tv Senate Environment Committee Hearing on State Air Quality Programs CSPAN March 7, 2019 2:02am-3:32am EST
hearing on state environmental air-quality programs. than the house judiciary committee considers the 1976 national emergencies act that the president based his national emergency declaration to build a wall on the southern border on. after that the russian ambassador to the u.s. rusher relations talks about pakistani relations and the conflict between india and pakistan. next, state officials from california, north dakota and arkansas testify about their states implementation of various environmental air- quality programs. craig siegel of the california air resources board outlines potential consequences of the trump administration's decision to end negotiations with the state regarding the epa's plan to scale back fuel economy standards. the subcommittee hearing is 90 minutes.
>> good morning. thanks everyone for being here >> good morning. thanks to 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 very much mr. chairman. before we begin i want to take a moment to congratulate senator -- on holding his first hearing as the chairman of the clean-air and safety subcommittee. he joined the senate a few months ago and already has established himself as a leader. senator i know you share my commitment to pursuing innovative and practical solutions to improve the air that we breathe while allowing for our economy to grow. i look forward to supporting your work and the work the subcommittee will accomplish with you at the helm. today's hearing addresses a
critical subject. states in washington working together to protect our environment. when i go back to my home state of wyoming, i hear about the improved relationship that regulators and businesses have with the environmental protection agency since president trump has taken office. so chairman braun thank you for holding this important meeting. >> i begin by recognizing myself for a brief opening statement before turning over to ranking member of white house for five minutes. then we will hear from our panel of experts. we come to the subcommittee not just as a conservationist and advocate for protecting national resources but as someone who knows how important clean-air is from first-hand experience from being a farmer and an outdoorsman. back in my hometown of jasper, indiana when i was 16 years old i took slides of our factories spewing out coal dust in our communities so my interest in this's deep roots.
so respecting and preserving our rich natural resources has been a priority of mine since i was young. even star of the ecology club back in high school. excited 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 this subcommittee and the public at large with a greater understanding of the opportunity and challenges facing states as they engage with the epa to implement clean air act regulations. on the subject not with air but 2-3 weeks ago when it came to waters in the usa had three different farmers asked me about how they navigate through
the web of regulations in the simple process of managing their ditches. 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 might suggest we have seen tremendous air-quality improvements in the u.s. since congress passed the clean air act of 70. at the same time the economy has grown, u.s. gdp has grown 324% since 1970. while emissions in major air pollution's have dropped precipitously. over the same timeframe emissions of six common pollutants led, ozone, particles, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide have fallen 73%. for much of the history of the caa this was achieved through
rulemaking where input from industry, the states and the federal government was carefully considered to reach attainable targets. despite these successes the previous administration eroded this doctrine, creating inefficiencies in ways that but the federal and state levels. the obama epa mandated caa regulations with minimal collaboration with the states. the regulations also ignored and exaggerated the feasibility of commercially available controlled technologies. this led to a lack of regulatory coordination between states and the epa and some jurisdictional lawsuits resulting. most notably, 26 states went to the supreme court and asked for relief from the clean power plan citing epa's lack of authority to issue that rule. in an unprecedented move the court granted the states
request and stayed the rule. the trump administration and the new epa administrator, andrew wheeler, have recognized the need to reconsider controversial rules that have went way beyond their original intended authority. this administration is committed to listening to the concerns of the states. our expert witnesses today are state air officials who can bring in on the ground perspective as to how the decrease in federal litigation tying up state resources has affected their important work. north dakota, in an example we will hear about today, has saved half $1 million in litigation annually, and can instead redirect that money towards environmental protection. my regulatory philosophy is
that government works best at the local level, i've believed that my entire life but i think there is regulation needed. it's best implemented when you are closest to the people, where those being governed have skin in the game. i applaud administrator wheeler's efforts to implement the laws intended by congress ensuring those who make regulatory decisions are members of the communities that will live under those regulations. i look forward to hearing from our expert panel of witnesses today and again would like to emphasize my passion for this critical issue. now i'd like to record nice ranking member senator whitehouse for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman and congratulations on your maiden hearing as chair. must 11 months ago the subcommittee held a hearing on the same subject. at that hearing we heard powerful testimony from lead environmental officials in california and delaware who described the damage that rising seas driven by carbon pollution are causing in their
states. the witnesses from delaware also described the struggle of reducing air pollution when much of it blows in from power plants in upwind states. i lamented that and environmental protection agency administrator scott pruett's philosophy wasn't so much cooperative federalism as it was cooperative corporatism serving the interests of industry. here we sit 11 months later back to take testimony on the same subject. it occurs to me to wonder what the point is to these hearings. what has epa done with respect to air pollution since our last hearing held on april 10, 2018? well april 13, three days after the last hearing on the subject the epa issued a final notice denying a petition filed by connecticut under the clean air act asking epa to make a
declaration from a pennsylvania power plant was responsible for its inability to meet their quality standards. so much for epa concern about the problem of cross state air pollution. on august 2nd the epa and highway traffic safety administration put a proposal to freeze -- standards for cars and light trucks. this proposal would result in additional carbon pollution of almost 900 million metric tons for model years 2021-2025. that's the equivalent of adding almost 200 million cars to the road for one year and represents almost 20% of u.s. carbon emissions in 2018. who at epa was paying attention when california and delaware discussed what carbon pollution is doing to coastal states? on august 21st the epa produced a proposal to replace the clean powerplant. this would reduce -- short tons per year over the period 2025- 2035, the equivalent of adding between 4-12 million cars to
the road. again was anyone at epa paying attention when california and delaware discussed what pollution is doing to coastal states? on september 11th the epa announced a proposed rule to weaken -- methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. this proposal would result in additional carbon pollution of 380,000 short tons of methane over the period 2019-2025 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 epa paying slightest attention to those states in our last hearing on the subject? on october 5th the epa denied for petitions by delaware and one by maryland asking it to make a final determination that out-of-state powerplants were irresponsible to meet their air- quality standards. on december 6 after all the work members of this committee have done to capture carbon technologies, epa eliminated
carbon capture and storage technology -- coal-fired power plants. on december 27 the epa proposed eliminating the illegal justification for rules regulating mercury and other hazardous pollutants that rhode islanders must live with. on february 1st, 2019 the trump administration announced it would and negotiations with california over the auto role. in short epa completely ignored our last hearing on the subject. what else since april 10? the growing mountain of evidence of epa's cooperative corporatism. former epa administrator -- with the fossil fuel industry he was supposed to be regulating became so long he was finally forced to resign. after his resignation he was given a job by icole baron, the
revolving door spends. meanwhile who did we confirm to replace pruett? through the revolving door came former coal lobbyist, andrew wheeler. we shrugged off the fact the u.s. chamber of commerce and to shadowy fossil front groups -- american council for clean coal electricity got essentially exactly their proposal to replace the clean power plan. guess what? bill -- the head of epa is your office who is responsible for this proposal used to have the air regulatory group as his client. the revolving door keeps spinning. we turned a blind eye -- and doing greenhouse gas emission and economy standards for automobiles. various front groups that received a minimum of $196 million from processing fuel interests lobbied to rollback the standards. as did -- coke companies and
the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers. forget federalism at epa, it is more apparent the trump epa has zero intention of listening to the states in every intention of kowtowing to the fossil fuel industry. what we ought to be holding hearings on his the capture of the industry is supposed to regulate but instead has been turned in its toy and plaything. thank you mr. chairman. >> you are welcome. as you can see from the opening statements we will have a robust conversation here today, that's good. we will hear from our witnesses. dave glatt chief of environmental section north dakota. becky keogh director, arkansas department of environmental quality. craig segall assistant chief counsel, california air resources board. i'm very pleased that two of our witnesses today have representatives from states here on our own subcommittee.
