homes and mortgages and they are worried about it. first street went all the way up the coast and research shows that coastal property values in areas are subject to flooding are starting to peel off so as they crash that is
what that looks like and that is what is happening already mentioning the café standards some cooperative federalism when they won't work with 14 states on a program that has already been working very effectively to help bring down pollution from automobiles. i appreciate this hearing but i think cooperative federalism is a mask or a sham as a way to deliver for the fossil fuel industry and depending on what state you are they will roll right over you in the name of cooperative federalism. >> thank you. senator quick. >> thank you to all the witnesses. i will follow up on chairman braun wrapped up at the end of his time because i would like
to hear you put some more meat on those bones with the collaboration and cooperation of the federal government if you recall i was on the public service commission when that was first rolled out. when we first saw the clean powerplant for what we were trying to address that our state along with our stakeholders looking for pragmatic solutions and by the way, before i forget is anybody remember the supreme court of the united states stating a clean powerplant?
and that would not be appropriate by the supreme court of the united states so let's not forget there are facts that we cannot ignore so with that if you could just help you reference the fire rule and the difference maybe talk a little bit about that because that is important. >> yes. first i will state when the proposal came out i sat down with every one of the ceos from the utilities somewhere co-ops are privately owned not one of those ceos said no go they said we can do this but we need time and cooperation so they sat down to look at the proposal and said this is something we can work through. they were actively looking at how do we reduce co2 or how do we start changing that electric generation economy?
we sat down with epa and said this is something we can work with. what came out of that was primarily those reductions required to the point where the ceo said we cannot work with this basically this puts us out of business. so they went from cooperation to say yes we can do this trying to work with the epa to explain where this was going and how to make this work in the point where epa pushed it to the limit and said we cannot be a part of this anymore. >> just to follow up on that had that comment. with the final rule and we as a state and other stakeholders having known the bait-and-switch had they not known that was going on could
they have acted more aggressively if they thought the epa was a real partner in all of this quick. >> yes senator. actually they were kicking themselves because they did not actively comment because that was something they thought they could work with when it came out later it was so radically different they really thought they miss that opportunity not to come out more aggressively initially. they thought they had the cooperative process moving forward to use the same term it was bait-and-switch. what we seek from the epa individuals to say what is going on? they said there are winners and losers and you lost. that's not how we operate or how anybody should operate. we are in this together and we are sensitive to those needs but we have to work together and not have winners and
losers. >> i'm not familiar with the specific situations. >> our biggest challenge was the winners and losers aspect in our state it was fundamentally focused on clean energy and the recent speech of the chairman of the joint energy community said that cheapest kilowatt is the one not used so we focus on efficiency finding ways the university is saving $20 million a week a year in energy performance to put tuition dollars back into education rather than pay for a higher use of energy to run their campus so these are solutions that our durable and reasonable and that is what we
are looking for investment and that is what we hope and for a strategy going forward. >> thank you mister chairman. >> senator carper. >> thank you mister chairman. i served in the state legislature with the general assembly and appointed by president reagan to serve on the commission i believe in federalism i believe it's important i think the clean air act represents that list example and in 1863 recognizing the states of the primary responsibility to regulate what works copying what california did. we showed it could be done.
other states that could not act delaware or maryland or downwind states the obama administration was a recognition of the federal government is the only entity that can control what goes on over the borders. so i am somewhat puzzled by the support of the trump administration when it has restricted the state's ability to act where it believes in the best interest but has withdrawn the federal support on those areas that are really interstate areas. so let me give you a chance how those restrictions imposed by the trump administration is affecting the state of california with its ability to do with the supreme court has said under the clean air act that carbon is a dangerous
pollutant and is required to be regulated through the clean air act how has the trump policy affected your ability to protect carbon emissions in your state quick. >> it is profoundly concerning. this is a justice question we've already talked about carbon dioxide this is about vulnerable people in sacramento you cannot even see the end of the street this summer we are acutely aware of the danger of climate pollution. we are seeing is the flatline of the federal greenhouse gas standards to attack california's ability with those standards and this is the emission vehicle standards which is with our smog standards we have been here before twice with two federal district courts have upheld our authority it is beyond the pale so we will see excess
pollution and increase of a climate risk in general air-quality risk and additional pollution and smog pollution. >> do you support the trump administration's restrictions on the 13 states that have different emission standards? do you support taking away from the state's ability to act in regards to the emission issues? . >> senator, i am a very strong supporter of the states act and to address those issues but where i start to get a little shaky is when the state is imposing with the right to
control pollution in our state starts to impact other states and we have externalities. so vehicle omissions for california. >> to support their ability to do that quick. >> i support their ability at an if it has any probable impact on north dakota. >> but if north dakota started to do that you should have the right quick. >> that's correct. >> do you also agree with what he said so the epa regulating from opposition our attorney general has been with these matters but what we look at that states rights apply to regulatory matters under the la law. . . . .
