tv Federalism Clean Air Act CSPAN April 10, 2018 10:03am-11:34am EDT
that was a negative reserve happening so it accelerated the failure of meeting milestones and so that experience should tell this administration, i hope it tell this is administration, scott, faith, are you still here? they wills this administration that the pressure has to be to avoid the tach ral tnatural ten the omb to cut the budgets and to take out those reserves as a way of improving your efficiency ratings or whatever they give in the office of management and budget. that is critical. if you don't have those reserves, this program is going to fail because we know there will be things we don't expect. that much we know. we don't know what they are but we know they will be there. and the only way you handle it is to have these reserves ready for use and implementation. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [ applause ] >> we're live on capitol hill as the senate environment and public works committee is
meeting to hear from state environmental agency leaders on the impact of the 1970 clean air act. this is live coverage on c-span 3. >> this hearing of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee is called to order. i'll begin by recognizing myself for a brief opening statement before turning the floor over to my ranking member senator whitehouse for five minutes. so i rise moist for five minutes. the concept of cooperative federalism is enshrined in all of our major environmental stat chu -- statutes and the clean air act is no exception. previous congresses recognize that its important to human health, the economy and the public's enjoyment of our country's national heritage is our responsibility at every level. our predecessor rised that not every aspect of our environmental policy can be or
should be dictated from here in washington. the epa lacks the expertise and capacity to conduct oversight on our ecologically and industrially diverse country. the epa's role must be to dutifully implement environmental laws as crafted by congress and then to collaborate and support our states with matters within our jurisdiction. the states know their environmental and community opportunities and challenges better than anybody else. the system has clearly worked. even without the implementation of the clean power plan, u.s. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2005. since then, we've seen a decline in carbon emissions of 12.4% in absolute terms and 19.9% on a per capita basis. these reductions have been led by the private sector seeking greater efficiencies to lower costs for their consumers and not by government mandate. since 2000, the u.s. has reduced its carbon footprint by a greater tonnage than any other country. according to the epa, since
1970, national concentrations of air pollutants have been reduced by 85% for lead, 84%er if carbon monoxide, 67% for sulfur dioxide, 60% for nitrogen dioxide, 37% for fine particulate matter and 69% for coarse particulate matter. this has reduced mortality rates, benefitted agriculture by improving yields and helped preserve habitats and threatened species. economic growth has continued even as emissions have declined, setting achievable consensus-based standards in consultation with industry, state, local and tribal governments has decoupled emissions and for the first time in recent years energy consumption itself from economic growth. in 1970, our gdp was $$1970, ou trillion, today it is $17.4
trillion, even with the reductions, clearly the model has worked. and yet it has been under pressure. the obama administration upended the consensus-based model for setting environmental regulations. we had several hearings that flushed this out. the epa imposed standards across a host of industries, especially the power sector, that were unachievable with commercially available technologies. their economic analysis routinely overstated the benefits and understated the economic costs associated with the regulations. i've heard from my constituents in the public and private sector of my state, west virginia, and their comments were routinely ignored. finally, underscored by the clean power plan, the epa routinely overstepped its jurisdiction. for its part, the cpp attempted to regulate "beyond the fenceline" directing states to impose carbon taxes and cap-and-trade structures to achieve emissions targets that could not otherwise be met. this is why the epa never provided model state implementation plans for the
clean power plan. the data simply could not be tortured enough to make its implementation by the states legal or importantly feasible. during all of this, state clean air regulators like those of us before today were sidelined and half the states sued and it's no wonder that they did so i hope we can work across the aisle with every level of government and private tri to continue the good work we've set in place. if we collaborate. two centuries of continuous advancements in health and development and which itself has enabled our modern focus on environmental improvement. far from zero sum, economic and environmental benefits track together.
i look forward to hearing from our state experts from across the country about their ideas on how to continue the cycle based on their experiences engaging with the epa. i would recognize ranking member whitehouse for his opening statement. >> thank you very much senator capito, i welcome the witnesses who are hear today. we're here to talk about cooperative federalism. two words which have become something of a mantra for epa administrator scott pruitt. they're up there with another favorite catch phrase "back to basic." so what does cooperative federalism really mean and particularly what does it mean to administrator pruitt? cooperative federalism should mean that epa and the states work together to reduce pollution. reducing pollution involves doing scientific analysis, gathering data, writing rules, setting targets and unforcing
the rules and targets. this work can and should be done together by epa and the states. it used to be. but that's not what scott pruitt means by cooperative federalism. to pruitt, cooperative federalism means having epa do less to reduce pollution and hand over more of the work to the states all the while proposing fewerable if resources to the states to do this work. and if some states are less interested in reducing pollution or don't have the resources to develop and enforce rules limiting pollution, so much the better because. you see, that is pruitt's goal here, cooperative federalism is code for epa and some states walking away from their core mission of protecting human health and the environment. the proof is that any time a state takes strong action to reduce pollution, pruitt's epa either opposes the initiative or
slow walks it. pruitt's version of cooperative federalism is a one-way street towards more pollution. states are encouraged to take the lead in reducing pollution so long as they don't actually try to reduce pollution. pruitt's resent decision to water down the cafe standards is an example of how cooperative federalism under pruitt works. these cafe standards were negotiated in 2012 by epa, california, and the auto industry, all party agrees to these standards which are estimated to save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump. that's an average of $8,000 over the life of a car purchased in 2025 and, of course, to reduce carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons. so why did pruitt decide to roll back those agreed-to cafe standards? not because california asked him
to. but because industry did. is it cooperative federalism to ignore the states and do industry's bidding? when you get beyond the rhetoric, pruitt isn't interested in cooperating with states. his real interest is in cooperating with corporations which have banks rolled his entire political career you might actually call it cooperative corporatism. and now that california and rhode island and delaware and many of the other ten states and the district of columbia that follow california emissions standards have objected to his decision to water down the cafe standards pruitt has suggested that he may revoke the waiver granted to california under the clean air act that allows it to set its own emission standards. how's that for cooperation? and pruitt's desire to centralize decision making in his own hands isn't just limited to the clean air act. he recently announced that all decisions relating to determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact on waterways will be made by him. so much for local control and
cooperative federalism. my home state of rhode island has a long coastline that is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. the cafe standards represent an important part of our efforts to combat climate change which is responsible for sea level rise. it's also responsible for emissions driving climate change. but pruitt is trying ing ting that, too. do you think he consulted with rhode island officials or any officials in coastal states on revealing the clean power plan? if you need further proof that scott pruitt's cooperative federal schism a one way street sham, look at his proposed budget for fy-'19. he proposes cutting grants to the states for clean air programs by over $160 million. some programs he eliminates entirely. rhode island's department of environmental management receives about $10 million a year in grants from epa. about $2.4 million of this goes to clean air programs. how does pruitt expect states to
step up and lead on protecting clean air when he tries to cut the money they receive to do this work? the answer is he doesn't, scoot pruitt's mission at epa is cooperative corporatism, to serve the interest of the industry that has always becomed him. you see this in decision after decision where state input is ignored and you see this in industry cronies installed at epa. scott pruitt has sully it had doctrine of cooperative federalism just as his disregard for epa's mission has sullied the agency and his actions stand to sully our environment. i salute states like rhode island, california and delaware that are working so hard to protect our environment. we do it better with an effective partner in epa. it's time for epa to get serious about protecting the environment and public health. that, after all, is its true mission. thank you madam chair.
