EPA Administrator Michael Regan Testifies In Front Of The Senate Appropriations Committee

4 months ago

EPA Administrator Michael Regan testified in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

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

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

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00 proposed budget for fiscal year 2025, as well as the agency's

00:00:04 ongoing role in critical issues affecting our environment and

00:00:06 our health.

00:00:08 As stewards of this planet, it is our duty to protect it not

00:00:11 only from pollution but from the ravages of shortsightedness and

00:00:14 neglect. Yet, as we gather here today, we are confronted with a

00:00:18 stark reality, reality that our commitment to environmental

00:00:21 protection is being undermined by the decisions of fossil, gas,

00:00:25 and oil industry that are prioritizing profit over the well-being

00:00:30 of our planet and the well-being of our people.

00:00:32 Administrator Regan, I commend you for your dedication to

00:00:37 public service, the challenges we face demand bold action and

00:00:42 unwavering resolve.

00:00:44 Let me start with the topic of methane. The alarming rise in

00:00:49 methane emissions poses a significant threat to our climate and

00:00:53 to our public health. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas,

00:00:56 sometimes referred to as natural gas, but there is nothing

00:01:01 natural about it once it is taken out of the ground. It is

00:01:04 pouring fuel on the fire of climate chaos and making extreme

00:01:07 weather more frequent and more devastating.

00:01:10 We know that EPA's estimates of methane emissions are far

00:01:14 lower than what are being observed with the latest monitoring

00:01:18 tools. So we need better modeling, better modeling using better

00:01:24 technology. We can't use old estimates to justify projects that

00:01:29 shouldn't be justified.

00:01:32 Thankfully, EPA has finalized the super emitter program,

00:01:35 well done, and created the methane emission reduction program

00:01:39 through the Inflation Reduction Act. Together, the super

00:01:43 emitter program and the methane emissions reduction program

00:01:45 have the potential to significantly reduce methane emissions

00:01:48 from oil and gas wells, but only if we use modern technologies.

00:01:53 I am deeply concerned that EPA, given its deep expertise

00:01:57 regarding human health impacts, has deferred its role in

00:02:02 obtaining and securing the technology that has been funded

00:02:08 through the work of Congress.

00:02:10 It is important to ensure we maximize the super emitter's

00:02:16 program in taking on this challenge. And we are also learning

00:02:20 more about methane from landfills. Landfills provide an

00:02:24 important cost-effective opportunity for us to reduce emissions

00:02:27 now, and EPA needs to take a look at and update its

00:02:31 regulations regarding landfills.

00:02:33 Well, next, wildfires. In Oregon, we see wildfires becoming

00:02:42 more powerful, more ferocious, and the wildfire season being

00:02:45 longer, and that is a challenge. In that challenge, citizens

00:02:50 are much more willing to use prescribed fire as a tool in our

00:02:54 arsenal to protect our towns and our cities. It mitigates the

00:02:59 risk of catastrophic blazes. And we need both strong science-

00:03:03 based standards for clean air and regulatory clarity of

00:03:06 perceptual events like prescribed fire.

00:03:08 If the particles that are in the air from prescribed fire

00:03:12 are then used to force communities to adopt stronger standards

00:03:17 on other things, as if that was the same particles from a

00:03:22 natural fire, then there is an incentive for these communities

00:03:26 not to use prescribed fire, which makes the whole situation

00:03:29 worse. So that is a piece that I hope we will take on.

00:03:35 Plastic pollution and toxic chemicals pose another formidable

00:03:38 challenge. We know we are failing in our vulnerable

00:03:41 communities, especially on the Gulf Coast, which are being

00:03:43 overburdened by toxic chemicals from plastic production. We

00:03:47 need to do more to protect those communities.

00:03:50 On this committee, I will do all I can to increase EPA

00:03:52 funding so we can implement and enforce our existing laws

00:03:55 better. But then EPA must act. One place one can start, EPA

00:04:02 can start, is by reexamining significant impact levels for

00:04:05 air quality standards for permitting petrochemical

00:04:08 facilities.

00:04:09 The evidence is clear that the substances that are

00:04:13 carcinogenic to humans and States have abused the permitting

00:04:17 process to the detriment of front-line communities. Let's not

00:04:22 impose even more pollutants on those front-line communities.

00:04:25 This is a key issue of environmental justice.

00:04:30 I was in Ottawa last week for the Intergovernmental

00:04:33 Negotiating Committee meeting, where countries from around

00:04:35 the world are gathered to reach agreement to address the

00:04:37 plastic crisis, plastics which are choking our oceans, our

00:04:41 rivers, our landfills, plastics which are being digested by

00:04:46 marine life and land life, infecting our ecosystems, plastic

00:04:50 which in its microform and nanoform are providing even more

00:04:55 dangerous pollution and it is infiltrating our food and water,

00:04:59 even breast milk.

00:05:02 Meanwhile, leaching dangerous chemicals into the

00:05:05 organizations, organisms that digest it, including us. It is

00:05:10 estimated that each of us consumes about a credit card of

00:05:13 plastic a week. Plastic is an endocrine disruptor, has strong

00:05:17 associations with a series of health issues.

00:05:21 So we are encouraging our government to take the ambitious

00:05:25 track in having a vision for international treaty on plastics

00:05:30 that will result in measurable goals with accountability for

00:05:35 reaching those goals.

00:05:38 Right now, our State Department is saying they want a

00:05:40 Paris structure where everyone says we will go and do our best.

00:05:45 Going and doing our best hasn't worked on climate and it

00:05:47 won't work on plastics. So we need to have a more concrete,

00:05:52 detailed approach. And there is a whole group of nations that

00:05:56 are seeking to have concrete goals and measurable results and

00:06:00 accountability. And we should join them and I encourage EPA

00:06:04 to help us pivot to be part of the solution in that area.

00:06:12 I wanted to turn to EPA's new method of testing for 6PPD,

00:06:17 Quenown. This is a chemical in tires and it was found to be a

00:06:27 chemical that has a huge impact on salmon. And there was a whole

00:06:33 mystery as to why after rainstorms there was a die off and

00:06:37 finally it was traced to the runoff from parking lots with

00:06:41 tire dust. This is a big deal for us and it is not an easy

00:06:45 thing to address. But identifying and understanding it is a

00:06:50 great first step in that direction. So I encourage EPA to

00:06:53 continue down that road, not just to understand the chemical

00:06:58 and what alternatives there might be, what the impact of those

00:07:01 alternatives might be, how we can cure this problem because it

00:07:05 is a big environmental impact that few of us were aware of

00:07:08 until the last couple of years.

00:07:14 So as we go forward, let's continue to have an ambitious

00:07:21 approach or a more ambitious approach to taking on these

00:07:25 multiple challenges. We need an international treaty that

00:07:29 decreases plastics, plastics that are produced, plastics that

00:07:33 get into our waterways, plastics that get into our ecosystems

00:07:36 and into our bodies. We need to continue our work on toxic

00:07:40 chemicals through TSCA and not have it take a decade to

00:07:44 address a single toxic chemical in an overly complicated

00:07:48 system.

00:07:49 I am concerned that EPA staffing levels have dropped 20

00:07:51 percent over the last 13 years. It makes it a lot harder to do

00:07:54 all this work on very complicated issues when you are

00:07:57 understaffed. So thank you for being a strong advocate, for

00:08:01 having the team that you need. And certainly that resonates

00:08:04 with me and with many of us.

00:08:06 In 2010, you had 17,300 FTEs at EPA. Since then, we are

00:08:13 down to 14,000, 3,300 people with a lot more complicated work

00:08:17 to do now than then.

00:08:19 I am pleased that the FY25 request would increase permanent

00:08:26 positions by more than 2,000 FTEs, which would start to

00:08:30 rebuild the permanent capacity EPA needs. Those Americans with

00:08:34 the least resources who have chronically suffered from

00:08:37 injustice are often most affected by pollution, toxic

00:08:39 chemicals, and climate chaos. So I say well done to having

00:08:44 $100 million for environmental justice in the FY24 bill. You

00:08:49 all advocated and we delivered.

00:08:52 But I know that on the environmental justice front, a lot

00:08:55 more remains to be done.

00:08:57 I now turn to my colleague, Ranking Member Murkowski, for

00:09:02 her comments.

00:09:03 [Ms. Murkowski] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:09:05 Administrator Reagan, thank you. I appreciate the

00:09:09 opportunity to discuss EPA's fiscal year 2025 budget request

00:09:14 with you. I know that we had hoped to have a little bit of a

00:09:17 conversation ahead of this, and travel interrupts just about

00:09:21 everything around here. So thank you for the time that you are

00:09:23 going to spend with the committee here today.

00:09:26 I want to appreciate and thank you publicly for the good

00:09:32 working relationship that my office has enjoyed with you and

00:09:37 your office. There are, not surprising, going to be policy

00:09:46 disagreements on many matters. That is just the nature of it.

00:09:51 Some of the rulemakings that the agency has undertaken, I

00:09:54 will mention some of those that I have concerns with. But I

00:09:56 really do honestly appreciate the work that we have done

00:10:01 together. I think you and your team have been forthright with

00:10:05 us. You have been helpful in bringing historic levels of

00:10:10 infrastructure investment to Alaska and really trying to solve

00:10:15 some long-term problems that we have faced with. I just

00:10:21 appreciate the efforts there.

00:10:25 I will share, though, some of the concerns that I have about

00:10:30 some of what I consider to be regulatory overreach that we

00:10:34 have seen out of the agency on some of these national

00:10:37 rulemakings, including the updated final WOTUS rule, the

00:10:41 vehicle emissions rules, the final power plant rules. I have

00:10:45 shared before the final WOTUS rule fails to reflect the

00:10:50 uniqueness of Alaska and, unfortunately, will have

00:10:54 disproportionate harm within my State.

00:10:57 Congress has directly expressed its disapproval on many of the

00:11:03 agency's recent broad rulemakings. I think the Court is going to

00:11:06 decide the outcome of many of these rules, but I have been

00:11:09 disappointed that the agency did not reach consensus on these

00:11:13 issues and instead moved ahead with a heavier-handed action in a

00:11:20 unilateral fashion.

00:11:23 In addition to concerns over these national rulemakings, I would

00:11:26 like to speak to several regulatory actions that are more

00:11:28 specific to Alaska. First, as you know, we have had many

00:11:34 conversations about this, but this is the potential

00:11:36 enforcement actions that the agency may take against the State

00:11:40 of Alaska and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough regarding PM2.5

00:11:44 emissions. Again, one of these longstanding issues has been out

00:11:47 there, but you have heard me say many times before that I think

00:11:50 that the agency's mishandling of the residential wood stove

00:11:55 testing and certification program has played a role in what we

00:11:59 are seeing in elevated emissions in the region.

00:12:03 I have worked pretty hard to get additional support. We have

00:12:08 secured tens of millions of dollars through the targeted airshed

00:12:10 grant for wood stove changeouts. So the agency's failures on

00:12:15 this issue continue to be frustrating.

00:12:19 So as this matter continues, I would fully expect the EPA to

00:12:22 work closely with the State and the borough and to incorporate

00:12:26 their feedback.

00:12:27 And then finally, I would just ask that your team sit down

00:12:30 with my staff to discuss the reforms of the wood stove heater

00:12:34 program and perhaps identify some creative funding solutions

00:12:38 that we can undertake. We want to work to reduce the air

00:12:44 emissions in that region. It is important. I think we recognize

00:12:47 that. But how we get there in a place where you have so few

00:12:51 options and alternatives has been a real challenge.

00:12:54 I have been concerned about potential regulations the agency

00:12:57 may propose on small aircraft that we see used very commonly

00:13:03 around Alaska. In so many parts of the State, as you know, we

00:13:08 don't have the roads, so we rely on aviation. And so much of it

00:13:11 is very small, small aviation.

00:13:15 In October of last year, EPA announced an endangerment

00:13:18 finding for leaded aviation gas, which is used to operate the

00:13:22 piston engine aircraft. These are the small planes that carry

00:13:26 roughly, you know, two to ten passengers. But we rely so

00:13:31 heavily on these types of aircraft for travel around the

00:13:35 State, moving people, moving basic necessities. And so if EPA

00:13:41 promulgates what would be unnecessarily strict standards for

00:13:45 these lead emissions from these particular aircraft without

00:13:48 considering the unique needs and the challenges that are

00:13:52 specific within the State, Alaska could really, really be

00:13:56 crippled by supply chain issues, travel disruptions as air

00:14:02 carriers are literally forced out of existence because they

00:14:05 don't have any other place to go. And that is a real concern.

00:14:10 So how the agency considers these unique needs in a State like

00:14:17 Alaska before undertaking any issue is more that I would like

00:14:21 to discuss with you.

00:14:22 And then finally, to briefly talk about the 301(h) waivers

00:14:27 for certain communities in southeast Alaska. As these

00:14:30 communities face meeting new State and Federal standards, I

00:14:33 would hope that the agency will work closely with us to provide

00:14:37 a pathway for these smaller communities to make economically

00:14:41 feasible upgrades to their wastewater systems. Again, they

00:14:45 want to make sure that they have good water systems, but it is

00:14:51 -- it takes their breath away when they look at what they may

00:14:57 be facing from a cost perspective.

00:14:59 So turning to investments in Alaska, again, I want to thank

00:15:03 you and the agent -- those in the agency for your leadership

00:15:07 on ANCSA contaminated lands. It has been decades of a Federal

00:15:12 inaction on this true environmental injustice to Alaska Native

00:15:17 communities. And the Federal Government, with EPA's

00:15:21 leadership, is finally providing resources to assess and clean

00:15:24 up these contaminated lands.