i will start with senator kramer to introduce our witness from north dakota and after that is done senator bozeman will introduce our guest from arkansas. senator kramer? >> thank you esther chairman and to all the witnesses for being here and thank you for inviting dave to testify today. dave has an exceptional story to tell with regard to today's hearing and i'm looking forward to your testimony. i can't think of anybody more prepared than dave to testify on this topic. he is in need of north dakota and he received his bachelor's degree in biology and masters in bioengineering from -- university. our last 8 ball championships and we celebrated that with the president in the white house it was a great day. thanks for being here dave. but dave spent 35 years to this
point i think at least at the north dakota department of health. he has been the chief of the environmental health section department for the last 16 years. and over the course of 35 years he obviously has worked with lots of administrations of different political stripes. different relationships and philosophies and all of the while i can assure you dave has had north dakotas air water land resources at the heart of every part of his job and we have seen that. when i was regular in north dakota in the public service commission we always had great confidence that dave was going to look out for the air we all breathe because he's looking out for the air that he breathes. so with that perspective, dave thank you for being here and we look forward to your testimony. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator bozeman? >> thank you mr. chairman i want to give a special thanks to becky keogh of little rock, arkansas for being here today to testify. becky has an impressive job history which made her uniquely qualified at this hearing to
testify. becky served as the director of the arkansas department of environmental quality were a deq since 2015. prior to her role as director mrs. becky keogh served as deputy director from 1996-26 -- 1996-2006. she served on the geological commission from 2006-2009. becky is currently the president of the environmental council of the united states which we are very proud of. and arkansas native, director becky keogh has a degree in chemical engineering from our mutual alma mater, the university of arkansas. we can't break that we are doing very well in football right now but we are rebuilding. as an arkansas native we really do appreciate all that she has done and i appreciate her being
here today and really look forward to your testimony. thanks for all of your hard work and so many different areas for the people of arkansas. >> thank you senator john boozman. finally craig segall is the assistant chief counsel at the california air resources board where he is responsible for litigation and implementation of many of the boards climate and clean-air programs. previously he was a staff attorney at the sierra club where he litigated many of the issues we will discuss today. mr. craig segall is also a former law clerk of the honorable marcia -- u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. he is a graduate of the university of chicago and of the stanford law school. thank you for being here today. i want to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. please keep your statements to five minutes so that we may have time for plenty of questions. i look forward to hearing your testimony and we will begin with mr. dave glatt. >> well thank you chairman mike
braun , and members of the committee thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify in front of you this morning. my name is dave glatt i'm a registered professional engineer , for the north dakota department of health. we are north dakota's primary environmental protection agency responsible for implementation of many of the u.s. epa federally delegated programs such as the clean air act. north dakota is a mostly rural agricultural state which leads the nation in the production of many agricultural crops. in addition we are second in the nation for oil production and we are a net energy exporter disturbing energy throughout the region following and all of the above philosophy. utilizing abundant coal, oil, natural gas and renewable resources, the state is
routinely recognized for its great air quality, high environmental program compliance, and overall quality of life. i'm here today to briefly discuss my observations after 35 years of working with the department at the federal and state working relationship. at times referred to as a relationship founded in cooperative federalism doctrine where 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 providing natural consistency in the states are capped with -- federal oversight. due to the diverse nature of the nation where climate, geography, -- it is critically important that states stake a lead role in environmental programs. in fact this doctrine has matured over the years where states are directly responsible for over 90% of implementation and enforcement activities. where states are the primary
implementers of programs, innovative and cost-effective approaches to environmental protection are the rule and not the exception. we live in the communities we regulate where accessibility and accountability are not just buzzwords but expectations of the public we serve. working at the state agency in various capacities i have observed the following, where cooperative federalism is embraced by both epa and the states with respect to air quality is the result is lasting environmental protection solutions. in our state under this doctrine -- closed in a timely manner, compliance assistance technology where gas detection cameras were used in the oil fields. the epa -- permitting program for oil wells that enhance the epa's regulatory on tribal lands. where cooperative in some flourishes -- since the establishment of epa states have consistently and methodically increased 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 on the law in their technical expertise is applied to state specific environmental conditions or industrial operations. states direct involvement with environmental challenges has also identified certain areas where their expertise may be limited, and in these areas federal input is appreciated and needed. such as in the establishment of air and drinking water standards. federal overreach that does not follow cooperative federalism doctrine or ignore state specific concerns has resulted in legal challenges and expenditures of state dollars. where epa has not taken time to listen to state specific challenges and has instead created onerous regulations while treating states as a singular entity has resulted in less cooperation and more litigation.