>> thank you, senator. to begin our introductions, chairmans b brass seo is here. >> thank you, i am pleased to introduce nancy vehr who serves as air quality administrator for the wyoming department of air quality. administrator vehr has led wyoming's efforts to implement the clean air act since 2015. before serving as air quality administrator, she worked at the wyoming attorney general's office and in that office she served as the assistant attorney general and represented the state's division of air quality. administrator vehr has also had broad experience in the private sector where she handled a wide variety of civil and environmental matters. her wealth of experience with the clean air act and her deep familiarity of wyoming has served the state very well for which we're very grateful. due to our unique location, gee i don't gofy, and natural resources, wyoming needs flexibility to implement the clean air act. so i look forward to hearing
your testimony today and listen as you explain the challenges nationed ed faced by the state of wyoming and how the epa can partner with the states for these challenges. thank you for being here and your willingness to testify. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. now i'd like to recognize ranking member senator carper if he would like to make an introduction. >> i would. we're welcoming back -- this is like welcome back, kotter, to the environment of public works department. sean and i spent time trying to get here this morning on a train that just was not really cooperative. but thank you for sticking with it and for making it down here. sean, did you ever work for joe biden? how long? two years. would you say the happiest two years of your life? >> 20 years --
[ inaudible ] >> if you mean the mother of your on? the mother of your son dylan? going to college soon? >> soon. >> so you work for joe biden, kept him out of trouble for at least two years and ended up for your efforts, epa region administrator region three for eight years? and after that you ended up as the secretary of the department of natural resources environmental control. is anybody in this room who also held that position previously. >> i believe the man over your left shoulder. >> we've known john for a long time, admire him, feel great affection for him and his family and happy you are with us today. thank you for your continued service not only to the people of delaware but the people in our country. give your family the best and thank you for joining us. >> thank you, senator carper. i will introduce the rest of the
witness panel and then we'll begin. in addition to ms. vehr and mr. garvin we have mr. sean alteri who serves as the director of the division for air ghalt tqua the kentucky environmental protection. mr. alteri previously served as the president of air pollution control agencies and continues to play a leadership role in that organization. welcome. we have mr. toby baker who is a commissioner of the texas commission of -- on environmental quality, first nominated by then governor rick perry in 2012. welcome. we also have mr. matthew rodriguez who serves as california's secretary for environmental protection, i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. i will recognize our witnesses for their opening statements. as a reminder, your full written testimony has been submitted for the hearing record so ms. vehr, i recognize you for five minutes. >> madam chair, may i ask unanimous consent that the statement of mine be inserted?
>> without objection. >> thank you so much. mike your mic is on. >> thank you. >> that's much better. we don't want to miss a word. >> good morning chairman capito, ranking member whitehouse and members of the subcommittee. i have the honor and pleasure of serving the great state of wyoming as the administrator for the air quality division. >> our department is an active member on the environmental council of states with several other presenters also serving on that. our division is a member of the association of air pollution control agencies where i serve as vice president and the western states air resource council where i also serve as vice president. while my testimony may reference those organizations, i am not here to testify on their behalf. north to put my remarks in context i would like to share a few facts about wyoming to help you get to know who we are.
wyoming has been blessed with amazing and abundant natural resources. we are home to yellowstone and grand teton national park and other special and scenic places some of you may have visited. our abundant mineral resources provide the nation, our state and citizens with revenue and jobs. our leading industries are energy, tourism and agriculture. we are the ninth largest state, roughly 93 times the size of rhode island. our largest county is roughly four times as large as delaware. about half the land in wyoming is owned and managed by the federal government. we are also the least populous state, not quite 600,000 of this in small rural communities or in the large expanses in between. only nine communities in wyoming have more than 10,000 people each. wyoming wants and is working towards improved relationships and interactions with epa. it is wyoming's experience that epa shares this desire and is doing the same. why are improvements to
cooperative federalism so important? because we want better outcomes and air quality improvements. my testimony highlights some of the progress that has been made in the recal rehabilitation of state and federal rules which leads to more effective air quality environmental management at lower cost. my written testimony high sights some of these examples. my remarks today touch on one -- reerjnal haze. with respect to cooperative federalism. epa sets the deadlines and standards, states develop plans with implementation strategies to meet those deadlines and standards. when that process works, the result is improved air quality at lower cost. wyoming treasures her magnificent resources and vistas. in the 1977 clear air act amendment, congress established a goal to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions. some 20 years later epa adopted the regional haze rule.