00:15:27 In the two years since we started working together on this

00:15:29 issue, $190 million is now available to Alaska Native

00:15:33 communities and organizations for contaminated lands

00:15:37 remediations. So it has been $40 million through the new annual

00:15:40 grant and $150 million in one-time funding through EPA's

00:15:44 Community Change Grant Program. But I know that securing these

00:15:50 resources took some creative thinking and real commitment to

00:15:55 the issues. You made that commitment to me. You carried

00:15:59 through with that. And, again, I thank you and your efforts, as

00:16:04 well as those of your team members, both here in Washington

00:16:10 and in Region 10. It is deeply appreciated.

00:16:15 Last year, in my opening statement, I spoke at length to the

00:16:18 agency's poor performance in handling and processing

00:16:22 congressionally directed spending projects. I wish that I could

00:16:25 say a year later we are in a better place on that. But I can't

00:16:31 see that significant progress has been made. I think it is

00:16:36 unacceptable that the vast majority of FY22 and 23 projects

00:16:41 remain unrewarded. And what we see with the delay in awarding

00:16:46 these projects is substantial impact on the communities, the

00:16:50 congressional intent, and the cost of the projects.

00:16:53 So with the recent passing of the FY24 Interior Approps Act,

00:16:59 the agency's workload on these projects I think is extensive.

00:17:03 You know that. But the backlog in processing these projects

00:17:06 just simply has to be reduced. So let's -- we're going to keep

00:17:12 urging you on this, but I would ask that you do everything that

00:17:15 you can to, again, reduce this backlog and do so quickly.

00:17:19 I am absolutely ready to be a constructive partner in getting

00:17:24 these projects out the door and to the designated communities.

00:17:27 So let me know how I can help. One of the ways is I hear from

00:17:30 people back in my home state. I'm sure that other colleagues

00:17:34 do as well. And when we call you up, we get attention to the

00:17:38 matter. But it shouldn't have to be that way. So let's work

00:17:43 together on that. I'll close by just telling you I appreciate

00:17:48 that you have come to Alaska. You've worked with me on a number

00:17:52 of important issues to my state and to my constituents. And I

00:17:56 know we'll continue to work together. But I hope that you and

00:18:01 the agency will respond to and address some of the concerns that

00:18:05 I've raised in my statement today. And I will have opportunity

00:18:08 in the follow-on questions. But Alaska is a great time to come

00:18:13 and visit. And you're welcome back any time.

00:18:15 With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

00:18:17 >> Thank you very much. Now we turn to your testimony.

00:18:20 >> Well, Chair Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski and

00:18:24 Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins and members of the

00:18:27 committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

00:18:30 today to discuss the bold vision laid out in the United States

00:18:33 EPA's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request. Our partnership

00:18:38 and open dialogue with Congress is invaluable for EPA to carry

00:18:42 out its mission and to protect public health and the

00:18:44 environment. Over the last three years, we've been hard at work

00:18:47 at EPA. And under President Biden's leadership, my agency

00:18:50 has finalized protections that will bring 100 million people

00:18:53 cleaner and safer drinking water, free from PFAS. And we've

00:18:57 worked hard to right many of the historic wrongs communities have

00:19:00 faced for generations. Through our critical rulemaking, we

00:19:03 banned the last remaining kind of asbestos used in the country

00:19:07 and issued final technology-based standards that

00:19:09 will eliminate more than 6,000 tons of toxic air pollution from

00:19:13 chemical plants each year, slashing cancer-causing

00:19:16 pollution from covered processes and equipment by nearly 80% and

00:19:21 reducing elevated cancer risk for those living near these

00:19:25 facilities by 96%. EPA is committed to protecting public

00:19:29 health and the environment for all of the American people. But

00:19:33 more than just the powerful health impacts EPA is

00:19:35 undertaking, my agency is working hard to implement the

00:19:38 historic laws you've passed and President Biden's Investing in

00:19:41 America agenda. President Biden's Investing in America

00:19:44 agenda has not only directed investments in communities

00:19:48 nationwide, but it has generated nearly $700 billion in funding

00:19:52 for private sector manufacturing and clean energy

00:19:55 projects, creating good paying jobs and enhancing our global

00:19:59 competitiveness. Together, President Biden's Investing in

00:20:02 America agenda and EPA's 2025 budget request will continue to

00:20:06 invest in environmental actions that will promote cleaner

00:20:09 communities and produce economic benefits for years to come. Last

00:20:13 August, during my Journey to Justice tour, I joined Senator

00:20:16 Murkowski in Alaska to spotlight the environmental justice

00:20:19 challenges of Alaska Native tribes. We met with tribal

00:20:22 leaders and heard firsthand about the challenges facing the

00:20:25 community, including climate impacts and adaptation, food

00:20:28 security, and water infrastructure. And the

00:20:31 President's Investing in America agenda is helping to fund

00:20:35 projects that address these concerns while benefiting

00:20:38 federally recognized tribes all across the state. President

00:20:42 Biden's proposed FY 2025 budget request for EPA provides nearly

00:20:46 $11 billion to advance key priorities for the American

00:20:50 people, including protecting air quality, cleaning up pollution,

00:20:53 upgrading the nation's age and water infrastructure, urgently

00:20:57 fighting the climate crisis and advancing environmental justice.

00:21:00 Millions of people across the country are still grappling with

00:21:03 the effects of poor air quality, perpetuating harmful health and

00:21:06 economic impacts. In fiscal year 2025, EPA will improve air

00:21:10 quality for communities by reducing emissions of ozone

00:21:13 forming pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics. The

00:21:17 President's budget includes $1.3 billion to improve air quality

00:21:20 for communities all across the country, to reduce exposure to

00:21:23 dangerous levels of radiation, and to leverage regulatory tools

00:21:27 and public and private sector partnerships that promote

00:21:30 environmental stewardship and encourage the adoption of cost

00:21:33 effective technologies and practices. EPA's work to set

00:21:37 these standards provides certainty to industry, builds on

00:21:40 the advancements in technology, and reinforces market movement

00:21:44 that reduces power plant emissions without sacrificing

00:21:47 reliability and affordable energy. Clean and safe water is

00:21:51 the foundation for healthy communities and a thriving

00:21:53 economy. Although substantial progress has been made, many

00:21:56 areas across our nation still face significant barriers and

00:22:00 challenges to achieving this collective goal. Aging water

00:22:03 infrastructure, the effects of lead pipes, cybersecurity

00:22:08 threats to water systems, climate change, and emerging

00:22:10 contaminants such as PFAS all pose dangerous health risks to

00:22:14 our nation's water supply and the American people. EPA's

00:22:18 budget request includes a total of $101 million for two EPA

00:22:21 grants dedicated to remediating lead-contaminated drinking

00:22:25 water. From investing in clean air to cleaning up contaminated

00:22:28 land and water, there is no shortage of important work to be

00:22:31 done. Members of the committee, EPA is up for the task. We're

00:22:36 eager to work with all of you to deliver for our fellow

00:22:38 Americans and to secure our nation's global competitiveness.

00:22:42 But we need your support. The FY 2025 President's Budget

00:22:47 continues the historic progress and investments made by the

00:22:50 Biden-Harris administration and positions EPA to advance our

00:22:54 vital mission of protecting public health and the

00:22:56 environment, championing environmental justice, and

00:22:58 tackling the climate crisis. Thank you all for the

00:23:01 opportunity to be here today to submit testimony for the

00:23:04 record. And I look forward to our continued partnership to

00:23:07 achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals. And I welcome all

00:23:10 questions. Thank you all.

00:23:11 [Mr. Lankford] Great. Thank you very much.

00:23:15 And I think we're going to five-minute sessions, which I will

00:23:19 stop and not ask any more questions after my five minutes have

00:23:23 expired, and I'll ask everyone else to do the same.

00:23:26 I want to start with this issue of measuring methane. Back

00:23:30 in FY23 and FY24, we provided funding to EPA to be able to

00:23:37 address what they said was their challenge. What was their

00:23:40 challenge? Their challenge was they said we needed to be able

00:23:42 to digest information more effectively and validate it. And

00:23:47 then the Inflation Reduction Act provided $850 million for

00:23:50 methane detection and monitoring. Yet nothing has been done.

00:23:54 Not one bit of satellite data has been acquired by the EPA.

00:24:00 And yet methane is a massive global warming gas. So this is

00:24:07 unacceptable. When is the EPA going to start taking methane

00:24:11 seriously and develop a real program with the funds we have

00:24:15 already provided?

00:24:16 [Mr. Jones] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. We

00:24:20 are absolutely taking methane very seriously. I think the oil

00:24:25 and gas rule specifically establishes, for the first time ever,

00:24:28 emission control standards for methane for this sector. And so

00:24:31 our enforcement will make sure that facilities are meeting

00:24:35 these standards.

00:24:36 We have received approximately $15 million to support

00:24:39 methane enforcement. With those resources, we're developing a

00:24:43 data system to collect and publish information about methane

00:24:46 super emitters. We're purchasing advanced monitoring equipment

00:24:50 for those inspections.

00:24:52 And, you know, as far as the MERP program, you know,

00:24:56 February 2023, we issued a notice of intent for a second

00:25:01 solicitation for competitive opportunities. And eligible

00:25:04 opportunities are satellites to help characterize and quantify

00:25:07 methane emissions, retrofits for existing wells and

00:25:10 infrastructure and focusing on smaller operators, and

00:25:13 accelerating deployment of innovative and near commercial

00:25:16 technologies. So we are laser focused there. We're also laser

00:25:20 focused on landfill methane.

00:25:22 [Mr. Lankford] We'll turn to landfills in a moment.

00:25:25 But here's the thing. When we pursued this with EPA and

00:25:29 said, what's going on, EPA said, what we want to do is provide

00:25:34 data using private funding, which is more resilient and

00:25:39 efficient as a basis for this program. So we provide you with

00:25:43 $850 million. We say multilevel monitoring is incredibly

00:25:47 important. Satellites are a key piece of that. And we get back,

00:25:52 we want folks to go out and make donations to someone and then

00:25:56 provide us with free data. That is a stalling tactic on this

00:26:02 important issue. And it's just not acceptable, asking, let's go

00:26:08 out and, you know, put out our cap and say, someday can

00:26:11 somebody help us acquire methane information?

00:26:16 Really, this is a big deal. We have raised it repeatedly.

00:26:20 And we need you all to get the process together and really

00:26:24 start tracking. It's fine to say you're going to go and do a

00:26:29 penalty program for super emitters, but you don't know what

00:26:32 they are if you don't have the data. We have to understand this

00:26:34 program across America.

00:26:36 Meanwhile, the basic estimates that EPA continues to put

00:26:39 out, which say that methane leakage is around 1.4 percent, are

00:26:44 completely rejected by the scientific community as wholly

00:26:49 understating the challenge. So this inaction is sustaining bad

00:26:54 information, resulting in bad decisions, and this needs to

00:26:57 change. Can you commit to really focusing on this challenge in

00:27:02 this coming year?

00:27:03 [Mr. Johnson] I can absolutely commit to continuing the

00:27:06 laser focus that we have. I'm not quite sure I agree with

00:27:09 inaction. I think that when you look at the regulations we

00:27:13 produce, when you look at the enforcement actions we've taken

00:27:16 and quite fairly in the Inflation Reduction Act, they gave us a

00:27:20 timeline. You guys gave us a timeline to develop programs, one

00:27:24 side focused on state grants, the other more so open to

00:27:28 non-state entities, which require a certain level of

00:27:31 development, implementation, and oversight.

00:27:34 So I believe that with the time we've been given and the

00:27:36 resources we've been given, we're moving incredibly fast to

00:27:40 match these resources with our enforcement and our regulatory

00:27:43 actions.

00:27:44 [Mr. Issa] All right. I'm just going to repeat once more.

00:27:45 Telling us that you're waiting for private charities to

00:27:47 provide money to allow you to acquire information is totally

00:27:52 unacceptable.

00:27:53 [Mr. Johnson] Yeah, I'm not quite sure who is suggesting

00:27:56 that we are soliciting private resources.

00:27:59 [Mr. Issa] This is the EPA's response to our previous

00:28:01 questions about inaction in this area.

00:28:03 [Mr. Johnson] I will circle with my team. I can assure you

00:28:06 that we are not.

00:28:07 [Mr. Issa] I'm giving you a hard time on it because methane

00:28:09 is such a huge factor in climate change.

00:28:14 Thank you. That's my time.

00:28:15 [Mr. Johnson] Absolutely. Thank you.

00:28:16 [Ms. Bair] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:28:19 Administrator Reagan, as I mentioned in the statement, in my

00:28:22 opening statement, I'm concerned about the potential for these

00:28:28 new standards for lead emissions for the smaller aircraft and

00:28:33 the implications that it will have on a State like Alaska. As

00:28:37 you know, the Alaska delegation is working to address this

00:28:43 legislatively. We're hoping that we may be able to address this

00:28:49 in the FAA bill that we will be moving to hopefully this

00:28:54 afternoon. You have stated, or EPA has stated, that it's

00:29:00 committed to working together with a wide range of

00:29:03 stakeholders on this. I want to add my name to that list of

00:29:08 stakeholders, but can you share with me exactly who in the

00:29:13 State your teams have been reaching out to, who the

00:29:17 stakeholders are? Because what I want to know and what I want a

00:29:23 commitment on is that the agency is going to consider the

00:29:27 fundamental needs of the State of Alaska at issue here before

00:29:32 finalizing any potential rulemaking.