during the past administration north dakota extended over $700,000 challenging federal and environmental regulation such as a clean powerplant that did not -- the oil industry or direct or indirect impact on the citizens of the state. the state viewed these regulations as an arbitrary federal overreach with little or no environmental benefit. our expenditure spent on negations in the current administration is a little over $100,000 which has been primarily extended to address the actions extended from previous administrations. and working with federal partners there has been more listening and -- then perspective for scripted directives. -- it is important to note the environmental quality remains at high levels and compliance rates have not decreased in the state with the more open flexible and cooperative approach with this administration. states are constant in any
administration change, each new administration typically starts out declaring a new day and new way of environmental protection. it has been my experience when the federal partner has outlined a new approach to federal regulations we believe it will be an improvement from previous actions however -- discount actions by the states and the unique necessary role they play in environmental protection. it has been my experience that the federal regulatory pendulum can swing wildly from administration to administration while the state pendulum moves less radically. although states don't agree on every issue the -- has been historically been accessible, accountable, environmental and public health protection. lastly the right of states desired -- must be applied judiciously with great responsibility and caution. estate quest to improve in- state environmental challenges should not negatively impact jurisdictions outside its borders. negative regulatory impacts can include additional costs to an
adjoining state with no perceived or actual benefit. we have experienced issues such as energy production and how an adjoining state attempted to direct development and industry standards in north dakota. this concludes my testimony and i will stand for any questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you mr. dave glatt, dr. becky keogh. >> chairman braun and subcommittee members im becky keogh director of the department of environmental quality and it's my great honor to appear before this committee. i bring greetings from the governor and the rest of our great natural state and a warm hello to you from home senator john boozman. three years ago i was seeking this bodies assistance in improving -- called for states to be partners with the epa , functionally states were more
ponds than partners. not only were they excluded from policy solutions we were not part of the equation. i'm here once again representing arkansas and much has changed. in addition to my arkansas duties i now serve as the president of the environmental council of states. since my first testimony states have gone from asking for a seat at the table to a discussion of what happens when we arrive. states are abdicating for shared decision-making, shared protection, shared problem- solving, and shared programmatic development between the states and epa. when federalism is at its purest it is also at the rawest. state agencies and epa are simultaneously regulating from sovereign and subordinates. that is compounded by the dynamic and unpredictable subject matter of which we are asked to regulate. on the most challenging days they are ones that could not be imagine the day before. detecting and preserving the environment requires we environmental regulators stand at the ready to respond to acts
of congress and natural disasters. our challenges are at the same time unique to our localities but universal to our national community and each answer is both part of the whole. each of our voices is essential to effective management of the nation's air, water, and wildlife. to navigate the future relationship with epa we must have an understanding of the past and mr. chairman i understand you experienced some successful logistics companies. i'm sure working with vehicles you've noticed 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 is bigger than the past but the rearview mirror serves an undeniable purpose. in order to understand where we are going we must first understand where we've been. steps of the past have a manner of catching up to us, and these objects may be closer than they
appear. however by looking through the windshield we can see about past innovation and exploration in the past moments should be paid with greater responsibility and flexibility at the state level. the argument for decentralization is not an argument for eliminating the federal and environmental protection, but rather an argument for redefining the federal/state balance. states today bear little resemblance to states in the 1960s and -- fundamentally change. we have been transformed by growth, -- use of referendum and procedural requirements that ensure greater public participation in decisions. many aspects of environmental protection have also been assimilated into state and local politics. 70% of important legislation enacted by the states now has little or nothing to do with national policy and only 25%, approximately $2.8 billion is the total amount spent annually on environment and natural
resources that actually comes from washington. state and local governments are responsible for nearly all the environmental laws and continue to dominate decisions in the areas of land use and waste disposal. the benefits of the future are apparent, if you look through the windshield of the states. at the arkansas environmental department of quality we do most things that were once exclusively from the federal government. we operate 13 federally -- programs. we have 300 engineers, we operate a state-of-the-art lab that informs our work. our quality and arkansas is among the best in the country. the entire state is in full attainment of all national air quality standards and we are on track for achieving regional visibility goals. arkansas takes the lead in implementing protective and timely permitting processes, bringing certainty to businesses as they make substantial it investments. our single permitting system
ensure swift -- advances in technology and transparency through e permitting resulted in a dq becoming one of the nation's leaders and the lowest permitting cost and the achievement of air quality standards. under governor hutchinson's transformation of government the arkansas energy office has been aligned with the arkansas department of environmental quality. efficiency programs, arkansas is seeking solar energy investments and performance -- reduction in greenhouse gas emissions well beyond those that were mandated under previous regulatory agendas. and the success of arkansas is not isolated. all states have unique regional experiences and successes that allow us to deal with new and unforeseen environmental challenges. just this month we asked him received assistance from the
state of texas and louisiana and from our states national department -- to extinguish an underground fire that was threatening the air and water quality in one of the most vulnerable arkansas communities. these unique challenges we are battling in arkansas to remind us that even the most robust environmental programs can sometimes be expert and novice depending on the specific challenge. that is where the epa could be a tremendous difference maker in the environmental landscape. frustrating to both of us the epa has been limited by current law and what they are able to do to respond to our call. looking through the expansive windshield and the not so far distance in the road we must find a better path. there is not been substantial modifications to the federal role. why not use the wealth of epa resources to fill gaps? considering epa -- offer support -- consider the primary charges and supporting roles no matter how robust and progressive inner programs,
states benefit from a central source of support. in conclusion and happy to report that changes on the horizon. last week i was informed newly confirmed administrator wheeler will be meeting with arkansas tomorrow to discuss the road ahead. we will have one eye on the rearview mirror to remember where we've been but our energy will be focused through the windshield on what lies ahead. i commend to him as i can to you today the quote of winston churchill, the pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity.the optimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. >> thank you mr. craig segall. >> thank you chairman and members of the subcommittee i'm glad to be here today. i am assistant chief counsel of the california air -- board. one of the oldest and largest environmental bodies in the country in the world and working on the hardest problems, given tens of