the rule mandates states submit plans to reduce regional haze emissions. however, right in the midst of the regional haze plan submittal and approval time frames, the cooperative federalism process failed. instead of approving innovative state plans to improve air quality, epa often times failed to act or imposed a one size fits all federal plan on a state. wyoming is one of those states in which epa imposed a regional haze federal plan that came with a h3n2 higher price tag and no added visibility benefit as compared to the state's plan. the work involvemented to develop and submit a state plan is time concealing and costly. for regional haze the process in this first round took more than a decade and cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars on the technical work alone. wyoming's plan achieved significant emission reductions
including almost 10,000 tons of nitrogen oxide by installing $100 million worth of pollution controls. wyoming's plan demonstrated wyoming would be on track to meet its visibility improvement progress goals. >> instead of improving their plan, epa imposed its own federal plan. epa's plan had a price tag of $600 million but did not meaningfully improve visibility. these issues are now tied up in litigation. the challenges that the second round of regional haze plans are due in a few years. federal and state collaboration is under way in that process. wyoming remains hopeful that those collaborative efforts will continue and be fully implemented. if so, the result will be continued improvement and progress towards meaning the clean air act visibility goals at a cost and resource savings
to wyoming citizens. thank you to the committee for inviting wyoming and listening to the department's perspective on cooperative federalism under the clean air act. thank you. >> thank you, mr. alteri? >> good morning, chair capito. my name is sean alteri and i currently serve as the director of the kentucky division for air quality. i'm honored to testify today and i thank you for this opportunity to share a state's perspective related to cooperative federalism under the clean air act. in addition to my work with the kentucky division for air quality i serve as the past president of the association of air pollution control agencies. our association is a national non-partisan consensus driven organization focused on impro improving air quality. the association represents more than 45 state and local air agencies. as senate or inhofe remarked during a 2016 hearing, cooperative federalism is a core principle of environmental statutes, including the clean air act where epa and states work together to meet
environmental goals. obviously mutual respect is essentially and to forge a strong working relationship between epa and state regulators. working together cooperatively will allow us to achieve our goals and objectives. specific to the clean air act, cooperative federalism is more than just a catch phrase. once epa establishes a standard under title one of the act, the states are primarily responsible for implementation and enforcement of those standards and requirements. that includes the national air quality standards, standards of performance, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants and waste incineration rules. to ensure that states are provided with the ability to carry out its obligations under the clean air act and effectively administer its delegated authorities epa must establish national uniform emissions standards based on sound science. additionally, epa must promulgate reasonable regulations and consider implementation requirements of state, tribal and local air pollution control agencies.
importantly, epa must allocate stable and adequate resources and funds to state, tribal, and local air pollution control agencies. also, epa must provide timely implementation guidance and technical support and finally epa must meet all of its nondiscretionary statutory duties by the prescribed deadlines. epa's strategic plan for fiscal year 18 through 2022 underscores each of these necessities. in its strategic plan, epa establishes a goal of cooperative federalism and sets forth its objectives to enhance shared accountability and increase transparnsy in public participation. epa's goal and objectives are consistent with those of state, local and tribal policies. in kentucky, we take our responsibilities seriously and work dill yently to fulfill our obligations under the act. we are proud of the improvement in air quality and we understand there's more work to conduct. in the spirit of cooperative
federalism, i'd like to provide a status report on air quality in kentucky and the detailed activityinies conducted by our cabinet. air quality is improving dramatically. in the last ten years, emissions of sulfur dioxides from our electric generating units has decreased by more than 83%. and emotions of nitrogen oxides has decreased. other robust ambient air quality measures these results. except for one ozone monitor in louisville, they measure compliance, including the 2015 ozone standard. these reduction and our success are achieved through significant investments to install and update air pollution controls. in the last ten years, our utilities invested more than $8 billion for air pollution controls. these expenditures are shared by all of the rate payers in the commonwealth. despite these efforts, epa
during the last administration disapproved several implementation plan revisions and issued federal implementation plans as a result. epa's negative actions to disapprove or issue a federal implementation plan resulted from several decisions. in closing, the commonwealth of kentucky is meeting its statutory obligations under the clean air act and we are good neighbors by reducing our emissions and providing the rest of the country with all the manufactured goods and products necessary to improve the quality of life for all. to accommodate cooperative federalism and strong working relationships, we request that epa apply a state implementation approach rather than aggressive federal overreach. again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to any questions or comments you may have regarding my testimony. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner baker? >> thank you, chairman capito and ranking member white hou ii. my name is toby baker, i'm the commissioner of the texas
commissioner on environmental quality, otherwise known as the tceq. we're the third largest environmental regulatory agency. we have our largest regional office located in houston, as you may have guessed by authority delegated to our agency we relegate water quality, air quality and waste in texas. i'd like to highlight a few facts about texas i believe were made possible through the tradition of cooperative federalism that is built into the federal clean air act and a number of regulatory statutes. starting with the amendments to the clean air act in the early '90s, texas, one of the largest coastal states, turned a corner on environmental regulation and has become one of the leading states in environmental success relative to our vooirmtal challenges. we produce one-third of the nation's crude oil, 30% of all refining capacity is located within our borders and a quarter
of all u.s. natural gas production comes from texas. balancing this, we are the largest wind-producing state in the u.s. with over 20,000 megawatts of capacity. solar energy production is ramping up and if you consider the projects we have in queue, we should have close to 3500 megawatts of utility scale solar constructed or being built by 2019. to sum up, we produce and consume more energy than any other state. in addition, the population of texas is increasing rapidly. since 2000 it's estimated our population has grown by over eight million. it's no secret that texas is hot and these eight million new comers have discovered the benefits of air conditioning which requires a significant amount of power. it's no secret that texans like their cars and eight million new texans moving to heavily populated areas adds new vehicles to our transportation system. could could assume an increase in population couped with our
manufacturing sector would lead to increase emission but the opposite has occurred. we've seen a drop in both nox emissions and ozone emissions. while we have other bouts, ozone is our most pressing. we have been one of the top states in reducing ozone emissions. in the latest ranking of the dirtiest cities by the american lung association, texas doesn't have a city in the top ten while having three of the top ten largest cities in the u.s. given the fact that the houston area is the kitchen for a good portion of the u.s. and that it has prime ozone-making weather it's frankly astounding. our emissions in our major metropolitan areas are driven more by mobile sources than any point source. co-2 is worth mentioning as well. while texas produces more co-2 than any other state the per capita production puts us at number 14 when ranking the states. if we're objective, i would argue that it's a model for efficiency. so what's led to the success?