00:29:34 It's important who you're talking to. If you have available

00:29:41 right now some of the stakeholders that you've been reaching out

00:29:45 to, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, we'll take that back.

00:29:49 Where I'm trying to get is we have to address this because I'm

00:29:53 going to have whole portions of the entire State that will have

00:29:56 no way in and no way out of their communities because there

00:30:00 will be nobody to fly them.

00:30:01 Senator, first of all, let me say thank you for inviting me to

00:30:05 Alaska to see firsthand for myself. I completely recognize

00:30:09 the unique transportation needs for the State of Alaska. I just

00:30:13 want to state that we have, by law and by requirement, looked

00:30:18 at the endangerment finding of lead. Now that we've done that,

00:30:22 we're beginning to start the process to evaluate what kinds of

00:30:26 actions we need to take. I can assure you that we will

00:30:29 wholeheartedly engage you, your staff, and also the State of

00:30:33 Alaska as we begin to move down the road of promulgating any

00:30:37 rules that pertain to aviation and lead.

00:30:40 [Ms. Warren] I look forward to that engagement. Again, when we

00:30:44 talk about what environmental justice looks like, think about

00:30:48 what it means to some of our very remote, very rural,

00:30:55 primarily Alaska Native communities that will, again, be

00:30:59 completely locked in, shut down. No way to gain access to

00:31:04 health care, no way to gain access to public safety. So,

00:31:08 please know how significant this is. We are just in a different

00:31:15 place than anybody else on this.

00:31:18 It kind of ties into what we've been trying to do with the

00:31:23 situation with PM 2.5 in Fairbanks. We all want to work to

00:31:27 reduce the emissions issues, improve that air quality. I know

00:31:32 the agency is working with the State of Alaska and the borough

00:31:35 on a path forward, but we're just very concerned about this

00:31:42 threat out there of enforcement actions.

00:31:48 Knowing what we have in front of us, the history and, again,

00:31:51 the actions that have been taken, I'm hoping that the agency

00:31:55 is going to be responsive to the feedback from the State and

00:31:57 the borough in working through a State implementation program.

00:32:02 One of the areas where you do have full control, this is the

00:32:07 residential wood heater program. Last year, the agency's

00:32:13 inspector general found the flaws and the problems within the

00:32:17 program. So, can you share with me and others on the committee

00:32:21 what steps you've taken to improve the wood heater testing and

00:32:24 the certification program so that we can kind of at least clean

00:32:31 up this part of it?

00:32:32 Yes. Well, I'll say that we take all reviews by the IG very

00:32:36 seriously. We took a look at the things that we can improve in

00:32:39 terms of testing procedures, processes, the ways that we're

00:32:42 communicating with the State of Alaska and those who rely on

00:32:45 these technologies. I believe that we have found a way through

00:32:50 process improvement, but also relationship improvement. I have

00:32:53 to say thank you. You have done a great job helping to

00:32:58 reestablish some very strong relationships on the ground that,

00:33:00 quite frankly, we need. We are listening directly to the

00:33:04 communities, and we understand the role that we play in solving

00:33:07 this problem. So, I can tell you that through procedural

00:33:10 improvements and relationship improvement, I believe that we're

00:33:13 well on our way to solving the problem.

00:33:15 Well, I know that you've given me that commitment, but we're

00:33:22 going to have to be creative in some funding solutions for

00:33:30 working to reduce these PM2.5 emissions going forward. My time

00:33:34 has expired. I've got a lot more, and I'll look forward to

00:33:36 those. Thank you.

00:33:37 Senator Tester.

00:33:38 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for holding this

00:33:42 hearing, and Administrator Reagan, thank you for being here.

00:33:44 I appreciate you coming before the committee today. Look, as a

00:33:49 farmer, somebody whose family has been on this land since it

00:33:51 broke for over 114 years, I know the value of clean air and

00:33:58 clean water. There's just no doubt about that.

00:34:01 But I will tell you that the rules that come out of

00:34:04 Washington, D.C., have to be rooted in reality. If you can't

00:34:10 meet them, it really is a huge problem. And that's why I want

00:34:16 to talk a little bit today about the MATS rule. Now, in this

00:34:21 rule, you acknowledge that the only power plant this is really

00:34:26 affecting is one in Colstrip, Montana. That's the only one.

00:34:34 You also acknowledge it will take hundreds of millions of

00:34:36 dollars to meet the standards, and this is a power plant with a

00:34:40 public depreciation date of 2042. You and I both know there's

00:34:45 no way they make hundreds of millions of dollars in investment

00:34:48 in a power plant that has that depreciation date.

00:34:54 I would just tell you that when it comes to jobs, when it comes

00:35:01 to this community, when it comes to power, this is all really

00:35:07 important as we try to meet that happy meeting between clean air

00:35:10 and clean water. But in your rule, you also provide additional

00:35:16 flexibilities. I want to flesh that out a little bit. These are

00:35:19 additional flexibilities to bring sources into compliance.

00:35:23 It doesn't go into detail what these are. So my question to you

00:35:26 is what are -- and don't filibuster me. I know you won't.

00:35:30 But what are these additional flexibilities?

00:35:33 >> Well, and I won't filibuster. I'll say that the flexibilities

00:35:37 that are in there are, number one, different types of control

00:35:42 technology options and combinations, timing, and looking

00:35:49 at some of the unique aspects of the state of Montana. We have

00:35:53 had direct conversations with this facility.

00:35:55 >> Yes.

00:35:56 >> And what I'll say is I'm not quite sure if my team would

00:35:59 agree that it would take $100 million of investment. I think

00:36:02 if our teams, your team, are talking with this facility and we

00:36:05 look at these combinations of control technologies that we've

00:36:09 helped other states do, like Kentucky and Oklahoma, I believe

00:36:12 that we can get there.

00:36:14 >> Okay. And then the question becomes can we get there and

00:36:20 still have it so that when it turns 40 below zero we've got

00:36:24 power? You know, unfortunately because of climate change we

00:36:28 don't have those times very often anymore, but we have one last

00:36:31 winter.

00:36:32 >> Yes.

00:36:33 >> And you know what happens with peak power prices and things

00:36:35 like that. And if you don't have the juice, I'm telling you,

00:36:39 it's over with. You've got big costs.

00:36:42 >> So my question, would you -- is there any thought, since

00:36:48 this only impacts one power plant in the United States, the

00:36:51 whole damn country, just one power plant, of potentially

00:36:55 moving the date forward and giving some flexibility to maybe

00:36:59 2032?

00:37:00 >> Well, let me say I think it does impact more than one.

00:37:06 >> No, the rule actually points out it impacts one.

00:37:11 >> Yeah, 93% of coal plants in this country we believe will be

00:37:15 able to meet.

00:37:16 >> Yeah, this is the one that won't.

00:37:19 >> Let me say this. I'd love for our staffs to talk.

00:37:22 >> Okay.

00:37:23 >> Because they've been having some very technical

00:37:24 conversations.

00:37:25 >> Good.

00:37:26 >> And I do believe there's a path forward.

00:37:27 >> We need to visit. Now, I want to make something really

00:37:28 clear. I talk to a lot of people about this. There's nobody

00:37:32 that said let's just throw the rule out. We think this rule is

00:37:34 a bunch of garbage and we should throw it out. All of them said

00:37:38 I see what they're trying to do. They just need to understand

00:37:41 that a one size fits all rule doesn't necessarily work all the

00:37:44 time.

00:37:45 >> Yeah.

00:37:46 >> Okay? And so if you're willing to work with my staff and

00:37:48 we're willing to move this thing forward in a way that really

00:37:51 ensures both climate -- find that sweet spot -- ensures both

00:37:56 climate stability and energy stability without totally

00:38:00 torturing this community, it would be a big win for everybody,

00:38:04 okay?

00:38:05 >> Sounds good to me.

00:38:06 >> I really thank you for that. It's -- this is really, really

00:38:10 important. And I get it. I mean, I get it. I understand

00:38:15 climate. I mean, I've been through two of the worst droughts

00:38:17 I've ever had on our farm, and that's in 114 years, okay? And

00:38:23 we're still laying out of it, by the way. It could be another

00:38:25 one this year. I hope not, but it looks like it might be. So

00:38:29 making sure that this stuff works for everybody is really,

00:38:33 really, really important. I appreciate you. My time's run out.

00:38:36 I want to talk about Superfund sites, too, but we'll do that

00:38:39 when we come in and talk about mats, okay?

00:38:41 >> That sounds great, Senator. Thank you.

00:38:44 >> Senator Heinrich.

00:38:45 >> Thank you, Chairman. First, I want to thank you for the

00:38:50 work that EPA has done to finalize the National Drinking

00:38:53 Water Standard with respect to PFAS. This is something that

00:38:58 most all of our colleagues are struggling with in their

00:39:01 states. Can you kind of walk through this budget request and

00:39:06 all the pieces and parts of where you're going to be able to

00:39:08 make progress with respect to PFAS contamination as a result

00:39:13 of this budget, and do you think it's adequate to meet the

00:39:18 incredible challenges that we face with PFAS?

00:39:21 >> Well, thank you, and it's been a combination of all of us

00:39:24 and our staffs working together. This is an issue that doesn't

00:39:28 have any boundaries, political or state. Listen, the final rule

00:39:31 that we designed, we had input from over 120,000 serious people

00:39:37 in the water sector, and what I'll say is, as I said in my

00:39:40 opening, we're going to, you know, reduce PFAS exposure to

00:39:44 over 100 million people. And then we also announced at that

00:39:48 same time a $1 billion grant, thanks to the bipartisan

00:39:54 infrastructure law, to help some of our smaller communities

00:39:58 comply with this rule. The reality is that we have focused

00:40:01 on a number of PFAS in this first drinking water standard,

00:40:04 and we have thousands more to focus on. So we really need the

00:40:09 resources and the staff to have a comprehensive approach of

00:40:13 protecting our water quality from these forever chemicals. So

00:40:16 we would use that money to continue to collect the

00:40:18 scientific evidence, look at how to design technology and

00:40:22 health-based standards to protect as many people as possible

00:40:25 from different forms of this pervasive chemical.

00:40:27 [Mr. Lankford] I want to ask you an IRA-related question.

00:40:32 And those of us who have worked with the Department of

00:40:36 Energy for years in the loan program office, we know it took a

00:40:39 long time to sort of build the muscles in that organization to

00:40:44 be able to do the things that they're doing at scale now. The

00:40:48 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the National Clean Investment

00:40:51 Fund, these were things that were sort of created out of whole

00:40:54 cloth in the IRA. Can you talk about implementation progress

00:40:58 there and where you're going with that?

00:41:01 [Mr. Jones] We feel really good about the $27 billion

00:41:06 greenhouse gas reduction fund, that $20 billion that's focused

00:41:10 on those investments for clean technology and the $6 or $7

00:41:14 billion that's focused on solar for all. Thankfully, you all

00:41:18 have the wisdom in the law to give us the flexibility to add to

00:41:22 the expertise that we already had. And so we were able to use

00:41:26 some of those resources to hire some of the expertise that

00:41:29 helped us to design this program.

00:41:32 But the program is also designed in a way where we're

00:41:34 leveraging those in the private sector, those in the investment

00:41:39 space who understand how to leverage capital. This is $27

00:41:43 billion that we think is going to pull hundreds of billions off

00:41:45 the sideline. So with those time-limited positions coupled with

00:41:51 the EPA expertise, we believe that we created a really strong

00:41:55 grant competition and we're going to see the fruits of that

00:41:57 labor.

00:41:58 We feel really good about the metrics, feel really good

00:42:01 about the types of transparency that we built in. And, you

00:42:06 know, we have invited our inspector general and others to ensure

00:42:09 that we have the transparency and we're keeping an open book

00:42:12 on that. So I feel really good about where we're headed.

00:42:14 I look forward to more news on that front as you continue

00:42:19 implementation.

00:42:20 You know, the Supreme Court's Sackett decision last year had

00:42:25 an impact on New Mexico that is outsized to most of the rest

00:42:31 of the country. Over 90 percent of New Mexico's waterways were

00:42:35 left without any protection from pollution or infill. And New

00:42:39 Mexicans have worked really hard over the years to improve

00:42:42 water quality and now are grappling with this new situation that

00:42:47 is really untenable.

00:42:49 How can the EPA work together with States like New Mexico to

00:42:56 fill that gap?

00:42:57 [Mr. Jones] Well, it was a disappointing decision for a number

00:43:01 of us, but I committed as administrator to follow the science

00:43:04 and follow the law. And the Sackett rule is very prescriptive.

00:43:08 And so for those who are feeling left out, you know, whether

00:43:13 it's North Carolina, New Mexico, whomever, we're encouraging

00:43:16 our States, tribes and municipalities to use available resources

00:43:21 that we have, such as our wetland program development grants.

00:43:25 There are some other grants in Bill and Ira that we believe

00:43:29 we can couple to fill some of those gaps.

00:43:31 Listen, I'll say I have pledged and my staff is pledging that

00:43:35 we will not leave any communities behind. And we know that

00:43:38 there are some serious water quality issues. I don't believe

00:43:41 that the decision from the Supreme Court helps. I think it

00:43:44 complicates.

00:43:45 But that being said, EPA and the Army Corps will follow the

00:43:50 law. And with help that you all have given us through grants

00:43:54 and resources, we believe we can plug those gaps with resources

00:43:57 and technical expertise.

00:43:58 [Mr. Lankford] Great.

00:43:59 I'm out of time. I've got another question on rodenticides that

00:44:04 I'm going to give you for the record, if you could get back to

00:44:07 us on that, that would be appreciated.

00:44:08 [Mr. Boucher] Absolutely.