millions people living in california in deep valleys and desperately need protection from difficult air quality impressing climate change. i will make three points today that will elaborate my written testimony. as we heard from the chair and from panelists, the clean air act is built on a federal framework. in the very first revision it recognizes two critical points we talked a bit already today. first that the states need to be the primary regulators, but second, they need a strong and consistent federal partner that supports their work to protect their people. now a hallmark of that program is the clean air act's vehicle programs. california has been regulating vehicle emissions since before there was a u.s. epa and clean air act. and they recognize that treating california and the many states that have joined it functionally is the laboratory for innovation. we wound up commercializing technology in cars that today are standard, the check engine light, the catalytic converter, the list goes on. as we've added millions of cars
and people to our state and states around the country we've seen dramatic increases in air quality through shared back-and- forth collaboration. the republican administration and democratic administrations on these critical issues. that result as the chair alluded to has been dramatic decreases in air pollution although it remains a pressing problem. and enormous benefits. according to one study we are looking at about $20 trillion in public health benefits as results of the clean air act of 1990. several billions in costs. the second point and this is critical, all of that is at risk today as result of this administration which is frankly treating states with contempt. again my core example would be the vehicle program. the trump administration announced some weeks ago they stop negotiating with california, the truth is they never started. they offered the meet and greets, showed no interest in all in meeting a program that
has been running for decades, in terms of greenhouse gases -- supported by a 12,000 page engineering analysis we developed jointly for years. instead policymaking by tweet, we had a complete refusal to engage with -- indeed they refuse to give us even the most basic of information. bottom line is it has been a frozen process, an ideological one, and not rooted in science. epa zone experts have published in the journal of science condemning their approach. if he were able to rerun as many of the numbers has we could under the body record, the truth is their proposal would result in $168 billion in costs to the country conservatively. through the auto industry into chaos, basically blow up public investments and battery systems and electrification and protecting the air and adding an enormous amount of air pollution. this is a huge and mandated for
the states because we will be unable to meet a federal air quality standards much less your state climate targets and move forward progressively. i am modernizing the industry. it is frankly a disaster and only the tip of a rapidly melting iceberg. folks have alerted alluded to the clean powerplant. -- the list goes on. the ranking member of some of the rollbacks and i needn't rehearse all of them, we have seen dramatic results in air quality planning standards. even something as basic as woodstove pollution. rollback after rollback -- we've already lost one epa administrator. we've never seen this under any administration. this wholesale agency capture. that brings me to my third point. this just isn't a public health
catastrophe, it's not just risking progress in climate change when we only have a decade left to change course. it is a rule of law problem. we are seeing an agency that is ignoring the statue and -- lets divorce from the factual record and treating the states not as co-sovereigns but as partners now going on half a century but as interest groups being swept aside that increases the profits of nara sectors of the economy at enormous cost to the economies, to our health and people. i asked the subcommittee on congress to reassert your prerogative and oversight and caring for public health, and call the agency to task. there's not much time left. the vehicle -- rollback after rollback is coming, we need your help and we need it now. thank you. >> thank you. thank you witnesses for your testimony we will now turn to the senators here for questions and i will start by recognizing
myself with five minutes and i want to stick as close as we can to the five minutes. this is for director becky keogh and mr. dave glatt. the epa under the obama administration in my opinion failed to treat states as co- sovereigns and protecting the environment. can you speak as to how, in your states, you have seen that rightful responsibility be returned to the states? i will start with you mr. dave glatt. >> thank you chairman. yes, in several ways. just the overall initial relationship. when we interact with the epa under the obama administration it was more of, what have you been up to lately? now it's, what can we do to help? and they actually are allowing us to do environmental protection. and they have come along with us as partners. and so we look forward to that relationship staying the same.
it is called environmental protection, it is about compliance at the end of the day it is not about gotcha. we really appreciate the approach they have taken. one clear example, we permitted a refinery, the cleanest refinery in the united states if not mediation. we started out working with the epa, their assistance to us, to make sure that the permit complied with the law was invaluable and i appreciated that relationship. in the past, they would have remained silent, waited until we went out for public comment and then approached us as a gotcha type moment, that's not how you do good government. >> thank you, director becky keogh. >> we too have seen the cooperation of this administration, particularly in various programs not just the air program but we had many things i will call on hold or stuck for decades if not longer in terms of permits, policies in our water programs as well as our air. arkansas is benefiting however directly from the approval of the state regional plan or approach for regional haze
visibility improvements. without the added $1 billion or more in unneeded and unnecessary controls that were mandated under a federal plan from the previous administration, so we are finding that regional administer -- as well as the administrative staff in dc, outreach has particularly been effective in bringing us to the table ahead of issues, not after the issues are created. thank you. >> thank you. and this will be for the same two witnesses. as state regulators who handle a lot of permits. can you give me a couple of particular instances where permitting process has ended up being simpler? and with an effective good outcome for the environment? mr. dave glatt? >> one really quick one is,
mr. chairman, we developed a minor source permitting program for the oilfield. making sure we knew where the oil wells were being developed, who was developing them, and the type of emissions coming off of them. initially epa was critical of that. once they took a look at that they adopted that program and implemented it on the reservation, improving environmental quality on the reservation. so when we are allowed to do permitting at the state level it gets done quicker, in a matter of days, versus when we were talking weeks or not at all with the epa. >> well like ways, we are -- many minor sources that don't fall to the level of a federal regulatory program. arkansas developed a unique minor source permitting program that we believe is protective but allows flexibility for new
growth in our state. this has been very effective and we recently received approvals of the state implementation plan after it languished for about seven years under previous administration review. so we look forward to that interaction. we also have effect of permitting program in's on a number of key issues. we were able to take permits that were stuck on water quality and bring them to final resolution, providing actually more protection through a permit than leaving it unaddressed through ongoing debates between the state and the federal government. >> thank you, and briefly here again for the same two witnesses. when the epa was developing the clean powerplant did they consult with your states to determine season ability? or did they ignore your input? mr. dave glatt. >> mr. chairman they did consult with us but it was superficial. i did meet with the administrator in north dakota.