a traditional cooperative federalism that's allowed texas to tailor its unique solutions to our unique problems, a market that has led to maximizing efficiency in the refining sector and power sectors, three cleaner burning vehicles and, finally, incentives. so i would like to address cooperative federalism more specifically. first and foremost, the benefits of cooperative federalism done correctly were on full display during our response to the worst natural disaster in recent memory for the state of texas, hurricane harvey. before and after harvey made landfall, both epa headquarters and region states coordinated closely with the tceq and other agencies to ensure all necessary fuel waiver requests were processed as expeditiously as possible. as a result of this cooperation, requests were usually granted in a matter of hours. compare that to previous hurricanes where are such wavers would be processed overwhelm several days because epa took more of a wait-and-see approach. similarly epa staff processed
tceq's request for tank tightness, transport trucks and landing of floating roofs and gasoline storage tanks. epa's rapid response in close coordination with tceq in approving fuel waivers helped ensure the flow of gasoline and diesel products throughout texas and the united states. to be fair, the previous administration also worked well with tceq in transitioning all of the greenhouse gas permitting under the tailoring rules in the epa to texas. rising the ability of a particular state to handle the application load under a certain rule is yet another great example of how cooperative federalism should work in a national regulatory scheme. i notice that i'm running out of time so i will skip forward briefly. is it the same time where we have cooperative federalism where it works it sometimes doesn't work. take for example the clean power plan which would have imposed significant electric strains on the state of texas to attain
emission reduction benchmarks in a short time frame, the state has consistently maintained it would be met any way under existing market conditions, specifically texas is on pace to nearly hit the initial emissions reduction benchmark of the clean power plant several years ahead of schedule and all without the rule being in place. finally, i'm pleased to see under this administration a return to the historical norm of a sipp oriented approach. the epa has enabled individual states to implement and enforce federal standards in a manner allowing for greater flexibility and efficiency. this leads to both a greater diversity and problem sovrling methods tailored to each state's natural environment as well as more predixability, consistency and enforcement. i have examples of that but i will leave those for later. that concludes my testimony. thank you for having me here today. >> thank you. mr. rodriguez?
>> well, thank you chair capito, ranking member whitehouse and other sun committee members for inviting me to testify. i'm matt rodriguez, secretary of the california environmental protection agency. i will describe how the federal/state partnership has provided an extraordinarily successful example of cooperative federalism. since the clean air act was comprehensively amended in 1970, emissions of the nation's most common air pollutants have fallen by an average of 70% even as our economy grew by 246%. by 2020, the economic benefits will total $2 trillion. the act spurred the use of clean technologies that drive business opportunity, new refinery equipment reduces waste and improves worker safety and also improves the health of people in nearby ninds. reduction and electric vehicle technology for cars, trucks and school buses have cut fuel costs, engine wear and greenhouse gas emissions.
cooperative federal and state efforts have built this record of achievement. the federal government provides minimum standards and resources to states and states tailor solutions for their individual communities. unfortunately today this relationship has been put in jeopardy u.s. epa, through a series of recent hasty and ill-conceived actions is attempting to weaken landmark safeguards and states have been forced to spend resources to fill the gap. i'll provide several examples and i provided more in my written remarks. in adopts the clean air act, congress gave california the option to develop its own emissions standards and to have other states adopt them as well because california has technical expertise and experience that could drive innovation. using this framework. 13 states including california, automakers and the federal government have operated a coordinated national program to set rigorous and fair standards for greenhouse gases and fuel economy for cars and trucks. u.s. epa's findings last year
show collaboration has been very successful. it's estimated it will save 1.2 barrels of oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and save the average consumer thousands of dollars over the vehicle's life. moreover. these standards have helped u.s. automakers stay competitive in the global market so it's disappointing the administration announced its intention without meaningfully consulting with its partner states to weaken and potentially dismantle this program. the result is huge uncertainty for industry and huge risks for the public. we're prepared to take action if necessary, including legal action to protect this program and to restore the balance to this cooperative relationship. similarly the clean air act gives epa the authority, indeed the responsibility to fight global warming and control greenhouse gases. using this authority the agent city developed a clean power plant to set targets by 2030. the plan offers an array to
state targets and with the plan in place states were working on implementation strategies. the administration's proposal to repeal the clean power plan threatens to curtail this progress and shirks its responsibility under the act, many states, including california are stepping in with their own programs to reduce emissions but without federal leadership we lack a national vision to modernize our power sector federal and state cooperation is at the core of our nation federal programs to make sure our air meets standards to protect public health. ordinarily u.s. epa set levels for air pollution, the states develop plans to meet and maintain these thresholds. the standards are critical because they can trigger asthma attacks, worsen heart conditions and damaging a churl production. the current epa administration however has refused to designate areas in compliance or not in a i tim kainement with federal standards, announcing an extended delay before starting the process. when 15 states and the district
of columbia filed suit over this illegal step, u.s. epa withdrew the delay but did not do anything. we had to go to court again to require u.s. epa to do its job. states rely on our federal parts to ensure factories and power plants have strong pollution controls however just a few months ago u.s. epa revoked the once in always in policy that ensures the major sources of toxic air pollution are always subject to strict controls. these pollutants include lead, mercury and arsenic which can cause cancer and damage the nervous system. under the new policy, the sources can drop out of the program and increase emissions again. states will have to do their best to develop programs to clean the air and protect it but it means diverting resources that could address other public health threats. achieving the goal of tleen air is act protecting our communities, we achieve these