00:44:09 [Mr. Lankford] Thank you.

00:44:11 Now we'll turn to Senator Van Hollen.

00:44:12 [Mr. Van Hollen] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Administrator Regan.

00:44:16 It's good to see you again.

00:44:18 I want to start by thanking you and the team at EPA for your

00:44:23 help in the response to the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore.

00:44:27 EPA was on the scene with coordinators who worked with the

00:44:31 Unified Command to assess potentially hazardous cargo aboard

00:44:36 the DALI and provide recommendations as needed on removal or

00:44:40 recovery plans.

00:44:42 So thank you for lending that technical expertise needed to

00:44:46 protect the public health.

00:44:49 And I understand that Senator Heinrich raised the issue of

00:44:52 the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. I just want to thank you and

00:44:58 the EPA for the rollout on that fund, and thank you for

00:45:03 consulting with us during that process.

00:45:06 Your entire team, Jahi Weiss, please give him my best, and

00:45:11 others on the team who worked on that.

00:45:14 It was a long journey since I first introduced the national

00:45:18 green bank legislation, I think in 2009, back in the House of

00:45:22 Representatives, along with my friends and colleagues. And

00:45:27 originally that provision was included on what was known as the

00:45:32 Waxman-Markey bill that we actually passed out of the House,

00:45:37 but it died in the United States Senate.

00:45:39 It does show what collective persistence will bring. So the

00:45:43 IRA has many good provisions. This is one of them. Thank you

00:45:47 and your team for helping roll it out.

00:45:49 I see in the budget you have got $5 million for sort of

00:45:53 administrative oversight right now. If you could just talk very

00:45:59 briefly about how you are going to use it. It seems to me we

00:46:01 have to make sure we are on target to achieve our goals. One

00:46:05 goal is the amount of greenhouse gas reduction that is going to

00:46:09 be associated with this $27 billion fund total. The other is

00:46:15 the equity lens and the share of that that needs to be invested

00:46:21 in lower income communities that have been too often overlooked.

00:46:26 And third and very important, it has got to be self-sustaining.

00:46:28 The idea was this is not just a pool of funds for grant monies.

00:46:34 These are investments to be made that will get a return to go

00:46:37 back in the fund and be self-sustaining. So number one, do

00:46:40 you agree with those goals and are you committed to providing

00:46:45 the oversight to make sure that we are on track to achieve them?

00:46:49 Absolutely. I think you have helped me answer your question,

00:46:52 which is we did receive some what we consider to be time

00:46:56 limited resources to help design and stand up this program.

00:47:00 But you are absolutely right. The execution and

00:47:02 implementation in a transparent way with the appropriate level

00:47:06 of oversight is an absolute necessity. So to do justice to this

00:47:11 brilliant idea that you and others had that you have been

00:47:13 working on for over 15 years, we want to be sure that we

00:47:16 actually pull those hundreds of billions of dollars of private

00:47:19 capital off the sideline. And it is just amazing that just with

00:47:23 the solar program we may reach over 900, close to a million

00:47:27 homes. And so many people through the other 20 billion, low

00:47:31 income, moderate income, who will actually see these resources

00:47:35 as investments into the quality of their lives, their homes and

00:47:38 the like, we want to use the budget to ensure that we continue

00:47:43 operating this program in the utmost transparent way that has

00:47:47 the proper oversight and also the proper engagement with those

00:47:50 we need to be engaging with.

00:47:51 [Mr. Blumenauer] I appreciate that.

00:47:54 And I am now going to turn to the Chesapeake Bay. I am sure

00:47:57 you are not surprised that we would raise the Chesapeake Bay

00:48:02 cleanup with you. And as you know, the Bay sort of watershed

00:48:07 includes six States plus the District of Columbia. The most

00:48:10 recent Bay cleanup agreement was signed in 2014. It set a series

00:48:15 of goals to improve the health of the Bay by the year 2025. It

00:48:21 includes measurable objectives that have helped us track

00:48:25 progress and take course corrections as necessary. And together

00:48:29 with the 2010 TMDL gave the EPA the ability to serve as the

00:48:36 backstop and step in, as you have in some respects with

00:48:40 Pennsylvania, to ensure compliance.

00:48:43 So, Mr. Administrator, we are coming up fast on 2025. We know

00:48:47 as of today that we are not on track to hit those targets. So my

00:48:52 question is, will you and the EPA commit to start working with

00:48:57 the States right now to set ambitious goals and targets to move

00:49:02 the Bay cleanup beyond the year 2025?

00:49:05 [Mr. Blumenauer] You have my commitment on that.

00:49:07 [Mr. Blumenauer] I appreciate that, because we do need to get

00:49:10 started. I am concerned that we are not on track to hit those

00:49:16 targets, and I do not want this to drift any longer. So I think

00:49:20 the sooner we get to work, the better. And thank you for the

00:49:23 commitment for EPA to be right there at the table from the start

00:49:27 helping pull people together.

00:49:28 [Mr. Fischer] Absolutely.

00:49:29 [Mr. Blumenauer] Thank you.

00:49:30 [Mr. Chaffetz] Senator Fischer.

00:49:32 [Ms. Fischer] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator,

00:49:35 for being here today.

00:49:39 Biofuels are a great market for Nebraska's farmers, and it

00:49:43 provides clean burning and cheaper fuel for American families.

00:49:47 Sustainable aviation fuel is another important potential market

00:49:51 for Nebraska's biofuels. Secretary Vilsack has encouraged the

00:49:56 biofuels industry to lean into that SAF market, saying to a group

00:50:00 last year, ``I want you all to understand this is a critical

00:50:03 moment, a make-or-break moment. And if it is not seized and not

00:50:08 taken full advantage of, you may have a different conversation

00:50:11 years from now.''

00:50:13 Well, yesterday, an interagency task force, which included your

00:50:17 agency, released an updated GREET model to determine the carbon

00:50:22 intensity of fuels for the credit. And I am still reviewing the

00:50:26 updated model that you sent out. But it seems to mandate a set of

00:50:30 conservation practices that corn and soybean farmers must do in

00:50:35 order for the SAF to qualify for the tax credit.

00:50:39 Additionally, with this updated modeling, corn and soy-based

00:50:43 biofuels, even if they complete the additional conservation

00:50:47 practices, would still be deemed more carbon-intensive than

00:50:52 Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. My concern is that this is going to

00:50:57 lead to taxpayer dollars incentivizing imports of foreign fuel.

00:51:03 So, Administrator, I would hope that the Biden administration

00:51:08 would not have knowingly released an updated model that favors

00:51:12 foreign feedstocks by imposing barriers for U.S. biofuels to

00:51:17 qualify for that SAF tax credit. Is it your belief that the U.S.

00:51:23 produced biofuels are less sustainable than foreign feedstocks

00:51:27 like Brazilian ethanol, as the updated model seems to indicate?

00:51:31 [Mr. Jones] What I would say is that, number one, I agree

00:51:35 wholeheartedly with Secretary Vilsack that this is a great moment

00:51:38 in time, and I believe that SAFs have a great opportunity here.

00:51:44 Our role in the interagency focused on updating the GREEP model

00:51:48 was to ensure that we gave all farmers options to comply with

00:51:52 the Clean Air Act. So what I think you will see with this updated

00:51:55 model and what I have heard farmers say is that there is more

00:51:57 flexibility in how this model is going to determine the outputs

00:52:02 to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act. I think the design

00:52:05 of conservation programs and tax policy, well, those questions

00:52:09 are probably better steered to USDA or Treasury. I am not an

00:52:15 architect of how those programs work. And I tell you that my

00:52:18 focus was to ensure that we put a product across the finish line

00:52:22 that gave farmers maximum flexibility and options for Clean Air

00:52:26 Act compliance.

00:52:27 [Ms. Warren] Oh, gosh, I think you are going to be hearing

00:52:29 from corn producers all across the country and especially

00:52:33 Nebraska. The requirements we see on this updated model that

00:52:38 came out from you folks, it really has rather stringent requirements

00:52:44 that have to be met, and it is a number of requirements that have

00:52:48 to be met. And as I said earlier, the Brazilian sugarcane

00:52:54 and ethanol is going to qualify for taxpayer dollars, United

00:52:58 States taxpayer dollars, where when I am hearing from my

00:53:03 producers is they are not going to be able to meet this new

00:53:07 model that came out. Do you think maybe you need to relook at

00:53:14 what that model is doing?

00:53:15 [Mr. Johnson] I think what we should probably do is have

00:53:17 our staffs compare notes. That is not what I am hearing. I am

00:53:21 hearing that we have produced a product that allows for our

00:53:24 farms to compete in a global market as we look at filling this

00:53:28 SAF gap. So I would love for our teams to kind of talk a little

00:53:31 bit about that.

00:53:32 [Ms. Warren] Oh, I would, too, because the air fuel that

00:53:37 the Secretary Vilsack was very excited about and looked at as

00:53:42 another avenue to really help farmers, ag producers be able to

00:53:46 open up another market for them, that was a very positive step.

00:53:52 And we feel now that we are going backwards, we are going the

00:53:55 other way. So I look forward to having a continued conversation

00:54:00 with you on that.

00:54:01 I have also heard from numerous public power districts and

00:54:05 electric co-ops about the regulations you released last week on

00:54:09 power plants. In Nebraska, we are a total public power state.

00:54:15 And we are seeing a dramatic increase in electric demand

00:54:18 because of increased economic development, which is a good

00:54:22 thing. We like to see that.

00:54:25 And the public power districts and our electric co-ops,

00:54:27 they have expressed concern that EPA's rule jeopardizes

00:54:32 affordability and reliability by forcing the premature closure

00:54:36 of coal-powered plants. And you have been quoted as saying the

00:54:40 EPA knows the potential of this industry, power generators, and

00:54:45 we have been talking to this industry. They provided us

00:54:48 comments over the past two years, formally and informally. We

00:54:52 believe that we have those interests baked in.

00:54:55 Yet, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association

00:55:00 stated the path outlined by the EPA is unlawful, unrealistic,

00:55:06 and unachievable. It undermines electric reliability and poses

00:55:11 grave consequences for an already stressed electric grid.

00:55:15 So how do you square your comments that rural electric

00:55:19 interests are baked in with the rural electric industry,

00:55:23 describing the rule as unlawful, unrealistic, and unachievable?

00:55:28 [Mr. Jones] Yes, I feel that it is unfortunate that it is

00:55:31 described that way. I would say that when you look at what we

00:55:34 proposed, the enormous amount of comments that we accepted from

00:55:39 EEI and from rural electric cooperatives, I think that the rule

00:55:46 gravitated towards a level of flexibility and expansion that took

00:55:51 a lot of what they said very serious.

00:55:54 And so I believe that not only did we listen, but we

00:55:58 produced a lawful rule. I am sure that the courts and others

00:56:01 will decide. But when you look at the work that we have done

00:56:05 with DOE and FERC and those who specialize in grid reliability,

00:56:10 this meets the mark. We understand that there will not be

00:56:13 jeopardy in reliability based on this rule. And when we did the

00:56:17 cost analysis, we looked at a potential increase in cost of

00:56:21 between 0 and 1 percent.

00:56:23 And so I feel very good about the rule that we proposed.

00:56:29 And we will look forward to the implementation processes

00:56:31 and working with the States to be sure that the flexibilities

00:56:34 that we believe are there are actually built in.

00:56:36 [Ms. Fisher] Well, with all due respect, I would say our

00:56:40 Nebraska public power districts and co-ops, again, public power,

00:56:45 they are opposed to the regulations because they do believe it

00:56:49 is going to really hurt our affordable electric generation.

00:56:54 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:56:55 [Chairman Issa] Thank you very much.

00:56:56 Senator Peters.

00:56:57 [Senator Peters] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:56:59 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Regan.

00:57:04 As you know very well, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

00:57:08 was established back in 2009 to accelerate efforts to protect

00:57:14 and to restore one of the largest systems of fresh water in the

00:57:19 entire world, the Great Lakes. And as Michiganders, I can say

00:57:23 that the Great Lakes are not only in our DNA, they are a

00:57:27 source of economic growth and for job creation.

00:57:31 And since 2010, GLRI resources have been used to fund

00:57:35 thousands of projects to improve water quality, to protect and

00:57:40 restore native habitat and species, to prevent and control

00:57:44 invasive species, and to address other Great Lakes' environmental

00:57:49 problems.

00:57:50 However, challenges to the Great Lakes, unfortunately, from

00:57:54 fluctuating lake levels to increased harmful algal blooms to

00:57:57 climate change, aren't going away and are increasing. And so we

00:58:01 need to make sure we have full funding for at least the

00:58:05 authorized $450 million in the fiscal year '25 budget.

00:58:11 So my question for you, Administrator, is can you speak to

00:58:14 how EPA would be able to leverage a fully funded GLRI at $450

00:58:20 million with the historic level of funding received in the IIJA

00:58:25 to continue this incredibly vital work to protect our Great

00:58:30 Lakes?

00:58:31 Absolutely. I want to say thank you for your leadership on this

00:58:33 topic, Senator Peters. And, you know, as you mentioned, GLRI

00:58:38 has funded more than 7,500 projects and leveraging over $3.7

00:58:44 billion in partnership with federal agencies, states, tribes

00:58:47 and local governments. We just announced four applicants will

00:58:51 receive more than $35 million to fund projects across the Great

00:58:55 Lakes. And the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments is one

00:58:59 of the four that's set to receive $4.2 million.