it was 0 degrees that day and i expressed to the administrator it's not always this warm in north dakota. and that major changes in the power grid would result in true public health implications. so they consulted, the final rule that came out was more -- didn't look at all like the proposed rule so they did not listen to us at all. >> thank you and briefly director becky keogh? >> we were consulted only toward the final proposal , that arkansas has a base of nuclear power and a diverse energy supply and it was important to arkansas to have a plan that works for us going forward and we are seeing great benefits of that great flexibility using markets and technology to drive lower-cost solutions that improve them reduce greenhouse gas emissions. >> thank you. ranking member white house? >> thank you chairman. i guess the point at like to open with is that when states onerous regulation is a neighboring states clean air. and as a downwind state we have
to take it pretty seriously when epa will enforce federal law, won't protect our downwind states. my state department of environmental management can't regulate a spewing powerplant in pennsylvania or west virginia or ohio. there is nothing we can do about that. if epa walks away from its responsibility , though states may think they've been relieved of an onerous regulation. but i live in a world in which i drive to work in rhode island and on a bright, clear summer day i have heard the radio warn that the air is unsafe to breathe in my state. that elderly people, people with breathing difficulties, that infants should stay indoors on a nice summer day because nobody will tell the polluting power plants in other states to knock it off and clean up their act. so, until rhode island is protected, and i think it ain't for nothing that so many of us
here today are from downwind states. this isn't funny. this is making a big difference in our lives. miss becky keogh talked about the windshield and the rear view i would add one other automotive feature, i would have headlights. we have to have headlights with don so we can see ahead at what is coming at us. and the headlights are science. that's what lets us know what is coming at us. so when we have a epa that throws legitimate scientists off their advisory board so they can bring in industry flunkies on so they can ignore scientific reports that worn very clearly about what's going to happen. there is no longer need to be about this, and the coasts are going to take a real beating. we are looking at several feet of sea level rise in my small state. we don't have much to give away folks. several feet of sea level rise is not funny.
and the fact that epa won't take an interest in this issue is very frustrating. and so i appreciate how they are not being onerous with you guys, but i've got a different fight, i've got to fight to protect my own state here. and what i see is very select of cooperative federalism. it's cooperative federalism when the interest of the state happens to align with the fossil fuel industry. then they are as cooperative as all get out. but when, like california and rhode island -- when the states have worked together in cooperative federalism and put together a rule that has stood the test of time for, what? decades now? this administration's approach to cooperative federalism is no, we will do what marathon oil tells us to do and completely ignore the 14 states that have done this for a long time.
this isn't right. this isn't right and it's going to come home to roost because you can't stop science, you can't stop facts, you can't stop the operation of the earth by the biological, chemical and geological rules that we know. so this is going to come in when it's going to show is that the true north of this administration wasn't federalism, it was whatever the fossil fuel industry told it to do. that in my experience has been the true north. but there are states, unlike you guys who are downwind states and for us it really, really matters when there is a powerplant that won't clean up its pollution and we can't do anything about it and epa walks away. there are coastal states, it's not just me, -- has now said it will rate municipal debt based on climate and sealevel risks for sealevel communities.
freddie mac has said there could well be a coastal property values crash as bad as the 2008 mortgage meltdown. i lived through that i don't want to live through that again. freddie mac isn't the sierra club. freddie mac is all about homes and mortgages and they are warning about it. third street has gone all the way up the coast and research showed coastal valuably -- are already starting to peel off. there will be a coastal property values crash, that's with the opening of it looks like and that is what is happening. and i already mention the cafi standards, some cooperative federalism when they won't work with 14 states on a program that's already been working very effect of lee -- effectively to bring down pollution from automobiles. i appreciate this hearing but i don't take epa at all
seriously. i think cooperative federalism is a mass, it's a sham, 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 kramer. -- senator kevin cramer. >> thank you mr. chairman and all the witnesses. dave i will follow up a little bit on how chairman mike braun wrapped up at the end of his time. because i'd like to hear you put a little more meat on those bones as it relates to the clean power plan and the collaboration and cooperation of the federal government. you might recall i was still on the public chair commission when the clean power plan was first rolled out. and -- when we first saw the clean power plan i think we as
a state knew what the government wanted to address what they are trying to address and as i recall our state along with our stakeholders we were looking for pragmatic solutions to the same problem. and by the way before i forget does anybody remember the supreme court in the united states. 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 and with that, you referenced the final rule, and how it differed from the proposal, maybe tell a little bit more about the story, it's important. >> yes chairman, senator, that is -- when the proposal came
out, i sat down with everyone of the ceos from the electric generation utilities, some of them were co-ops, some of them privately owned, and not one of the ceos said no, they said we can do this but we need time and cooperation. they sat down and looked at the proposal and they said it is something we can work through, they were actively looking at how hato reduce co2, how do we start changing the electric generation economy or market if you will. we sat down with epa and said this is something that we can work with. what came out of that was primarily a doubling of the rejections -- reductions required, the ceo said we can't work with this, this would basically put us out of business, and we would not be an entity anymore. they want from cooperation saying we can do this, trying
to work with epa, and explain to them were this was going, how they could make this work, going to a point where epa came out and pushed it to the limit and said hawe can't be part of this anymore. >> let me follow up, the proposed rulemaking in the vi final rule, had we as a state and other stakeholders, had they known the, what i call a bait and switch, would they have commented differently, or perhaps y more aggressively, ha they thought that the epa was a real partner in all this?>> yes, senator, they were kicking themselves, they did not actively comment on the initial proposal, it was something they thought they could work with, what came out later was so radically different, they really thought they missed an opportunity by not coming out more aggressively initially,
they thought they had a cooperative process moving forward, i would use the same term, bait and switch, the common i received, for me individual, i said what is going on here, and they said there are winners and losers, that's not how we should operate, we are sensitive to the needs of the kos, we need to work together and not find winners and losers. >> if you could comment as well, i'm not familiar with the specific situations, but perhaps you could elaborate. >> our biggest challenge was the winners and losers aspect, we were estate that is fundamentally focused on clean energy, a recent speech of the chairman of the joint energy