most effectively with partn partnerships with the public industry. we appreciate congress's resistance to proposed budget cuts to the epa and its core programs, including grant programs and that's why we appreciate the federal workers who stayed with the program through this period of uncertainty but this won't be enough if u.s. epa continues to walk away from its responsibilities. if they do, the states will do what they must to help our people, economies and environments and we will use the all available tools to make sure u.s. epa is there to work with us and not against us. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. rodriguez. mr. garvin? >> chairwoman capito, ranking member whitehouse, senator carper, members of the subcommittee. my name is sean garvin and i serve as delaware secretary of the department of natural resources and environmental control. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on cooperative federalism under the clean air act state perspectives. in may of 2017, i had the opportunity to testify in front
of this subcommittee on the importance and effectiveness of the clean air act in protecting public health and welfare, preventing premature deaths and protecting the environment. i'm pleased to be here today to once again address you on my state's perspective and some of the serious challenges downwind states face in meeting attainment standards for air quality. ozone-forming pollutants are well controlled in delaware due to the state's proactively requiring cost-effective controls on a wide rake of sources including power plants, refinery, manufacturing plants, on road vehicles, consumer products, paints and coatings, gas stations and open burning activities to maim a few. despite these efforts, delaware continues to be challenged in ensuring healthy air to our citizens because we are a downwind state and subject to air pollution transport from facilities in other parts of the country. in fact, over 90% of the pollution that contributes to ozone in delaware is transported
from out-of-state sources. the dance answer to solving the problem lies outside our borders and we need the federal government to recognize the inequity that exists between up wind and downwind states. epa said cooperative federalism is key to maintaining clean air. i would agree cooperative federalism is invaluable when it works well by empowering states to act under federal law and allowing communities to enjoy the benefits of state innovation. positive outcomes with occur when the federal government works alongside states to determine best methods to continue progress towards clean air, provides the resources that states need to enforce regulation and steps in when a state fails to meet its obligation. progress in downwind states such as delaware require that the federal government continue to provide the states with the tools and resources needed to enforce the clean air act yet yet there have been proposed massive cuts in the past two epa
budgets. progress also requires that epa maintain oversight and step in to ensure upwind states continue to comply with the good neighbor provision. however, the epa seems to be pulling back and turning decisions over to the states. we're seeing the attempt to reduce regulations at the federal level such as repeal and replace of the clean power plant, weakening of the fuel efficiency standards, revocation of the california waiver and the roll back of the glider truck rule. nick, epa has failed to act on section 126 petitions, which is one of the ways a state can address problems that lie outside its borders and seek reductions in emissions contributing to its nob attainment. all of these actions or non-actions vf serious consequences for downwind states such as delaware. the inequity delaware faces is compounded by the fact that we are a downwind and the lowest lying coastal state, in fact, the lowest-lying state. we are disproportionately economically affected by the
health care cost borne by the state due to the health effects of poor air quality and by industry locating else where are due to lack of controls and regulations in upwind locations. as the lowest-lying state, we'll be impacted by pollution of inland states that are contributing to sea level rise and increased frequency of storms and coastal erosion. my concern with the way epa is approaching cooperative federalism as they only focus on providing flexibility, the decisions we make inside our states. the problem is that air pollution knows no boundaries and i have no authority to ensure other states are addressing pollution that impacts my citizens. i count on the epa to use their authority to hold all of us accountable to the law, regulations and science to ensure we are all being good neighbors. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i'm happy to answer any question. >> thank you. thank you all and i will begin with my five mince of questions. mr. alteri, you recently served as the president of the association of air pollution
control agencies representing state clean air regulators from around the country. in fact, in that capacity you sent a letter to me and ranking member whitehouse last year outlining the aapca's priority to improve coordination between the epa and state regulators. i would like to seek unanimously consent to submit that letter for the record. without objection we will do that. a bit over a year into the administration, what do you perceive has changed with regard to the epa's coordination with the states and has it been more collaborative in your opinion? >> thank you, chair. we've always had a strong working relationship with epa but this administration has been coming to states for that technical information as opposed to just imposing its will through federal implementation plans. so we have seen more technical thorough discussion directly with our state. >> ms. vehr, do you have a
comment on that? have you seen a difference in the last year working with a different administration on the epa's coordination between the federal and the state? >> yes, we have. again echoing mr. alteri, we had a good working relationship with epa prior but since -- under the new administration we found that that working relationship has improved. epa is listening to the states concerned and is interesting on developing solutions that fit for wyoming's unique characteristics. >> i would like to say anecdotally in my state over the last -- in the previous administration for eight years we really asked epa to come to our state, to have a listening session which we were never able to get but the epa did come in several months ago, had a vigorous listening session in charleston, west virginia mostly around coal and we had all sides of the argument heard in public
sector. it was very much welcomed so i think part of what i see cooperative federalism is is ability to listen and that's what you've said as well. commissioner baker, you're from an energy state, you mentioned that the clean power -- the clean air act obviously you mentioned the clean power plan that was mentioned in other testimonies that without the clean power plan we won't move forward with the desired capturing of carbon and cleaning the environment. could you comment on that again, what texas is doing is obviously the biggest producer of carbon in the country. >> so if you look at inside the clean power plan, there were guide paths laid out that states had to meet to comply with the plan itself. i believe our first year was early in the 2020s sometime. we will be within 5% of that number by 2019 and that's without any plan in place.