00:59:02 EPA will also invest another billion under the bipartisan

00:59:06 infrastructure law, largely targeted for accelerated cleanups

00:59:11 of areas of concern, including the Detroit and Rouge River

00:59:15 areas of concern. So I feel really good that the vision of this

00:59:19 program is working. The economic aspects of it, the leverage

00:59:23 dollars are making a lot of sense. And we've got a billion

00:59:26 dollars in additional resources that we're going to leverage

00:59:29 against that to continue to see the progress that you and others

00:59:33 have led.

00:59:34 Well, I appreciate that. And I think I would ask you also to

00:59:37 follow up a little bit on your response for the benefit of the

00:59:40 committee to just describe how the GLRI -- because I think it's

00:59:44 in a lot of ways used as a model federal program. It enjoys one

00:59:48 strong bipartisan support, which is always great to see. But it's

00:59:52 also federal, state and local levels all have embraced these

00:59:56 kinds of investments. So if you could, for the benefit of the

00:59:59 committee to hear, talk a little bit about both the significant

01:00:02 environmental and economic benefits when we're able to bring

01:00:05 all of these entities together and focus on this problem.

01:00:07 Absolutely. You know, because of your leadership and the

01:00:10 leadership of many on this committee, the interest has created a

01:00:15 catalyst for unprecedented federal agency coordination, whole of

01:00:20 government approach that really is yielding unprecedented results.

01:00:25 You know, the economic benefits of 2018 University of Michigan

01:00:30 study shows that for every $1 spent in GLRI projects between 2010

01:00:36 and 2016, we're seeing the additional economic activity of about

01:00:41 $3.35. So that's 1 to 3.35. So, you know, there's obviously been a

01:00:50 great initiative to unify the federal government to focus on

01:00:53 these resources, but also, again, it's making a lot of economic

01:00:57 sense as well.

01:00:58 Yeah, definitely. That's a good return on investment. So I

01:01:00 appreciate you bringing that up.

01:01:02 Administrator, after a long pushing for a national standard to

01:01:06 limit PFAS in drinking water, I want to say I certainly applaud

01:01:09 last month's very historic announcement by the EPA for the

01:01:13 finalization of the nation's first ever national standard to

01:01:17 address toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water. Communities in

01:01:21 Michigan, quite frankly, have waited far too long for this new

01:01:25 standard to help our state and nation make the kind of progress

01:01:28 necessary to rid our communities of these toxic chemicals.

01:01:33 Researchers and scientists have underscored the serious risk of

01:01:36 PFAS contamination in both human health and our environment, and

01:01:39 that's why it's important to establish, I believe, additional

01:01:43 national drinking standards as soon as possible to help

01:01:46 communities.

01:01:47 My question for you, Administrator Regan, is that when you

01:01:50 were before this committee last year, you told me that the EPA

01:01:55 had an additional 29 PFAS on its radar for potential

01:02:00 consideration under a similar standard. Could you please

01:02:04 provide me and this committee with an update on your work to

01:02:07 designate these other dangerous chemical compounds and how we

01:02:11 need to regulate them accordingly?

01:02:13 Absolutely. We are very proud of the focus on the six that you

01:02:18 alluded to, and we all know that there are many more. And so

01:02:22 we're monitoring drinking water in communities all across the

01:02:25 country for those 29 that we discussed at the last hearing through

01:02:31 our unregulated contaminant monitoring rules. We have a formal

01:02:36 process there where we're doing a lot of testing at

01:02:39 significantly more water systems than ever before, using advanced

01:02:44 methods to detect these pervasive chemicals. And we are regularly

01:02:49 releasing that data that we collect under this rule for full

01:02:52 transparency. So, again, we're beginning to uncover, monitor,

01:02:56 detect, and determine some of the health disbenefits of those

01:03:00 29 with an angle or an idea that we will pursue regulation for

01:03:05 those in the near future as well.

01:03:07 Well, good to hear that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:03:09 Thank you very much, Senator and Senator Holman.

01:03:13 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, do you support developing

01:03:19 carbon capture for coal-fired electric plants so that they can

01:03:23 capture CO2 and continue to provide dependable, low-cost base

01:03:27 load energy to the power grid?

01:03:28 I do. And thank you for the invitation to North Dakota to

01:03:32 actually see some of those technologies operate up close and

01:03:35 personal.

01:03:36 So right now we have the largest carbon or CO2 capture

01:03:40 project in the world with DGC Dakota Gasification Company, which

01:03:45 captures about 50 percent of the CO2 stream for EOR, for

01:03:50 tertiary oil recovery. And now they're adding another 35

01:03:53 percent, which they will capture for geologic storage. They're

01:03:57 continuing to work their way forward.

01:03:59 We've got Project Tundra, which is an effort to put CO2

01:04:04 capture on a traditional coal-fired facility that's owned by a

01:04:09 cooperative. And then also Coal Creek, which is an investor-owned

01:04:15 coal-fired electric plant, is also working on carbon capture.

01:04:22 But they've got to have an environment that enables them to

01:04:25 deploy these new technologies. They're investing hundreds of

01:04:28 millions, billions of dollars in doing this. And the Department

01:04:32 of Energy is their partner.

01:04:33 As a matter of fact, Project Tundra, Minn Kota was recently

01:04:36 awarded I think $350 million under a DOE grant to continue

01:04:41 forward with CO2 reduction or capture and sequester.

01:04:46 Now, you've just brought forward, finalized the MATS rule,

01:04:51 which makes further reductions, but it particularly hits

01:04:57 lignite coal, which is a type of coal that we have. And my

01:05:01 question is, why are you now requiring another round of new

01:05:06 MATS reduction, which is mercury standards, when your own

01:05:13 regulatory analysis acknowledges that studied emissions from

01:05:17 lignite-fired sources, quote, are below levels of concern from

01:05:21 a public health standpoint, when that makes it very difficult

01:05:26 for us to do the very things that you just said you support,

01:05:29 which is capture and sequester CO2?

01:05:31 [Mr. Johnson] Yeah, I think that

01:05:33 [Mr. Kucinich] And you recognize the differences between

01:05:34 lignite and other types of coal, and that these are mind-

01:05:37 mouth operations, right?

01:05:38 [Mr. Johnson] I do. I do. And I recognize that irrespective

01:05:42 of the source, the exposure to mercury is the same on

01:05:45 children. And what we've said and what we've looked at in this

01:05:49 rule is 93 percent of the coal units in this country will

01:05:55 qualify or meet this rule. And there's about 7 percent that we

01:05:59 want to work with and focus on. That rule has some

01:06:02 flexibilities in there, some technology combinations that we

01:06:05 would like to consider.

01:06:07 And so when I spoke at CERA week about 2 years ago, what the

01:06:11 utilities said to me was, hopefully we can align these rules

01:06:16 that come out. If you're going to do something on mercury, on

01:06:18 carbon, on water affluence, maybe you could do them in a close

01:06:22 proximity so we could understand how to make our investments.

01:06:27 And so that's what we've attempted to do here. And so I don't

01:06:30 necessarily see a conflict in how we capture or eliminate

01:06:33 these pollutants. I actually see an opportunity.

01:06:36 [Mr. Lynch] Well, then you're going to need to work with our

01:06:38 industry because lignite coal does have differences that you

01:06:42 need to take into account. Are you willing to do that?

01:06:44 [Mr. Johnson] We are willing to. That's part of the

01:06:47 flexibility that's built into the rule. I think that we

01:06:50 recognize that there's no one-size-fits-all. We recognize that

01:06:53 93 percent of the coal plants say they can do it. But we want

01:06:57 to work with those 7 percent like we've done in Oklahoma and

01:07:01 Kentucky and other states where we can prove that the rule is

01:07:05 flexible enough that a combination of rules can get at that

01:07:08 dangerous mercury toxic emission.

01:07:11 [Mr. Lynch] All right. If you want to have these

01:07:13 technologies deployed, which our companies are making huge

01:07:16 investments in, as is the Department of Energy, then you're

01:07:20 going to have to work with them so that they can, in fact, do

01:07:22 it.

01:07:23 Another example is your new CO2 rule as far as total

01:07:26 emissions, now saying that emissions have to be reduced by

01:07:29 90 percent by 2032. I just cited a project. It's now the

01:07:35 largest carbon capture project in the world in Dakota

01:07:39 Gasification Company. They actually turn lignite coal into

01:07:43 natural gas. Now, with the new deployments, they'll be up to

01:07:47 maybe 85 percent. They're just getting up and running. But

01:07:51 you're talking about these companies capturing 90 percent by

01:07:56 2032 when we're just out. I mean, we are the first--we're

01:08:00 advanced, I think, ahead of anybody in this technology and

01:08:03 deploying it. And if successful, it's not only going to have

01:08:05 an impact here in this country, but globally, because there

01:08:08 will be other adapters of these new technologies for carbon

01:08:11 capture, which is what I think you want.

01:08:12 [Mr. McHenry] Absolutely.

01:08:13 [Mr. Lynch] But how do you expect them to hit a 90 percent

01:08:16 standard when we're just getting these things up and going

01:08:19 now? In other words, you're putting regulations in place that

01:08:22 are so stringent that you prevent anybody from actually

01:08:24 achieving the very kind of reductions that, you know, that

01:08:29 are possible from a scientific and a commercially viable

01:08:32 standpoint. And if those regulations prevent it from happening

01:08:36 in this country, there's nobody else around the globe that's

01:08:38 going to do it. They're going to just keep emitting more CO2.

01:08:41 So aren't you a lot better off to work with our industry to

01:08:44 accomplish these new standards that continue to keep this

01:08:48 baseload in operation and, just like we've done with SOx,

01:08:52 NOx, mercury and all these other things, address the CO2?

01:08:55 But if you keep setting standards that can't be achieved,

01:08:58 you're just going to put them out of business.

01:08:59 [Mr. McHenry] I think that we can get to that world that

01:09:02 you just laid out with SOx, NOx and others.

01:09:05 What I would say is we are working very closely with DOE.

01:09:09 We've got this billions of dollars from the bipartisan

01:09:12 infrastructure law. President Biden has said that he supports

01:09:15 and wants to see carbon capture and storage in place.

01:09:18 And so when we look at what DOE is doing, what Bill is

01:09:21 investing and the timing of this rule and what you're doing

01:09:24 in North Dakota, what's happening with Governor Gordon in

01:09:26 Wyoming and other places, I believe that we can get there.

01:09:29 [Mr. Lynch] Well, you understand that these regulations

01:09:33 that you promulgate have to give the industry room to

01:09:36 achieve, you know, these reductions by deploying these new

01:09:40 technologies. And they are hundreds of millions and billions

01:09:43 of dollars. Look at the impact on rate payers and look at

01:09:47 the impact on the stability of the grid if we lose this

01:09:51 baseload. So don't those regulations have to empower our

01:09:55 ability to do these things?

01:09:57 [Mr. McHenry] I think they will. And I think they'll

01:09:59 work together. And I do believe that once we look at this

01:10:02 rule and look at the state implementation plans and look at

01:10:06 the process that individual states and these utilities will

01:10:09 go through, taking into consideration the billions of dollars

01:10:13 that we've gotten from Bill and Ira and looking at, again,

01:10:19 the resources that DOE is pumping into this technology, I

01:10:23 believe that all of these things can and will converge if we

01:10:26 approach the planning process the appropriate way and

01:10:28 continue to have these conversations.

01:10:29 [Ms. Buerkle] We're going to move on to Chairman Murray.

01:10:32 [Ms. Murray] Thank you very much. And thank you,

01:10:35 Administrator Regan. Good to see you today.

01:10:38 You know, these hearings really offer us a really critical

01:10:41 look at the needs that are facing our Nation in FY25. And as

01:10:45 I've said before and as we have seen many times, keeping our

01:10:48 Nation strong and our families safe is about a lot more than

01:10:52 just how much we invest in our military. It's also about the

01:10:56 absolutely essential investments we make at agencies like EPA,

01:11:01 which ensures that we have clean air and clean water for our

01:11:04 families and protects our communities from toxic pollutants

01:11:07 and cancer-causing chemicals and a lot more.

01:11:10 So as long as I'm Appropriations Chair, I'm going to make

01:11:13 sure that we never lose sight of that reality or leave essential

01:11:17 domestic needs behind.

01:11:18 Now, I've been very clear from the start. I don't like the

01:11:21 bipartisan spending caps we have to work with. They seriously

01:11:25 limit our investments in our country's future, and they force a

01:11:28 lot of tough funding decisions in the bill we just completed.

01:11:32 There's no question that FY25 is going to be even tougher than

01:11:35 last year, but I am absolutely committed to working again in a

01:11:39 bipartisan way to make sure we address the challenges we face

01:11:43 for defense and non-defense alike.

01:11:45 For me, the order of the day, every day as we work on our new

01:11:48 funding bills now, is to make sure our families are always

01:11:51 treated as an equal priority in our funding bills and are as

01:11:54 important as our military spending. They are both critical to

01:11:57 our Nation's success.

01:11:59 So, Administrator Regan, thank you again for being here. I

01:12:03 wanted to ask you about the President's budget request for FY25.

01:12:07 You include key funding increases for some of EPA's core

01:12:11 programs. This is the funding that ensures that EPA can enforce

01:12:16 our bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Air and Clean

01:12:18 Water Acts, protect our ecosystems, our waterways, our

01:12:22 communities. The request for clean air programs would boost

01:12:26 funding by $393 million. Would you talk to us about why that

01:12:31 need is there and how it would be used?