us informed. as you mentioned when the administrator found out you were going to be in town and wanted to meet with you, the regional administrator also saw i think this is what this is all about in the sense that we talk about cooperation. my experience, and. my experience dealing with the past not just the past
administration that the administrations in general how can we do a better job working hand-in-hand as senator cardin pointed out that frustration with the states wanting to do this and that. to develop the rules and regulations. >> thank you, senator bozeman. i'm happy to do that in arkansas who worked closely with our regulators could also with our public interest groups to
increase transparency and i know working recently one of the things we've asked them to do is reduce the duplication where they might grow, analyze or replace our decision-making with their own technical staff and to reallocate those resources to helping us solve those problems it's about the fact we should be able to find answers and collective work rather than independent analysis that seems to waste money and time.
this can serve as a model for the interagency collaboration. i mention natural disasters and we've talked about a specific control fire in arkansas this is the subject matter that in california i notice dear and near to their heart hearts theya number of situations where we believe fire is a tool that is necessary to use and to manage to avoid those fires that resulted in a much larger environmental impact in for the state forestry we were able to bring together stakeholders to help get a common understanding of how the practice can be beneficial fo but at the same te implemented for the quality and speakers from epa and even our
own farm bureau or agricultural group has a tool to inform them on how to better your device but decision-making. it's a better solution that we as an agency may have devised. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> welcome. it's great to see you. one of the things we are being asked as democrats and republicans we believe climate change is real and human beings are contributing to that. and we think the congress has some responsibility in addressing that. do you believe and i will ask do you believ believe the csr no qs
>> yes and no. >> we do act in arkansas. >> do you think we as human beings have something to do with climate change? >> senator -- >> yes and we are doing everything about it. >> we are taking action to reduce any man-made emissions so that we can reduce and drive better -- >> is that a yes? >> is beyond the level of proof
as yesterday. >> do you think congress has a responsibility in addressing this challenge yes or no? >> congress has a role that the difficulty -- >> do we have a shared responsibility in addressing this? >> i believe this is a science decision not so much a political decision that there is a role to play in making sure they are treated. >> it's a fundamental responsibility that is determined to the country.
problems i would ask the greatest source of carbon emissions in the country comes from mobile sources for the 50 state deal and when it came time to actually negotiate a deal in telephone you and 13 other states, it was nowhere to be seen. >> that is true. this is a program that we've worked on for decades in the public administrations one was preserved and recognized the regulatory state sovereigns the administration broke off and never responded to our areas of compromise offered any comp is at all. can you tell us more about this administration's efforts to work with california's compared to
how the obama administration did so? >> we worked extensively on the technical details. this is a science question we had a report and everything was working fine. this administration issued a determination in response to the presidential message that was just a few pages long that blew up the entire program and that is inconsistent with the negotiating style folks in the room are already familiar with the programs. >> stationed for a while in san diego and the shipment in long beach in california there were days i like to run outside and i did a lot more damage to my mums than i dithen i did good and thn they've asked for more standards shared by the states like utah.
for the 49 states they didn't want that they wanted a 50 state deal and why we don't work with them in california to make that happen is beyond me. something that is good for the planet and the air it just makes no sense. thank you. >> one is a state that covers california, delaware follows, california we are all in on your efforts here. administrative wheeler proposed new emissions rules dot would
take away the ability to send its own standards and would allow our states to follow because of an attack on california is an attack on all of us. and we feel it. has california's clean air act for the vehicle emission standards ever been revolved? >> it has never happened. so the assault on the state level standards means more money spent from the middle east and carbon pollution in the atmosphere and more uncertainty for states who would you say is the winner if trump wins through his epa administrator who is the
winner in all this? >> oil companies are just doing cartwheels with the happiness that they have about how much lower fuel economy status will be. >> we see enormous increases in people being paid to buy their product. what's going on is the extent for public health. >> along with senators over here talking with nancy pelosi, we got that done and that's what was used with the california waiver and i'm very proud of that and it's still the largest single production of greenhouse gases than any country in the world.
he climate denier gets a state of the union address for an hour and 20 minutes doesn't mention climate change names of fossil fuel lobbyists to be the head of the epa. so, will a challenge to california's ability to set its own strong standards under the clean air act being uncertainty for the consumers and auto manufacturers? >> it is massive litigation to take every other action at their disposal. it isn't going to lift anybody's regulatory burden. it's going to require extensive state action to get where we need to go and make it harder for the auto industry there's no
intention in having it in any way undermined the authority it's been twice by the courts that you have this authority so we are setting up a massive prolonged litigation with the whole world is looking at us and trump is then the climate denier in chief in these apocalyptic events across the planet they are becoming more and more intense and we are seeing incredible tornadoes across the south, unprecedented in terms of their damage but unfortunately, the preview of the coming attractions of what is going to happen, and it will be even worse in the years.