>> what do you attribute that to? >> honestly chairman, a number of things, i think efficiency with our industrial sector but i also would say honestly cheap natural gas has had a direct impact. we've had 12 coal fired egus that will be retiring soon so there is -- the market itself i think is driving us to do what the clean power plan set out to do through -- and then layer on top of that massive wind saturation into our power supply. >> i'd like to ask a very simple question of everybody, actually senator whitehouse got me thinking about this in his owning statement. he mentioned that states would want to walk away from the core mission of less pollution. so is that the desire ms. vehr
to walk away from the core mission of the clean air act? to mission of less pollution, just yes or no? >> absolutely not. >> mr. alteri? >> no. >> mr. baker? >> no. >> mr. rodriguez? >> no. >> mr. garvin? >> being downwind, i hope not. >> i wondered if somebody was going to take more than just a yes or no so thank you for having faith and adding a few extra words there. on the sue and settle issue, you mentioned -- who mentioned that? mr. alteri mentioned that, could you explain how that works in terms of the ozone -- the ground level ozone provisions? >> i think they have outcomes not consistent with the clean air act. our utilities are being forced to add additional controls at an extreme cost whereas those areas that maintain the standard on the east coast, they don't have
to provide additional controls, i think it's a negative outcome for our state and really unnecessary. >> anybody else have a comment on the sue and settle? >> i'd like comment. one of the more egregious sue and settle complaints that i think we would have goes back to 2011, 2010/2011, came out of a case over timing reviews for nsps and through that consent decree and decision, epa decided that performance standards were now going to be applicable to all oil and gas wells, whereas, we had years and reers of legal interpretation that said that nsps did not apply. with that one decision, essentially overnight, we went from -- we had to regulate essentially, you know, hundreds of thousands of new -- of new sources. the problem with that is,
obviously the cost to do that since we're a delegated state falls on my agency and trying to figure out how to go and do that through just a simple reinterpretation of the way the clean air act had been interpreted since the amendments of the early '90s. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, madam chair and to all the witnesses for being here. i would like to open my question reading a quotation from freddie mac, the u.s. mortgage backer. and i quote them here. this is relating to harm to coastal housing and property markets. the economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually, but there are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and great recession. now, those of us who are from
coastal states take warnings like that from our federal mortgage providers pretty seriously, as i think you would expect that we should. could you tell me, miss vehr, what is the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise? >> in terms of -- >> cause and effect? >> cause and effect. i know that there are changes that are owe kourg in our environment currently that people are studying and i am not an expert in that area so i would have to defer to the studies that others are doing in that area. >> mr. alteri, can you do any better than that? >> no, i'm not certain of the direct relationship between the co2 emissions and sea level rise. >> all right. well you have a coast, commissioner baker, maybe you can do better, what do you know about this? >> in certain areas i think there is a direct correlation.
i would say in texas, our -- >> what do you mean in certain areas? >> so, for example, in texas, the relative sea level rise that we're experiencing, comes from really manmade things like subsidence, manmade structures that extend into the gulf of mexico causing -- >> i guess my question, what is the role of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to that sea level rise, if any? what is your understanding of that? >> in texas i don't know what the science says specifically about that regarding our coastline. >> how about generally if not specifically? what is the science generally on the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise? >> i think i answered that it's correlated. >> there we go. it's a start. mr. rodriguez? california's coastal. >> i'll just say i work with scientists all the time and it's sometimes hard to get them to agree on certainty on anything, but in this particular area, the
overwhelming consensus -- and i have no doubt -- there's a direct correlation between the co2 emissions and changes in the weather including sea level rise. >> you have coastal communities that are having to plan for that, correct? >> absolutely. just agreed to a new set of guidelines for a development along our coast recently at our ocean protection council, we're preparing for sea level rise and seeing it along our coasts. >> mr. garvin, you're like me, you're coastal and you are downwind. your friend, mr. rodriguez, is downwind of china. we're downwind of the coal plants in west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, kentucky, and so forth, and for a long time, we have been on the receiving end of their pollution and don't much appreciate the high smoke stacks that have been built to make sure that that pollution goes out of their states and lands on ours. take a stab at what sea level
rise means for delaware and whether it connects to the carbon emissions from these plaptsz? >> so i want to touch on two things and i completely agree with my colleague from california, but when we look at this issue in delaware, our two largest economic generators are tourism and agriculture. when you talk about climate change, part of it is sea level rise issues, part of it is creating more frequency of storms and severe storms and higher droughts and more flooding across the board and they have direct impacts on our two largest economic engines in the state of delaware and we're seeing those impacts particularly along our coastline now and have been. >> in delaware have to start doing now, given the sea level rise that is anticipated as a result of climate change and carbon emissions? >> there's three things going on right now. one is we continue to work on
renourishment of our coastline to try to protect our coastline as much as possible. our local communities are looking at land use decisions and existing structures on how they need to raise and address any new construction. currently as -- >> treatment plants, harbors, all those things? >> ports. >> reconsidered? >> waste water treatment plants and power plantsp as we speak our department of transportation is raising route 1 which kektsz our coastline along the atlantic coast by several inches to try to not -- not to address the big storms, just to address the regular storms and the impacts that we're having on transportation which also becomes a public safety issue for our communities along the coast. >> thank you, chairman. my time has expired. i appreciate that. >> senator marquee. >> thank you very much. mr. rodriguez, welcome.
