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
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
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
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]