committee said the cleanest kilowatt and the cheapest kilowatt is the one not use, we focus a lot on efficiency, we found ways, that arkansas state university is saving $20 million per year in a innovative grant system, they can put tuition dollars back in education, rather than paying for a higher use of energy to run their campuses, these are the things we are looking for in arkansas to find solutions, they are durable, reasonable, they are portable, they keep the grid reliable, that is what we are looking for, and that's what we hope for through our strategy for arkansas and the nation. thank you. senator carter.>> thank you, by way of background, i served in the state legislature, >> of the house in the maryland general assembly, appointed by
president reagan to serve on the federalism test forcing commission, i believe in federalism, i think it is extremely important. i think the clean air act represents the best example of federalism, in 1963 it was passed, recognizing the states with the primary responsibility to regulate and show what works, so the states could copy that, with what california did, the cafi standards, it worked, you showed what could be done. certain areas where the states cannot act, pollution knows no bounds, delaware, maryland are downwind states, the clean powerplant rule was a recognition n that the federal government is the only entity that can control what goes on across borders, so i am somewhat puzzled by the support for the trump administration when it has restricted the state's ability to act, where
it believes it is in its best interest to act, but withdrawing the federal support in those areas that really are interstate areas. so mr. siegel, let me give you a chance as to how the restrictions that have been imposed by the trump administration is affecting the state of california, in its ability to do what the supreme court has said under the soup -- clean air act, that carbon is a dangerous r pollutant, and is required to be regulated, how has the trial policies affected your ability to protect the carbon emissions in your state? >> profoundly concerning, and this is a justice question, we've talked about ceos, this is about vulnerable people, some people can't see to the end of the street, due to
forced fire pollution, what we are seeing, the flatline, the gas standards, and to attack california's ability, and the ability to adapt to our greenhouse gas standards, and especially strange, the smog standards, it is unclear how or why they are being attacked, we have been here before, is really beyond the pale, the bottom line is, if it moves forward, we will see tons of excess pollution, is slowdown in vehicle innovation, and an increase in both climate risk and air-quality risk, the smog position -- pollution and all of our cities.>> do you support the trump administration's restrictions on the 13 states that have different admissions standards?
do you support taking away from the states the ability to act in regards to their vehicle emission issues? >> senator, i am a very strong supporter of states rights, being able to address the issues within the state boundaries, where i start to get a little shaky and that is when a state imposing under the umbrella of saying it's all right to control pollution in our state, starts impacting other states, and they've had that case against externalities. >> where they have acted in other states affected, do you support the ability to do that? >> i support that, i don't know if it has input -- it has an impact on north dakota.
>> you would believe you have the right to do that, right? figure that's correct. >> do you agree with what he just said?>> as i stated my testimony, i think states and epa regulate from that position, we are an advocate, on states rights, our attorney general, i think the important thing that we look at, what is allowed under federal law, and states rights apply to regulatory matters within the jurisdiction under the law. >> is simple question, what they've been doing many years now? >> maybe we have reached some consensus, with the trumpet ministration is recommending, taking away from california and 12 the states including maryland, is something that our state porters -- partners believe is wrong.
thank you for being here at the hearing, one thing i would like to state is, i know we have a really difficult situation, in arkansas, with the trafalgar road fire in bella vista, and i know they worked really hard on that, also having supportive epa, we really do appreciate the efforts in that regard, you all as well as epa, have certainly kept us informed, i know that you're working back and forth together, as you mentioned, when the administrator found out you would be in town, they wanted to meet with you, and the region, our regional administrator also, again, that is really what this is all about, we talk about cooperation, and things like that, that is a good example of
that. so we do appreciate that effort, and your all's effort and again dealing with a difficult situation. my experience, and i've been with the senator in the house, i have great respect for him, i guess my experience has been that in the past, with not just the past administration, but the administrations in general, the epa is all for cooperation, until you want to do something different than what they want, that is part of government, it is something -- that is why people elect us, to try to keep a handle on that, can you comment on that? in regards to how can we do a
better job of working hand-in- hand, as the senator pointed out, the frustration, of states wanting to do this and that, can you comment on how we can do a better job of working hand- in-hand with stakeholders, to develop rules and regulations? >> thank you, i am happy to do so, working closely with the public interest groups to make sure our programs do address a broader sense, epa has been a true partner, we have instituted a operational efficiency model, the to increase transparency, and working recently with region six, one of the things we've asked them to do is reduce the duplication, where they micro analyze or replace our decision- making with their own technical staff, reallocating those
technical resources to helping us solve those problems, either going past our capabilities, and i think senator boseman, you hit the nail on the head, we should be able to find answers by our collective work rather than independent analysis that seems to waste a lot of time.>> can you talk about the policy form, helping to coordinate, in particular, the thoughts on how this is supposed to serve as a model for interagency collaboration? >> i mentioned national disasters earlier, a specific uncontrolled fire in arkansas, the subject matter, california's neared and dear to them, a number of situations where we believe fire is a tool that is necessary to use, to manage the forest, to avoid
those uncontrolled fires that result in a much larger environmental impact, the agriculture industry, and the for service, the state for street apartment, bringing together stakeholders to get a common understanding of how that practice can be beneficial, and at the same time, be implemented in the way that protects quality, and guarded speakers, from the epa office, the director came in, and a true success, our own farm bureau, a better utilized, better decision-making, it shows when we bring the experts together, they find not only a good solution but a better solution then we as an agency might've devised. >> i agree. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you so much.
great to see all of you. think you for joining us today. one of the questions were being asked, as democrats and republicans, do you believe i'm change is real, and human beings are contributing to it, and if congress has responsibility in addressing that, i would ask you, do you believe, i will ask each of you, you believe that climate change is real? yes or no? >> i appreciate the question. >> just a yes and -- just a yes or no? >> yes and no.>> we did with an ever changing climate through our regulatory policies, and we do act in arkansas -- >> a simple yes or no. >> mr. siegel? >> yes, of course. >> do you think we have something to do with that?
we as human beings have something to do with climate change? >> senator? >> just a yes or no. >> yes, we are doing something about it.>> ms. keown? >> we are taking actions to reduce man-made emissions, so that we can drive better -- >> is that a yes? >> we believe -- >> and mr. siegel. >> it is unquestionable. >> do you think congress has responsibility to address this challenge? yes or no? >> congress has a role, the difficulty is -- >> ms. keown, i don't mean to be rude. does paris have a responsibility to address this? -- congress.