scott pruitt is now attacking the fuel economy of standards, which were reached as an agreement with california and all the waiver states along with the epa and nhtsa in 2010/2011. that would reduce our imports of oil by 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, which is roughly equivalent right now to what we import from opec on a daily basis. seems like a pretty important thing to do, to keep on the books. and it also is still the largest single reduction that any law, any country has ever put on the books to reduce greenhouse gases so it is huge and i take a great deal of pride in it because i was the house author of that legislation in the same way senator feinstein and senator
stevens were the senate authors of that bill, that's a 2007 bill relied upon by d.o.t. what do you think about scott pruitt's statement that the standards are too hard to meet, that it's just an unfair imposition on the auto industry? do you agree with that? >> no. we did a very, very thorough, technical assessment of the standards and the progress that auto industry has made in complying with those standards back in 2016 and 2017. our air resources board found there was no reason to deviate from those standards. progress was being made and, in fact, our experience has been if you set the right targets, industry will find a way to get there and that seems to be the case here. we see no reason to deviate from
those standards that were agreed to previously with the federal administration. >> yeah. what do you think about general motors and toyota and the other companies that are now saying they cannot meet the standards? what would your message to them be? >> well, we'll continue to work with them and talk to them about how do we meet these standards. we're always interested in hearing from industry. frankly, they're not quite as dramatic as that, what we hear is that they are interested in talking about some tweaks to the system, but i'm not hearing anybody say that they want to see a wholesale revision of the standards and as i said, i think we're making very good progress meeting those standards. >> yeah. well, i appreciate what you're saying but the american automotive association speaks for someone, they're not out there just talking as though they have a view and that association is just pick noek yo
and ge petto above them are the ceos of the company, they don't make these decisions without that kind of instruction coming down to them, the ceo of ford motor company has made it clear he doesn't agree with it, but the others not so much from my perspective and i think that is at the core of the problem that we have right now. what would this represent as an attack on the clean air standards of california and other 13 states who would see their standards compromised? >> transportation, obviously, is a very, very significant part of the air pollution puzzle. we've made tremendous progress through the years, but we need to continue to clean up the air and frankly our goal is to move to electric and fuel cell vehicles because that's the only way that we can meet our greenhouse gas emission standards. we are fully committed to
continuing to work to enforce these standards and continue to work with the auto industry to bring about this change in technology that will change us over to zero emission vehicles. >> so scott pruitt talks about cooperative federalism as the way in which he wants to operate. in your opinion would this be a direct attack on cooperative federalism, given the agreement that was reached back six years ago to increase the standards? >> we look forward to a dialog with epa. we really haven't had it yet on the technology. we had worked with the previous epa administration on the technology and agreed with them in their assessment of the standards and success in meeting those standards. in answer to your question, no, we haven't seen that soorprt of cooperative federalism. >> you haven't had a conversation with them? >> there have been general conversations but nothing on the technical level if you look at
standards. >> do you think that makes sense, scott pruitt says he's going to recommend revocation of the rules without having conversations with the other party to the negotiation to determine whether or not the technical standards can be met? do you think that's cooperative federalism? >> no. >> no. okay. thank you. i thank you, madam chair. >> senator brass, so. >> thank you very much. if i could ask you a couple things, your testimony demonstrates the importance of cooperative federalism because many of the issues we face in wyoming are unique to the state of wyoming, given our size, our location, high elevation, topography, economy, all quite unique. so what can the epa do to work with wyoming to address these unique characteristics and how they affect ozone, exceptional events and wildfires. >> first start by listening to what wyoming has to say.
second to act timely when wyoming makes a request, three, to provide some of the technical tools that states like wyoming, it consumes a lot of resources to develop such as modeling and the like. >> when you talk about and look about the fact that we have been so successful in balancing the economic benefits from using our natural resources for energy production in wyoming, while ensure views in our national parks aren't impacted by issues related to air ploigollution, t is why striking that proper balance between state and federal making, is critical. you know, is epa addressing your concerns about the role federal land managers play in state plans as it relates to regional haze? >> i think they're starting to. it's critically important that states work with epa, but it's
also equally as critically important that all the federal land managers in epa have a working relationship and wyoming does participate through some of these discussions so that we have other federal land managers, epa and the state at the table, so that all of our voices are heard and we can achieve improved air quality. >> one of the greatest concerns about the obama administration's epa, which for me at least was the agency's use of a tactic known as sue and settle, this allowed the epa to make decisions that had an impact on states without including states in the decision-making process at all. how will the directive issued by administrator pruitt on sue and settle be helpful to states? >> as it relates to our state implementation plan the directive from pruitt mandates states have a voice at the table, seat at the table, and that will give us an opportunity to explain the technical
limitations or the technical abilities to achieve these standards. >> miss vehr, the prior administration issued rules that impoesds i thought were burdensome requirements on states because epa charged that states like ours affected air quality in other states. condition you talk about your perspective on the air transport issues and should we think about international effect on our air quality? >> definitely the international effect and this is still an evolving area of science both on the ozone and on the visibility. the modeling that wyoming did and other western states for the first round of regional haze showed that visibility in the west was impacted by international transport of pollutants. the ozone modeling that epa conducted for the cross-state air pollution rule update looked
at pollution and as we dove into that modelling, we realized there is still an area that needs to be examined with international transport. it does effect. last week at our meeting we heard from a speaker that talked about reduction in international pollution, may help solve the ozone issues that other states are experiencing and so yes, international transport is important. >> and then director alteri, just to ask if you would like to weigh in a little bit, anything you would like to add to what administrator vehr had to say and can you talk about how the state of kentucky has been affected by some of the epa regulations about emissions that move from one state to another? >> miss vehr mentioned models, and in the models are limited. former assistant administrator mccabe mentioned that epa has not fully evaluated all the stationary sources and those limitations imposed greater reductions for us than they