succumbing in your testimony you mentioned disagreements between the epa and the national highway transportation staff working on the proposed new rule of the official events at the department of transportation cut the books to make sure they could produce the number given the analysis finds that this rule would actually cause an additional 17 fatalities per year despite the administration's argument that the rule would save lives by keeping drivers off the road? >> i've never before seen the epa rule there they are cut out of the process and file documents explaining the rule. >> this is a classic example of state and federal cooperation and trump and his loyal cronies are seeking to cheat on this
test including the fatalities that are caused also the damage in the planet. it's the worst and we are poised to see damage that is going to be absolutely catastrophic for us, but it's also true for the rest of the planet. thank you for all of your efforts. we stand with you and we will fight with you. >> we have time remaining and i'm going to use this to the full extent. we don't meet often enough and there is more to be said, so anyone that wants to follow up with an additional two and a half to three minutes, i'm going to start here and allow everybody else to do likewise. the standards issued in 2012 by
the obama administration should not be changed. do you agree that what we had in 2012 through the obama administration shouldn't be changed? >> when we went through that 12,000 page review we determined that the senators were being a little too weak and basically maintained a national program i wonder if that is implicit that there's roothere is room for nen and i will quote somebody from your state that was the head of the california air resources board, california will take all actions to ensure that the sparks standards we developed in partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles stay in place. speaking about the obama
standards that are feasible and beneficial and we need to review them was based on a single presidential tweet i would disagree with that as well. the alliance sent a letter to the epa and said if left unchanged, those standards could cause up to 1.1 million americans to lose jobs due to their vehicle sales and low income houses would be hit the hardest. and i would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record. ranking member white house, do you have an additional comment? >> you use the word temperature in your testimony. could you elaborate on what you mean and i assume you are describing the concept of regulatory capture or agency?
>> this speaks to the point where it's become so integral they stop thinking critically of the evidence. the auto industry were rejected on the record just months before the real analysis. what we are seeing on this has a lot to do with the fact they are run prematurely by the fossil fuel lobbyists. their economic interests are narrow and the ability to look at the evidence is clearly limited. and you don't have to take my word for it. we keep winning because the actions and effects and it's a strong indication we are seeing different choices by proper environmental decisions. >> they were the driving force
of the standards rollback. do you have any information from your perspective on the california resources board about the? >> we think that's right. it looks very much given that the science cannot possibly support what has been proposed and the auto industries themselves have said they don't want it, who does want us it is the oil industry. >> you mentioned in your testimony the clean powerplant as proposed by this fossil fuel industry run the epa. it's their own impact analysis to project increases in all of the major pollutants such as the
major revisions to the permitting programs to accommodate this massive proof of pollution. it's quite remarkable. >> if you are looking at it as a means for trying to reduce the emissions that would appear to be rather deliberately going the oppositinthe opposite directions not? i have 20 minutes but will try to say a few things and shift completely to the appropriate pragmatic issues. it's one of the coldest winters in decades and last week, maybe two weeks ago it could have been any week in the last five or six
is it not true that in the midwest that involves one of the concerns you raised earlier in your testimony involves the availability of the robust energy on the grid was at stake and why was that? the grid relies on energy sources that are not reliable, intranet and. the people of minnesota actually complained that the electricity wasn't as robust as a result of what always happens regardless 90% of the time is the wind doesn't turn into spin and then they don't provide and by the way that didn't even consider
the fact that gas companies were asking people to curtail the use of natural gas because they need to get this other fuel to dispatch electricity. my point overall is to tell you i have great empathy with what you are saying and the standards particularly transportation emissions. it can be between the interstate commerce clause and other federalism but it's never as simple as either side would like it to be. i just think that when they came out with not such a bait and switch in the standards it allows which i thought was unfair and unreasonable but they were very prescriptive as well and what i worry about is whenever we become overly
prescriptive or broaden jurisdictions for example that was one of the early blunder blf the cover plan was to go beyond the epa legal authority. we don't allow the type of innovation that i believe exists and i think you could make a point about that i think we could have a better conversation about this sometimes. my time is up but if anyone else wants to comment. >> i will just say california is a great example of that we are moving rapidly towards the renewable grade and we are finding that it's much less of a problem than we would have thought it is replacing in the gas plants in helping to balance that out it's been great to see how well americans can innovate when we ask them to do it. >> i would just add that as an engineer, i am a full believer that technology will lead the
way and we've seen that's the last few years and i hope that we can continue to show technology is the answer versus more regulation. >> thank you. >> we are seeing the market in the powerplant vacuum change we are seeing more renewable less emissions and that is without any regulations, so that tells me at least that corporations in north dakota understand things have to change and if they are doing that in its innovation and new technology and spending money. >> members can submit questions for the record that will be open for two weeks and i want to thank all of the witnesses. it was a very good and robust conversation i think that we are both in agreement that the topics of federalism and the environment need to be vetted and we need to take the full hour and i have to do it and we