>> i believe it is a science decision, not so much a political decision. >> i leave there is a role to make sure we are treated -- >> mr. siegel? >> it is a fundamental responsibility to address a existential threat to the country. >> i live east of here, when i was governor of delaware, we had a number of clean-air requirements, not because of what we are doing in our state, 90% of the pollution in delaware comes from outside the state, i could shut all the cars off the road, shut down every business, we would still been out, and in pennsylvania, there are utilities, olfactory -- coal factories and utilities, operating, they have scrubbers, equipment and scrubbers on their powerplants, and they don't use them. they don't use them. a situation in pennsylvania,
and west virginia, another one over there, they don't use them. a position called section 126, and to say to them, we can't make them turn on their pollution control, or west virginia, epa, why don't you help us, and they are kind of like, the golden rule, treat other people the way you want to be treated, that's one of the problems we face, i want you to feel what we have to put up with, at the end of someone else's tailpipe. the greatest sources of carbon in the country, from mobile sources. when it comes time to negotiate a 50 state deal with california and 13 other states, mr. siegel, any comments? >> that is true, it is appalling. this is a program that we've worked on for decades under
democratic and republican administrations, it is one that is working well in saving lives, one would hope that the illustrator of epa would want to preserve it, and recognize the importance of it, they haven't, it is a shocking departure from practice, and endangers a lot of people. >> mr. siegel, they said, the evisceration broke off to medications because they never responded to our suggested areas of compromise, were offered any cover my proposal at all, can you tell us more about the ministrations efforts, compared to how the obama administration did so? >> under the obama ministration, a science question, 12,000 page report. this administration issued a sketchy determination in response to a a tweet that was few pages long that blew up the entire program, consistent with the negotiating style, the are
familiar with the core technical details.>> i was a naval flight officer, stationed in san diego, long beach, and in california, there were days i would like to run outside, and that is a lot more damage to my lungs that i did good, the reason why california asked years ago for the ability to have more standers, assured by states like utah, the geography in those dates, the pollution that gathers between the mountains, they asked for special abilities to tighten things up, and that is what they have had for years. they don't want to build one car for california, and 49 states that differ, they don't want that, they want the 50 -- 50 state deal. something that is good for the planet, air, it makes no sense. thank you.
senator? >> thank you for being here, we think california for his leadership on this, massachusetts is a state that follows california, rhode island, delaware, we are all in on your efforts here, administrator wheeler proposed new fuel economy rules that would wrench away california's long-standing ability to set its own standards, and allow our states to follow, because an attack on california is an attack on all of us, and we feel it, as an attack. has california's clean air act waiver for vehicle emissions standards ever been revoked? >> it has never happened. >> never, the assault on state-
level standards means more money spent by consumers on gasoline, more oil imported by the middle east, more carbon pollution in the atmosphere, and more uncertainty for states and car companies. mr. siegel, with all of these lose-lose outcomes, who would you say is the winner if trump wins through his epa administrator, who is the winner in all of this? >> this is truly a gift to oil companies. >> oil companies. so oil companies are just doing cartwheels with happiness that they have about how much lower the fuel economy standards will be? >> we see enormous increases 's people being made to buy their product, this is a subsidy program to the oil companies. >> i was the author of the fuel
economy standard law in 2007, along with her -- senators over here, in partnership with nancy pelosi, and that is what was used with the california waiver, to promulgate the 2012 standards. i am very proud of that, it is still the largest single reduction of greenhouse gases ever passed in any country, in the world. so like many other things, trump is just going to side with the coke brothers, -- the koch brothers, a pathological pattern, a climate denier, he gives his state of the union address for one hour and 20 minutes, doesn't mention climate change, names a fossil fuel lobby is to be the head of the epa, so mr. siegel, willie challenge to california's ability to set its own strong standards under the clean air act mean more uncertainty?
>> what this will drive his massive litigation and a massive need by the states to take every action at their disposal, this is not going to lift any regulatory burdens, it will require extensive state action to get to where we need to go, and in the meantime, harder for the american automobile industry to complete -- compete globally. >> 177 202 209, i sat on the floor, no intention of having a 2000 -- the 2007 law, undermined, that authority, which you have, it has also been reaffirmed twice by courts, that you have this authority, california has this authority, so we are sitting up a massive, prolonged litigation with the whole world looking at us.