01:12:32 Well, thank you for that. The increases in the President's

01:12:36 budget, I believe, do respect those spending caps. It's really

01:12:41 important that we look at those requests that were made so that

01:12:46 we can keep up with some of the progress we're making. We just

01:12:50 proposed a really good, strong drinking water rule on PFAS, but

01:12:54 that's six. We've got 29 in the wings and we've got thousands

01:12:57 more. So, we need to keep the pace there. We want to ensure

01:13:02 the safety of chemicals before they hit the markets. That is

01:13:06 one of the places on our team where we have a deficit in terms

01:13:09 of staffing, yet we're getting more and more requests from our

01:13:12 ag communities about herbicides and pesticides. We have to

01:13:16 maintain the progress that we're making on cleaning up our

01:13:19 Superfund sites and our brownfield sites. Quite frankly, I wish

01:13:23 it weren't the case, but we need the capability to respond to a

01:13:27 lot of these emergencies that we're seeing, whether they're

01:13:29 train derailments or bridge collapses or wildfires. All of the

01:13:34 requests that you see in that budget are really focused on some

01:13:37 key core areas that pertain to EPA's mission.

01:13:41 Okay. I also wanted to ask you about the Puget Sound

01:13:44 Geographic Program, which provides really important support to

01:13:48 protect and restore the Puget Sound and the larger Salish Sea.

01:13:52 I am pleased to see that the budget continues to include robust

01:13:56 funding for those efforts, protects our local ecosystems from

01:14:01 climate change and habitat loss and pollution, and also protects

01:14:05 tribal treaty rights and tribal sovereignty, including by

01:14:08 supporting recovery efforts for salmon and Southern resident

01:14:11 killer whales, all really important priorities to me. Can you

01:14:15 talk about how your budget investments support the Puget

01:14:19 Sound Geographic Program?

01:14:20 Well, it does. It's very important that it does all of--it

01:14:23 keeps pace and maintains all the progress that you just laid

01:14:26 out, in addition to the threat and danger that we're seeing

01:14:30 from 6PPD. This underscores the need for the science and the

01:14:34 ecological protection there. I want to thank you and Congress

01:14:38 for the resources and the focus there. Specifically for the

01:14:41 Puget Sound, we've successfully followed through with our new

01:14:44 statutory requirements to stand up the Puget Sound Recovery

01:14:47 National Program Office and the Puget Sound Federal Leadership

01:14:51 Task Force. As a matter of fact, I believe our task force

01:14:54 leadership is completing our first report to Congress under

01:14:58 the statute, and we'll get you a copy of that.

01:15:01 I want to say that I'm very proud of the work that we're

01:15:03 doing on the Puget Sound and protecting that ecosystem in

01:15:06 those waters. Through your leadership and through these task

01:15:10 force and program offices, I think we're well on our way. We

01:15:13 just need the budget resources to continue the progress.

01:15:16 Okay. Finally, let me just say that I really want to commend

01:15:19 the EPA, along with the Department of Energy and the Washington

01:15:22 State Department of Ecology, for reaching a holistic agreement

01:15:26 on the treatment of tank waste at Hanford site earlier this

01:15:29 week.

01:15:30 I take the Federal Government's moral and legal responsibility

01:15:34 to support the Hanford cleanup very seriously and make sure

01:15:37 this committee does as well. We'll be talking to you in the

01:15:41 future about how you can make sure that that is on top of the

01:15:44 agenda and we're putting cleanup first. Thank you very much.

01:15:47 [Mr. Blumenauer] Thank you.

01:15:48 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:49 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:50 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:51 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:52 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:53 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

01:15:54 [Chairman Issa] All done. Okay. Senator Brit.

01:15:55 [Ms. Brit] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here today and taking time

01:16:02 before the subcommittee. Alabama farmers are greatly concerned with the EPA's recent Endangered

01:16:09 Species Act pesticide proposal, like the herbicide strategy. These proposals could impose hundreds

01:16:16 of millions of dollars in new restrictions on farmers who need these tools to protect

01:16:21 crops and maintain conservation practices, like reduce tillage and cover crops. Some

01:16:28 farmers are finding that they may lack options to comply with the EPA proposal, which means

01:16:34 that they have to entirely stop using tools that are vital to their farms. And I hope

01:16:39 that you and I both share the thought that food security is national security and making

01:16:45 sure that we continue to support our farmers and continue to support the job they do, knowing

01:16:50 that they protect their land. The fruitfulness of it is what allows them to continue to do

01:16:56 their job and support the work they do, not only for their community, but truly for the

01:17:00 entire Nation.

01:17:02 In that vein, bipartisan instructions were provided to EPA in the final fiscal year,

01:17:08 2024 Interior Appropriations Report, to ensure the use of, quote, best scientific and commercial

01:17:15 data available, end quote, to assess species risk as the law requires. These instructions

01:17:22 include using real world data on pesticide usage, existing conservation practices farmers

01:17:29 are using to protect wildlife, real world data on spray drift and water concentrations

01:17:35 to supplemental models, among other sources. My question for you, Mr. Administrator, is

01:17:41 how does the EPA plan on implementing Congress's bipartisan instructions?

01:17:45 Well, thank you for that. And we do share that goal. And I can say that I agree that

01:17:51 no farmer should wake up in the middle of a growing season and have to face some of

01:17:54 the decisions that they're having to face.

01:17:56 Thank you.

01:17:57 You know, I think previous decisions that span decades and court rulings have put us

01:18:03 all in a precarious position. I do feel really good that we are speaking with our farming

01:18:10 community, our agriculture community, on how we approach the Pesticides and Endangered

01:18:15 Species Act. And we've come up with some strategies that, quite frankly, a number of farm groups

01:18:20 have spoken very positively about.

01:18:22 Okay.

01:18:23 The American Soybean Association and the Ag Retailers Association. So I think we're digging

01:18:27 our way out of this hole. We're having a lot of conversations using, similar conversations

01:18:33 around using the same science so that we can achieve some of these goals that will provide

01:18:37 certainty for our agriculture.

01:18:38 So one of the two things I've heard, and so these are my concerns, is that we're not using

01:18:45 kind of the directive that was in the bipartisan report language. And so it's been brought

01:18:51 to my attention that in some ways the EPA seems to be intentionally using conservation

01:18:56 models that are designed to overestimate risk, which is explicitly not the best scientific

01:19:02 and commercial data available.

01:19:04 And so that type of risk assessment is something that I'm worried about because I believe it

01:19:08 will necessitate farmers adapting additional restrictions and, you know, to just mitigate

01:19:14 what may be a phantom risk. And so I just want to make sure if that comes across, if

01:19:18 you will make sure to just kind of drill down and ensure that's not happening. Because I

01:19:22 just want to caution EPA.

01:19:24 After last year, you know, we saw the D.C. Circuit Court rule against the National Marine

01:19:28 Fisheries Services for taking that similar approach of overstating risk to different

01:19:34 species. And so I just, I strongly advise EPA to implement the bipartisan data instructions

01:19:39 as Congress has directed.

01:19:41 And the other feedback that I have gotten is that there may be a potential of you having

01:19:46 some type of, you know, significant volume of things and maybe not having, you know,

01:19:53 staffing in order to be able to implement this. And so my question on that front is

01:19:58 would the EPA consider appointing designated non-federal representatives to help you meet

01:20:04 the ESA responsibilities and Congress's bipartisan data instructions?

01:20:09 I think you will see in the budget we attempted to be responsible and provide a request for

01:20:15 the necessary bodies to do so. That particular office or the office that we're talking about

01:20:20 is down to levels that early 2000s and more. So I think what there is a common agreement

01:20:27 is is that we need more staff and more resources to keep pace with what the courts are pushing

01:20:34 our way. And I'm not certain that we are comfortable with the over-reliance of a federal responsibility

01:20:40 to volunteers or folks who have expertise that are not contractually acquired. So we

01:20:47 would really need to talk through what your status is.

01:20:49 Would you mind, I know I'm about out of time, would you commit that our staffs could get

01:20:52 together and actually talk about this? Because I don't think the EPA needs to do this alone.

01:20:57 You know, if you look at the Endangered Species Act, it actually allows the agency to designate

01:21:01 non-federal representatives to help do this work. And so would you commit to me that we

01:21:05 can sit down and have that conversation and see if there is a path forward?

01:21:09 I would. And I'd love for us to prioritize doing it in a way that we haven't done in

01:21:13 the past. The court decisions and the use of that program contributes to why we are

01:21:18 here today.

01:21:19 Well, let's work together and see if we can find a path forward.

01:21:21 Thank you so much.

01:21:22 Thank you.

01:21:23 Senator Sinema.

01:21:24 Thank you, Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski, and thank you to our Administrator

01:21:32 for being here today. As you know, a slate of recent rulemakings from your agency stand

01:21:36 to have enormous impacts on the prosperity of Arizona. We are committed to a clean and

01:21:41 healthy environment, and the manufacturing boom in my State is helping to lead the way,

01:21:45 from advanced semiconductors to batteries and the critical minerals they are made of.

01:21:49 Arizona is at the forefront of the clean energy economy. But it doesn't feel like this progress

01:21:55 and responsible growth is always supported by the federal government. So I have a few

01:21:59 important questions for you, and I look forward to discussing these matters.

01:22:02 My office recently had the opportunity to host one of your assistant administrators,

01:22:06 Joe Goffman, in Arizona. As you no doubt are aware, the issue of ozone nonattainment in

01:22:12 Maricopa County is significant and could hamper the kinds of clean energy advanced manufacturing

01:22:17 investments this Administration and Congress have sought to support and reshore over the

01:22:21 past years.

01:22:22 I share your goal of providing clean air to the American people, but the simple fact is

01:22:26 that my State does not have the industrial history on which to base a robust bank of

01:22:32 emissions reduction credits that manufacturers like the semiconductor industry can use to

01:22:37 support expansion. Maricopa County's proposed Rules 204 and 205 would provide the mechanisms

01:22:44 to create a bank of these credits, though the process to get these rules has been extremely

01:22:48 arduous.

01:22:49 Now that the EPA has taken the first step towards conditional approval of 205, will

01:22:54 you commit to working with Maricopa County throughout this process to ensure a timely

01:22:58 final approval by the end of this summer? And can you also provide an exact timeline

01:23:04 of how the Agency plans to work with the County to get Rule 204 to conditional approval this

01:23:09 calendar year?

01:23:10 Well, what I -- thank you for the question. And what I'll say is I can commit that we'll

01:23:15 continue to work on this process. I think that Maricopa County has pioneered some very

01:23:20 novel approaches that have gotten us this far. Administrator Goffman was there meeting

01:23:25 with stakeholders to try to learn from the success of 204 -- 205, excuse me, so we can

01:23:30 apply to 204. So I will circle with my staff and have our teams converse about what timeframe

01:23:38 we actually think we're on. I'd hate to promise something that we can't meet. And I'd like

01:23:42 to give you some level of specificity on what that timeline is and what needs to occur to

01:23:48 ensure success for that timeline.

01:23:49 Well, thank you, Administrator. I like that specificity, though it would have been nice

01:23:52 to have an open hearing. I'll take it in a later time if you're able to follow up.

01:23:57 My second question, Western states face significant regional challenges in obtaining the eight-hour

01:24:02 ozone standard. This cannot be solved by states at the individual or regional levels. These

01:24:06 challenges include high natural background ozone levels, increasing ozone impacts for

01:24:10 wildfires, and significant ozone impacts from international transport. But the penalties

01:24:15 for not attaining the eight-hour ozone standard, including sanctions on major industries and

01:24:19 highway funding, are directly imposed at the regional level.

01:24:22 Now, the current EPA policies and guidance effectively bar Western states from pursuing

01:24:28 Clean Air Act relief from locally uncontrollable ozone that is generated by wildfires and transport.

01:24:34 So what are you doing to revise those policy and guidance related to exceptional events

01:24:39 and international transport, places like Arizona can't control that, so that Western states

01:24:43 can access these limited Clean Air Act relief mechanisms and avoid sanctions that are associated

01:24:50 with failing to attain an ozone standard that we have no control over?

01:24:54 Yes. Well, thank you for that question. And I will say that when we look at all of the

01:24:59 work that we have done as of late with our NAGS program, we recognize that wildfires

01:25:05 or unnatural events or prescribed burns need to be differentiated in terms of the air monitoring

01:25:13 data that we are acquiring. So we do have a process to diverge that data that comes

01:25:18 from exceptional events, prescribed burns, so that states, counties, regions are not

01:25:26 penalized for that. I think that when you look at

01:25:29 Mr. Administrator, just to interrupt, does that also include to account for international

01:25:33 transport? As you know, we share a border with Mexico and have no ability to manage

01:25:37 how they regulate their usage of ozone or pollutants in their air.

01:25:42 Yes. What I would say there is I think that our program is designed to understand what

01:25:47 transport is coming from out of state. That's part of what we've perfected in our good neighbor

01:25:51 rule, even though it's constantly challenged in court and other places. So again, that's

01:25:55 another place where I think our teams can have a conversation about exactly when we

01:26:00 look at ozone attainment and in terms of meeting that goal, what percentage is coming from

01:26:06 international airspace or what is coming from prescribed burns or exceptional events. I

01:26:13 think that there is a way that we can focus more on that to assure the attainment that

01:26:17 we're all looking for.

01:26:18 Thanks. My last question is, as I expressed to you in the past, I have serious concerns

01:26:21 with how the agency's rulemaking around ethylene oxide was handled. The potential impacts of

01:26:27 this rule on the safety and availability of sterilized medical devices is one that I still

01:26:32 don't believe the EPA has taken on with full seriousness, including comments that the FDA

01:26:37 submitted about the massive risks to medical device supply chains. Can you explain how

01:26:42 you've worked with Commissioner Califf at the FDA to address concerns that they've indicated

01:26:47 around medical device supply chains that require ethylene oxide?

01:26:50 I can. I can say that I've talked to Dr. Califf a number of times. Our teams at FDA and EPA

01:26:56 have talked a number of times. I think that we were able to resolve those issues that

01:27:01 the FDA had during the proposal and final phase. I will say that we are assured, based

01:27:09 on our process, that we will not have any impact on sterilization of medical equipment

01:27:15 that is used, obviously, to save lives. But we also feel really good that this rule can

01:27:19 be complied with at less than 1 percent of the annual revenue of these companies. We

01:27:27 are reducing cancer-causing risk, elevated risk, by surrounding communities by 96 percent.

01:27:36 I think that we've done a really good job balancing those health obligations, the cost

01:27:41 effectiveness of it, and some of the very serious questions that we took serious that

01:27:45 were raised by the FDA.

01:27:46 I know I'm over my time, Mr. Chairman, but just one last follow-up question. Do you feel

01:27:50 confident in saying that the FDA shares your assessment that, through this process, you've

01:27:55 addressed all of their concerns and that the industry will be able to move forward without

01:27:58 harm to patients or to the medical device supply chain?

01:28:02 I believe that, and I believe we have the documentation that says so.

01:28:05 I'd like to see that. Thank you.

01:28:06 Thank you.

01:28:07 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

01:28:08 You're most welcome. Senator Capito.

01:28:10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Administrator. Good to see you again. I am sure that I've

01:28:16 been a little bit of a disappointment. You will not be surprised that I am going to start

01:28:18 by saying I'm extremely disappointed by the EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0 and other rules

01:28:24 in the so-called EGU strategy that were announced last Thursday. I'll discuss these more in

01:28:29 detail because you're coming in front of our EPW committee, and we can dig deeper into

01:28:34 that and discuss those rules.

01:28:37 Turning to another issue, would you agree that the EPA's Office of Inspector General

01:28:44 plays an important role in conducting independent third-party auditing and oversight of the

01:28:51 agency's programs?

01:28:52 Yes, I would agree.

01:28:53 Would you also agree that the IG's work helps to ensure that the agency's programs are responsibly

01:29:00 and effectively implemented and waste, fraud, and abuse is minimized?

01:29:04 Yes.

01:29:05 Well, we agree on the important role of the EPA's Inspector General. I think it's especially

01:29:11 important when it comes to the oversight of the IRA, which was passed with Democrats only

01:29:17 voting for it. The IRA appropriated more than $41 billion to the EPA and established many

01:29:25 new programs that require the agency's staff to conduct activities that are outside their

01:29:29 traditional roles. One example is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as

01:29:36 the Green Bank provision, which I understand is $20 billion that you've just announced

01:29:42 is going to eight entities. It's $20 billion going to eight entities. Democrats provided

01:29:51 $27 billion for the entire program.

01:29:54 The Inspector General has testified before the House, the EPA Inspector General, that

01:30:00 the Green Bank and other new IRA programs carry a heightened risk of waste, fraud, and

01:30:07 abuse. Of note, however, the IRA provided not $1 of additional funding for an EPA Inspector

01:30:16 General to independently oversee this $27 billion. By contrast, the Inspector Generals

01:30:25 of other agencies did get IRA funding. For example, the DOE got $20 million to help oversee

01:30:33 their funding.

01:30:35 It's deeply concerning to me that we are now entering the second year since the IRA became

01:30:40 law and the EPA Inspector General still has not received any additional dedicated funding

01:30:46 to audit more than $40 billion in your EPA programs. Do you support the EPA Inspector

01:30:54 General being provided with additional funding to perform audits and reviews of the IRA programs?

01:31:00 Actually, I do. In our budget, we are requesting those reasons.

01:31:05 Why was that not included in the IRA?

01:31:09 I'm not a member of Congress. It's a law that passed that I am responsible for implementing.

01:31:15 What I would say is I would like to operate in a very transparent way. I've had a number

01:31:22 of conversations. I meet with my IG routinely. We have a good partnership. He has indicated

01:31:27 that it would be in both interests to have more oversight. In that spirit of partnership

01:31:34 at EPA, we have requested to Congress through the budget, through the President's budget,

01:31:39 that the Inspector General's office receive adequate funding so that we could continue

01:31:42 that strong partnership.

01:31:43 How much did you ask for in that?

01:31:44 We've requested $79.2 million in total. I think the current is $54.6 million.

01:31:57 That's additional, $25 million or something like that? Am I hearing that correctly?

01:32:02 Yes.

01:32:03 Forty-five percent.

01:32:04 How do you say that you're going to finalize these agreements of $20 billion to eight different

01:32:12 entities? When are you finalizing those agreements? In September?

01:32:16 We had a very competitive process. We've selected those eight recipients, which I think I don't

01:32:23 want to speak for the IG or anyone else, but we chose eight applicants that have demonstrated

01:32:29 expertise from an oversight standpoint. That's much better than choosing 30 or 40 applicants

01:32:36 that don't have quite the same level of expertise. By the way, these eight recipients are distributing

01:32:41 the resources. This is not $20 billion going to eight entities for their usage.

01:32:48 That makes it even harder to oversee, I think. I'm not advocating that they are the ones

01:32:53 that spend it, but it seems to me if you're going to have 300 different entities being

01:32:59 the recipients of this with eight entities putting this money out, I don't see how you're

01:33:05 going to keep track of this. I just think it's so ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse,

01:33:12 subjective kinds of deploying of the dollars. That very much concerns me.

01:33:17 I think the design of the program, and I'm very proud of the way we've designed this

01:33:21 program. We have the metrics. We have the guardrails. We have carefully selected these

01:33:25 eight individuals. They are accountable to us. I think we have a ton of oversight mechanisms

01:33:31 built in. Listen, some might consider me not as objective, which is why we are asking for

01:33:37 the resources in the President's budget to ensure that our Inspector General feels comfortable

01:33:42 with the actions that we're taking.

01:33:43 [Ms. Solis] I'll end there on that. I would say it's just amazing to me that the authors

01:33:47 of the IRA wouldn't want to be more accountable to the dollars that were being spent, billions

01:33:52 of dollars being spent in a whole new program that wouldn't have included that in their

01:33:57 initial proposal. Thank you.

01:33:59 [Mr. Lankford] Thank you very much, Senator.

01:34:01 I think we're going to have additional fiveminute rounds if you want to stay and ask any more

01:34:06 questions.

01:34:07 I'm going to attempt to get through three or four questions in five minutes. First,

01:34:14 just to restate what I think I heard you say, under the exceptional events criteria, any

01:34:21 air contaminants that occur from a prescribed fire will not be counted against achieving

01:34:30 attainment.

01:34:31 [Mr. Solis] That's correct.

01:34:32 [Mr. Lankford] Thank you. Terrific. That was fast.

01:34:35 All right. Second, Homestead, Coffin Butte Landfill. In June of 2022, the EPA sent out

01:34:42 a team to measure the methane coming out of it because of local concerns. The inspection

01:34:48 resulted in recording 61 leaks, including three measurements that maxed out the instrumentation

01:34:55 that was being used at 70,000 parts per million.

01:35:01 So can you give me a short version of what action the EPA is taking? This is now 23 months

01:35:08 ago that the field inspection occurred. And if we need a longer discussion, I'd like to

01:35:13 follow up with you to make sure that there is going to be action regarding landfills

01:35:17 like this that are out of compliance.

01:35:19 [Mr. Coffin] Well, I will say that our enforcement arm has been very aggressive in looking at

01:35:25 these methane leaks and opportunities here. This is one, as you said, that was discovered

01:35:30 in 2022. Unfortunately, it is an active enforcement situation, so I can't speak to that without

01:35:38 betraying the confidence or the legal obligations that I have.

01:35:41 But I can tell you that we are coordinating with the State of Oregon. It's an active case,

01:35:46 and we are laser focused on this case.

01:35:48 [Mr. Issa] Great. Because if you have a landfill that maxes out the instrumentation, which

01:35:52 is, I think, quite rare, it probably should rise to the top of the list of places to act

01:35:59 on. And I'll convey to the folks in Corvallis and nearby that you're on the case. Great.

01:36:07 Thank you.

01:36:09 I want to turn to 6PPD. This is an ingredient in tires that makes them wear longer, but

01:36:16 there's a fascinating study that was conducted in 2020 because scientists in Washington noticed

01:36:23 that the coho salmon that were returning to spawn were dying. And they tried to figure

01:36:29 out why, and they ended up testing 2,000 chemicals in the stream and discovered they finally

01:36:35 had a smoking gun, 6PPD. Every time it would rain, it would flush the dust from tires into

01:36:40 the stream, and the coho would die.

01:36:43 We have lots of challenges on both coasts of this country for the survival of our salmon.

01:36:49 The last thing we needed was a chemical that wipes them out as they're spawning each time

01:36:53 it rains. And yet this chemical, apparently no substitute has been found to make tires

01:37:00 wear longer. And if they wear out too fast, that can create safety issues.

01:37:05 So this merits a high level of attention, and I applaud EPA for granting the TSCA application

01:37:13 that came from the Yurok and two other tribes, because it's rare to have such a petition

01:37:18 granted to examine a chemical. But we know how slow TSCA can be. Given this lethal impact

01:37:28 on salmon that are spawning, and not to mention it has a huge impact on rainbow trout and

01:37:34 brook trout as well, what can we do to accelerate a solution to replace 6PPD with something

01:37:42 that works a lot better? Or works equally well for the tires, but doesn't kill our salmon,

01:37:49 brook trout, and rainbow trout?

01:37:51 I'm very thankful for the EPA stormwater research that's helped us connect these dots. I'm very

01:37:56 excited that we were able to approve that petition as quickly as possible. And our team

01:38:00 is moving very quickly. We intend to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under

01:38:06 TSCA by this fall. And so from a regulatory standpoint, we are moving as quickly as possible.

01:38:12 There are some, you know, mitigation efforts that we're researching to see if we can plug

01:38:19 some of those gaps until we can take regulatory action. But the reality is, is that this is

01:38:23 another one of these pervasive chemicals that has been ignored for far too long. Thankfully,

01:38:29 we've been receiving the budget resources to tackle these pervasive chemicals, and we're

01:38:33 going to do that with this one as well.

01:38:35 Great. And my understanding is that that rule, that advance rule, or notice of advance rulemaking,

01:38:40 leads to requiring the manufacturers to provide you with a lot of research data. That's great.

01:38:46 I hope that some of the new hires you have on will become a team to tackle this challenge,

01:38:55 because I'm afraid that the process of considering the chemical could take so many years, our

01:39:00 salmon could be gone. They have faced so many threats. So if there's a way to and I know

01:39:05 the manufacturers have a 16 company coalition that is working to test other products, they

01:39:12 just haven't found one. We need a lot of understanding of this. And even if it comes close to matching

01:39:18 helping with the tire wear, that doesn't kill salmon, we need to figure that out and make

01:39:23 a transition.

01:39:24 Excellent.

01:39:25 And I'm out of my time, so I don't get to ask another question until my co-chair here

01:39:29 jumps in.

01:39:30 Just keep moving through them. Good questions, though. And Administrator, know that the chairman

01:39:37 and I were talking about this issue and how we're seeing the potential impact in our streams

01:39:45 and the impact to our fisheries, obviously an issue that we're looking at with great

01:39:49 attention in Alaska as well.

01:39:51 I wanted to ask you about Superfund program next year and how you plan to ensure the long-term

01:40:00 viability of this program. I think we all agree that this is a critical program and

01:40:07 certainly a big one within our budget request. But in the FY24 request, the agency proposed

01:40:16 to heavily reduce the annual discretionary funding because of the new revenues that are

01:40:21 coming into it.

01:40:25 And then what we just passed partially acts on that proposal but not to the full reduction

01:40:30 requested. So compared to the previous budget request, the agency's request this year includes

01:40:38 additional funding to the program. And so I'm looking at that and thinking that this

01:40:43 change in request level perhaps showcases a reversal in how the agency views the funding

01:40:52 for the Superfund program over the long run.

01:40:56 We know that the taxes bringing in this new revenue are eventually going to expire. So

01:41:03 I guess this is a pretty broad question to you, but how do you view the long-term funding

01:41:08 outlook for the Superfund program? I felt pretty strongly last year that we needed to

01:41:15 maintain a good level of discretionary funding for the program in case the expectations on

01:41:23 the taxes weren't achieved. So can you share with me where you think we are with that?

01:41:28 Well, thank you. And unfortunately, your predictions were right. The tax collections have been

01:41:35 much lower the first two years than forecasted by the Treasury Department. And so we saw

01:41:43 a big gap there. And in this budget, I think we're requesting $300 million to fill that

01:41:50 gap. Our Superfund program, our Brownfield programs are some of our most important programs,

01:41:56 most productive programs. And so we have that $300 million request in the budget this year.

01:42:01 And we're going through a thought process of what do we need to do to ensure that the

01:42:06 Department of Treasury and EPA are having the right conversations to understand what

01:42:11 these projections are so that we can better prepare our budgets for the future.

01:42:16 Well, I appreciate that. And I was really worried last year because we were all looking

01:42:20 for different ways that we could meet our budget. And we were really, really constrained.

01:42:27 And there were a lot that were looking at the Superfund as, well, now we're going to

01:42:32 have all this new revenue coming in. So we don't need to fund it on the discretionary

01:42:41 side. So I think we're in a good place. But I agree with you. These programs are far too

01:42:47 important across the country. So we want to make sure that we get this right.

01:42:52 I raised the issue of congressionally directed spending projects and getting them out the

01:42:58 door to the intended communities. I don't think I mentioned any numbers in my statement.