as we try to preach temperance from me -- from a barstool, and trump is a denier in chief, sending the wrong messages, as these apocalyptic events are becoming more and more intense, incredible tornadoes across the south, unprecedented in terms of damage, but a preview of coming attractions, what is going to happen, it will even be worse in the years ahead. so in your testimony, you mentioned disagreements between epa and national highway transportation safety staff, a former epa official said the department of transportation quote, cooked the books, to produce the numbers to justify it, didn't aep analysis find the rule would cause an additional 17 fatalities per
year, despite the best rations argument that it will save lives? >> i've never seen a epa rule where epa was so unfairly, the process, and that it was wrong. >> a classic example of state and federal government cooperation, trump and his oil company cronies are seeking to cheat on the test, including the fatalities and the damage to our planet, and senator whitehouse and i happen to live with the second fastest warming body of water on the planet, the gulf of maine, except for the arctic, we are poised to see damage that fis going to be absolutely catastrophic for us, but it is also true for the rest of the planet, california,
i think you for your efforts, we stand with you and we will fight for you.>> we have time remaining, as i run the sub committee, we don't meet often enough, there is more to be said, anybody who wants to follow up with an additional two minutes or two and half minutes, three minutes, i'm going to start here and allow everybody else to do likewise. mr. siegel, california's position that the standards issued in 2012 by the obama administration should not be changed, do you agree with that, that what we had in 2012, through the obama administration should not be changed?>> i do, with a caveat, when we went through that, we determined that the standards were if anything to we, we maintained them at the same level, the national program, but they under a -- represent
what it can do. >> the assertiveness of that statement, i wonder if it is implicit that there is room for negotiation, i will quote somebody from your state, head of the california air resources board, california will take all actions to ensure that these are -- smart standards that we developed in partnership with the auto industry to cut greenhouse emissions from vehicles stay in place and mr. siegel, speaking about the obama era standards, feasible, beneficial, we need to review them, based on a single presidential tweet, i would tend to disagree with that as well, the alliance of the automobile manufacturers, they said if left unchanged, those standards could cause lup to $1.1 billion -- 1.1 million americans to lose jobs due to
lost vehicle sales, and low income houses would be hit the hardest, i ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record. ranking member whitehouse, do you have an additional comment? >> mr. siegel, you used the word capture in anyour testimon could you elaborate on what you mean? i'm sure -- i assume you are talking about regulatory capture? >> i am, that concept speaks to the point where a regulator become so intertwined with that it is regulating, the auto industry, after some relief, it's true, they were pressing for that cup rejected on the record just months before, we are seeing that this sudden
swerve has to do with the fact that the epa is run by fossil fuel lobbyists, there he was narrow, economic interests are narrow, and their ability to look at the evidence is limited. don't take my word for it, we've gone to court again and again over these rollbacks, it's a strong indication that we are seeing a -- politically driven choices. >> and i hear that oil, and front groups were the driving force between the standards rollback, do you have any information from your perspective on the california resources board about that? >> we believe that reporting, this looks very much, given that the science can't possibly support what has been proposed, the auto industries themselves have said they don't want it, who once it, the oil industry. >> the tortoise on top of the fence post, you know it didn't
climb there, somebody had to put it there when his behavior is that weird. you mentioned in your testimony, the clean powerplant, as proposed by this possible -- fossil fuel industry, increasing power sector emissions on its own admission. when you say on its own admission, what you mean? >> its own impact analysis, most of the major pollutants, so bad, major revisions, that are quite remarkable. >> if you are looking at that clean powerplant, and looking at it as a means for trying to actually reduce carbon emissions, it would appear to be rather deliberately going in the opposite direction, would
it not? >> it is a gift to the coal industry at the cost of people's lungs. >> thank you. >> senator kramer?>> i have 20 minutes, i will try to see if you things and 2. i'm going to shift completely to a pragmatic issue, it has been really cold in north dakota, one of the coldest winters in decades. >> that is correct.>> last week, maybe it was two weeks ago, it could have been any week in the last five or six, is it not true that in the midwest, resource planning that involves one of the concerns you raised early on in the testimony, the availability of available -- of a robust energy on the grid, electricity was at stake. why was that? >> the demand was so great during this cold spell. >> when we have high demand,
and the grid relies on energy sources that are not reliable, intermittence, -- intermittent, what happens is there not enough supply, the people of minnesota complained that their electricity was not as robust as a result of what always happens, at least 90% of the time, it's really cold, the wind doesn't blow, and wind turbines don't turn, they don't spin, and when they don't spin, they don't provide warmth. that didn't even consider the fact that gas companies were asking people to curtail their use of natural gas because they needed to get this other fuel to dispatch electricity. my point is to tell you that i have great empathy with what you are saying, mr. siegel, with regard to states rights, the transportation emissions,
and i know that there can occasionally be conflict between the interstate commerce clause and other cooperative federalism, it's never as simple as any one side would like it to be, but i also know that -- i just think that when the clean powerplant, in particular, not just a big bait and switch in terms of the standard, the emissions allowance, which i thought was unfair, and unreasonable. but very prescriptive as well, and what i worry about, becoming overly prescriptive, or brought in jurisdictions outside the fence line, one of the early blunders of the clean powerplant, going beyond the epa's legal authority, that we don't allow the type of innovation that i believe exists, and you can make a point of that, i think you could and you could, and i just think we could have a better conversation sometimes about this, my time is well up, but
if anybody .wants to come in, that is my rambling for the moment. [ laughter ] >> i would just say that california is a great example of that, we are moving rapidly toward 100% rapidly removable grid, and the intermission -- the intermittent nature is better than we thought, it has been great to see how well americans can innovate when we ask them to do it.>> i would add that as an engineer, a full believer that technology will lead today in terms of environmental excellence, we have seen that in the last for years, i hope we can continue to show that technology is the answer versus more regulation. thank you. >> to add finally, i agree with that, we are seeing the market in the clean powerplant vacuum, change,s more renewable, less coal, submissions, that is without any regulations, it
tells me that at least the corporations in north dakota understand that things have to change, and they are doing that, it is innovation, new technology and spending money to move forward. a? note, members can submit follow questions for the record, open for two weeks, i want to thank all the witnesses, a good, robust m conversation, and i think senator whitehouse and i are both in agreement that the topics of federalism and the environment need to be vetted, we need to take the full hour and a half to do it, and we hope to have this committee is a good form to do it, thank you very much. the hearing is adjourned.
[ crowd noise ] c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, north dakota congressman kelly armstrong discusses house democrats' investigations of president trump. then marcie talks about the u.s. trade deficit, which increased to 891.3 billion, the highest in history, and more
about u.s. spending happens -- habits. join the discussion on thursday morning. here is some of what we are covering thursday on the c-span networks, live coverage of the house begins at 10 am eastern, continuing debate on campaign finance rules and voting rights, c-span 2, the senate considers the nomination of earl murphy to the circuit court, and john fleming. life hearings on c-span 3, 10 eastern, senate foreign relations subcommittee hearing on venezuela, and at 1:30 pm, justice samuel alito and kagan. next, three constitutional most birds -- law experts and