01:43:06 But looking just at Alaska as an example, of the 48 FY22 and 23 projects that we secured

01:43:15 for Alaska, only 15 of those have been awarded. And so when you think about just the process

01:43:22 that we're dealing with, we have communities that are coming to us and saying, this is

01:43:27 absolutely highest and most significant need. We work to achieve that. We get it. It's in

01:43:37 law. And then one year goes by, and they don't see it. And the second year goes by.

01:43:42 So can you give me any updates on what the agency is doing to improve the processing?

01:43:49 And I guess what I want, Administrator, is your assurance that you're really going to

01:43:52 make this a priority, including talking with the new acting administrator for water to

01:44:02 kind of sit down and figure out, all right, how do we get these funds out the door?

01:44:06 Absolutely. And I'd love to also just continue this conversation so that we can drill down

01:44:12 a little bit more. I know that Congress awarded us $7 million last year to try to help us

01:44:17 close the gap. With these earmarks, as you and I have discussed, these are going to applicants

01:44:26 who just are first timers in the grant application process. So we've tried to take that $7 million

01:44:33 plus other technical assistance we can provide to the applicants to submit qualified applications.

01:44:39 Of the completed qualified applications, we're at a 99 percent approval rate. So we really

01:44:44 have a deficit in terms of getting these grants in the door in a decent fashion.

01:44:51 And so we put our heads together to think about how to speed that up. We can do that

01:44:56 with existing technical expertise and the $7 million. But I do think we need to have

01:45:01 a more robust conversation about not just with Alaska, but how do we close this gap

01:45:06 all across the country given that there is a big gap in terms of those who have never

01:45:10 applied for federal grants and there is a process that we have to follow to ensure that

01:45:15 they can handle those resources.

01:45:17 Well, we all want to get to the same place, but I'm sure you can understand the frustration

01:45:22 from those who have been the recipients, but now they're looking at it and they're like,

01:45:30 "Oh, I'm a recipient in paper only." And it's not legal tender paper. It's you win, but

01:45:37 you don't have anything yet. So let's work together on that. My time has expired. Thank

01:45:41 you.

01:45:42 Thank you. Are you going to stay for another round of questions?

01:45:44 Yes.

01:45:45 Okay. All right. So back to landfill methane. One of the broader questions that doesn't

01:45:52 just address Coffin Butte, the landfill that I noted in Oregon that we have lots of concerns

01:45:58 about is landfills more broadly. Are you considering, will you consider updating the new source

01:46:06 performance standards for landfills?

01:46:10 That is something that I know has been discussed by the team. And so what I want to do is get

01:46:17 an update from them on where we are in that process, that discussion process, and I'll

01:46:22 be sure to circle back with you and your team on that.

01:46:25 Okay. That would be great. I keep thinking about this one landfill that I visited in

01:46:29 Oregon where they had run piping throughout the whole thing and they were collecting all

01:46:33 the methane and then they were burning it for energy. And at least when you burn it,

01:46:38 it makes it less lethal to the climate, produces carbon dioxide, yes, but less toxic. But you're

01:46:44 also producing energy for the grid. But the landfills, when they're just emitting massive

01:46:50 amounts of methane that's not collected, not burned, whatever, it's the worst case.

01:46:57 I want to turn to follow up on the point my colleague was just making because we're getting

01:47:05 a lot of feedback, not always so polite feedback, back home on the FY 22 and 23. In Oregon,

01:47:15 we call them community initiated projects. They put forward their best ideas. We fight

01:47:19 for them. And so we want to make it clear it's their priorities back home. It's not

01:47:23 our priorities. But of the 1,225 awards that were made where people were told, yes, you're

01:47:32 going to get your funding that you applied for for the community initiated project, my

01:47:38 understanding is only 486 extended applications have been completed. They're told about this

01:47:42 award but then they have to go out and they have to get maybe an architect to complete

01:47:47 the work and a construction team. And they've got to make sure their matching funds in the

01:47:52 State are, you know, that that box is checked. So out of that 1,225 from FY 22 and 23, I

01:48:01 gather only 260 checks have gone out the door. And so that leaves 1,000 frustrated organizations.

01:48:08 And maybe that's because we don't help them understand what they have to do if they get

01:48:14 the award. And part of it is because we're doing so much infrastructure work around the

01:48:20 country. You can't get a design team. Maybe you can't get an architect. Maybe you can't

01:48:23 get an engineering estimate. Maybe you can't get a construction firm to build it. But now

01:48:30 we have in addition announcements of another 471 projects for FY 24. And so this is all

01:48:41 within the EPA realm. This is not just the community initiated projects. So I know it's

01:48:48 a much more extended conversation about how we think, how we educate those who apply,

01:48:53 how they know what they have to do quickly, how do we solve, if there's any way to solve

01:48:58 the challenges of fulfilling all the details of the application, the full application they

01:49:03 have to do after they've been told they have the money. Because we want this to work well.

01:49:09 These were the community's top priorities. We get excited telling them we've gotten the

01:49:13 money. And then the slow process gets frustrating for them.

01:49:19 I had one community that said to me, we got a million dollar grant, great, but in the

01:49:25 year it took us to get all the boxes checked and approved by EPA, the project increased

01:49:31 by a million dollars. And that obviously didn't help anyone in that particular instance.

01:49:40 The greenhouse reduction fund EPA staffing levels, that's what I wanted to turn to. So

01:49:54 how does your FY 25 budget increase the permanent staffing? We know the staffing has increased

01:50:00 from the inflation reduction act and infrastructure bill with shorter term contracts. But in terms

01:50:05 of your permanent hires, which have increased 20% over the past decade, how much repair

01:50:12 work is done in this FY 25 budget?

01:50:15 You know, it's a good shot in the arm. I think when we look at 14,000 plus employees and

01:50:22 trying to get up to that 16,000 level, you know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago we were at

01:50:27 17,000 or more. And I would argue that the environment was less complex. Now we're focused

01:50:34 on making up lost ground for TSCA. We're looking at all of these pesticides and herbicides

01:50:39 that we need to respond to because of the court. We're tackling things like PFAS. And

01:50:44 so a significant portion of what we're asking for our permanent employees, folks who can

01:50:51 focus on some of the bread and butter issues at EPA.

01:50:54 We've been rebuilding for the last three years. We've got a little bit more to go. And these

01:50:58 resources that we've requested will help us ensure that we're doing our jobs adequately.

01:51:05 Thank you. Senator, back to you.

01:51:08 Thank you. Two more questions for me. Both of them not very easy. One's PFAS and one's

01:51:14 clean power. So but there's been a lot of attention focused on the PFAS contamination,

01:51:24 what we need to do. I'm pretty proud of the funding that we were able to include in the

01:51:29 bipartisan infrastructure bill to start addressing this PFAS contamination because we recognize

01:51:36 that we've got to address it. But I worry a lot about the impact of these national rule

01:51:43 makings on our very small water system providers. I mean, they're small. You know, Administrator,

01:51:52 we've had an opportunity to see some of them, to hear their concerns. They've not only expressed

01:52:00 real genuine concerns about the cost, but also the liability under the CERCLA designations,

01:52:06 even with the enforcement discretion policy that the agency has released. So how do we

01:52:15 address the very legitimate concerns that we have here? And I don't know, maybe there's

01:52:23 been some work that's been done in the rule makings or separately to address some of the

01:52:27 concerns again of these very small community providers like we see in Alaska. And it's

01:52:34 not that anybody wants to say, well, we don't want to have good standards here. But for

01:52:46 some, I mean, there's no option. It's like, okay, if we can't meet this, then there's

01:52:50 enforcement. And if there's enforcement, we can't pay for that. And therefore, we have

01:52:54 no water. What do we do?

01:52:56 Well, and I understand exactly what you're saying. And thank you for introducing me to

01:53:01 some of those small water utilities that I saw while I was in Alaska. I think we're very

01:53:06 cognizant of that in terms of the way we designed the rule. And so I would love for our teams

01:53:11 to get together so that we can talk about some of the flexibilities that exist there.

01:53:15 In addition to the billion dollars that we announced to help some of these smaller systems,

01:53:21 you know, within that $50 billion water infrastructure package for bill, there's tens of billions

01:53:28 of dollars that we believe can be leveraged for PFAS compliance as well. And so I believe

01:53:33 that there are a number of pots of money in addition to leveraging some of our public/private

01:53:39 partnerships that can bring some of these water systems into compliance that fall on

01:53:43 the smaller scale or in that rural scale.

01:53:46 Well, what I'd like to do is take you up on your invitation to introduce you to some of

01:53:51 these very specific communities, share with you and your folks just the enormity and also

01:53:59 the steps that they have taken to try to address some of these issues and see if we can't be

01:54:04 a little more creative in identifying some sources of funding.

01:54:09 And last question to me is on the Clean Power Plan and its effects on Alaska. You, again,

01:54:20 you've spent some time there. I know that you are familiar with many of the issues that

01:54:25 are distinct in my state, but we are facing a situation now with declining natural gas

01:54:34 production in Cook Inlet. Natural gas is basically that baseload that powers the entire south

01:54:41 central region all the way up to Fairbanks. And we are in a place now where our legislature,

01:54:49 our governor, is actively discussing with the utilities the need to import LNG from

01:54:57 Canada in order to avoid brownouts and worse. It's a situation that is absolutely untenable

01:55:07 in my view, but this kind of speaks to the place that we are in right now as we are trying

01:55:17 to integrate in additional renewables. That's good. That's positive. But it doesn't come

01:55:24 on soon enough, and we're seeing the decline with available gas, really a looming, looming

01:55:31 threat.

01:55:33 And so a couple questions when it comes to the Clean Power Plan and our energy picture

01:55:42 in that context, because under the previous rule, Alaska had an exemption to the Clean

01:55:49 Power Plan. And I guess the question to you is whether or not the EPA actually looked

01:55:55 to what these rules could mean for electric generation and energy costs in Alaska, particularly

01:56:03 given this dynamic that we're seeing. It's just like this wall coming at us. And whether

01:56:11 or not we should be in a position where if because of the pressing urgency that we are

01:56:22 in right now, and again, an option that is untenable, which is importing LNG from our

01:56:30 neighbor in Canada, if Alaska is forced into a situation like this, can EPA look to the

01:56:42 Alaska exemption that was in place in the prior Clean Power Plan and acknowledge that

01:56:51 it might be time again for an Alaska exemption?

01:56:56 This is a situation where I don't think anybody thought that our situation was so tenuous.

01:57:04 But we are to that point. We are now to the place where the governor is, he's saying we're

01:57:15 going back to coal because we know we've got that, but we can't get the natural gas that

01:57:22 we need, and we can't bring the renewable energy on in a manner our transmission grid

01:57:28 is not able to accommodate. We have a significant GRIP grant that we're very thankful for, but

01:57:35 all this is kind of years in the – going forward. And so I'm – part of my question

01:57:46 is to ask you if it's something you would consider, but it's also intended to make

01:57:50 sure that you are aware of this very real, very looming threat that Alaska is facing

01:57:58 in a matter of like 18 months. It's coming up like a freight train.

01:58:05 And I appreciate you raising this. It is something that I'm paying close attention to. I will

01:58:10 say that when you look at the rules that we just announced, they are more so focused on

01:58:16 existing coal and new natural gas. So the tenuous issues that you have raised are top

01:58:23 of mind, and the timing is perfect because we are – we took a step back in the proposal.

01:58:29 We originally had existing natural gas as part of the package. At the urging of the

01:58:36 environmental justice community and some in the environmental community who thought we

01:58:40 needed to take a stronger look at that, as well as the industry, we took that piece out,

01:58:44 and now that is on a separate track. And so the discussion you're raising now, the timing

01:58:50 is perfect. I would like for our teams to get together and continue to have this conversation.

01:58:54 And I commit to you that this line of thinking and the exemption that you've asked me to

01:59:01 investigate, I'll make that a priority.

01:59:04 Thank you. I'll look forward to having a visit with you and your team when we can make

01:59:08 that schedule happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the last of my questions.

01:59:12 [Mr. Lankford] All right. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.

01:59:15 And I would like to follow up after this with a better understanding of all that we expect

01:59:22 to be accomplished from the $27 billion, including the $7 billion in the Solar for All program.

01:59:30 I keep thinking about this project that a group in New York had called UPROSE, where

01:59:34 they were trying to work with local stores to be able to do solar canopies and then benefit

01:59:41 from the community solar, so on and so forth. I know there's a lot of innovative ideas,

01:59:45 solar panels that will go on to affordable housing, helping lowincome families in various

01:59:49 ways and so forth. But I think it would be helpful to try to now that those eight nonprofits

01:59:55 have received funding and laid out a vision of what they're going to accomplish, to try

01:59:59 to do a kind of a compiled understanding of what are we really going to get from this.

02:00:06 And we would appreciate that.

02:00:08 If there are no other statements, the hearing record will be open until the close of business

02:00:13 on May 8th, 2024. Obviously, there are tremendous diversity of complex challenges that are on

02:00:21 your desk, Mr. Secretary. So thank you. I know you're waking up every day trying to

02:00:26 tackle them, and we just keep piling more issues even as we go forward. So I appreciate

02:00:34 your service.

02:00:35 The hearing is adjourned.

02:00:36 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

02:00:37 [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

02:00:38 [End of Audio]

02:00:38 Page 2 of 9

02:00:39 Page 2 of 9

02:00:40 Page 2 of 9

02:00:40 [BLANK_AUDIO]

EPA Administrator Michael Regan Testifies In Front Of The Senate Appropriations Committee

Category

Transcript

Recommended