would in the maintenance areas in maryland and other places. then also, there was a statement as well that if emissions from kentucky were reduced in total, that it still would not affect and bring the areas in the northeast into compliance. >> even when you say -- to zero. >> to zero. >> still wouldn't help. >> would not bring their areas into compliance. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> senator carper. >> mr. alteri, my mother lived in kentucky the last two or three years of her life in a place called ashland. >> yes. >> had a chance to go there a lot. my sister and her family lives in winchester and have a chance to see her and her family a good deal. i love going to kentucky. beautiful state. the -- i applaud the reduction in emissions that you talked about in your testimony. when our secretary shaun garvin
spoke, he mentioned 90% -- correct me if i'm wrong, repeat what you said. >> over 90% of our ozone comes from outside our borders. >> yeah. that's not good. that is not good. earlier in my life i was privileged to serve as governor of delaware and remember having a conversation with folks from maryland and they -- these are folks who made their living on harvesting the creatures that live in the chesapeake bay, and they had the big dead spots in the chesapeake bay and the sea grass had stopped growing and they -- their ability to make a living was diminished. they came and said to us, we needed to do something about it. we said why? they said, because the river that flows from delaware into maryland and the chesapeake bay that was carrying a lot of nutrients from when we clean out
chicken houses, poultry houses in delaware and our farmers were in some cases just stacking it up on their farm fields, other cases they spread it across the farm field for the value of the nitrogen and phosphorous, and we were doing it without a lot of thought. it would rain, nutrients would wash into ditches, creeks, rivers, the chesapeake, and degrade the quality of the water. it wasn't just delaware. pennsylvania and virginia and other places. but the folks from maryland said how would you like to be making your living by harvesting the god's creatures that live in the chesapeake bay, how would you like to be trying to make your living and your neighbors are polluting a place you're trying to make a living. you got a pretty good point there. i think they wept to point out
that that wasn't consistent with the golden rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated and we put together a farmer-led initiative that ultimately world with environmental groups and department of natural resources including nick depascali and came up with a way to reduce the runoff in emissions and the damage we're doing to our neighbors. we've been on both sides of this equation. we have been the neighbor who degraded the water quality of our neighbor maryland and we're the neighbor that still receiveses emissions from my native west virginia, western pennsylvania, from kentucky where my sister now lives, from indiana, tennessee, all kinds of states and my colleagues are
sick of hearing me say this, but when i was governor of delaware, the kind of emissions our secretary was talking about, i could have shut down every car and truck off the road. basically shut down the economy. we still would have been out of compliance on ozone. that's just not fair. and it's -- there's a need here for a federal role to say other states happen to be upwind states, those of us who live at the end of america's tailpipe whether delaware, rhode island, new jersey, maryland, all of us, this ain't right. and there is a need for the federal government when states won't do enough to help us out, to make sure that you do more. i'm just going to ask secretary garvin to comment on that because you have to live with this. >> i appreciate that. if you look at the state of delaware, two of the biggest things we're talking about here is our transport that we're
receiving which is over 90% and the second piece is transportation. those are really the two biggest pieces that we have when looking at emissions. both of those we really need cooperation and partnership with both our fellow states as well as leadership from our federal government. we have been ones who have taken advantage of all the work that california has done because we could have never done it on our own. when you look at the mid-atlantic and the northeast and the amount of vehicle traffic that we have, for us to address air issues, we're going to need to continue to work on the transportation side and we're continuing to look inside the state on how we build a much better electric infrastructure for vehicles but really going to rely on cooperative federalism, cooperation with our fellow states on both the transport issue and the transportation issue. >> thank you. madam chairman, if we have a chance to ask another question,
i would like to come back and use two minutes to ask one last question. >> yes. to senator and then -- okay. thank you. >> you want -- >> you want -- >> is it okay with you -- i didn't know what your time constraints might be. >> i would like to hear his question. go ahead. >> go ahead. >> over a number of years we've made real progress going back to i think when jerry ford was president and more recently in the last since 2007, we made real progress in reducing emissions that secretary garvin alluded to that come out of our cars, trucks and vans. one of the things senator inhofe and i worked on together to decrease emissions pioneered by george voinovich our former colleague. we have the opportunity to continue to make progress and do so in a win/win situation where we provide the automakers some
flexibility in the near term, in return for making clear what the out year targets could be, should be, particularly for light trucks and suvs and so forth. but the -- for the auto industry they need certainty. they don't want to have to build one model for california and a different model car for -- the same vehicle for 49 other states or even 40 other states. but there's -- i think there's a real opportunity here to make clear the endangerment finding and the clean air act are compatible with one another, that there is a way to give the auto industry some flexibility in the near term, 21 to 25, in return for some greater rigor in standards say out to 2030 in a way that's respectful of california's leadership role and the rest of us.
is that a pipe dream or reality? give me a reality check on that idea. >> well, as i said, we believe the standards are that we agreed to previously are attainable, but certainly we're willing to sit down and talk to the auto industry and talk about the technology, look out to 2030. we want to work towards a solution that will keep us moving forward and so it's not a pipe dream. we will talk to the industry. we will work with others to come up with a solution. >> i just say to my colleagues, one of the things i try to do every year in january is go to the detroit auto show and you all probably have been there as well, doing it for years. i met with representatives from ten different auto companies, foreign and domestic who had basically said, give us some additional flexibility in the near term, and in terms for greater certainty but greater
rigor in the out years to 2030. i think there's a potential win win and i hope we take advantage of it. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thank you, the ranking member for having this hearing today. i just got here, so i don't know what's been asked. i've been chairing the senate armed services committee and we sometimes have that problem. but i, you know -- our state should be seen as a partner and i think that is what is going on that is different now than it has been during the last administration. in not looking at them as opposition. the current epa administrator scott pruitt has made it that his mission and his delving on that promise. in the first year as administrator he's met with 34 governors of both party, visited 30 states and u.s. territories, under his leadership the epa has acted on 322 state implementation plans, and has
averaged turning one federal each month. in comparison the obama administration imposed more than 50 fibs on our state partners. it was this idea that -- and i understand that some people think this is a step backwards to have the -- what our administrator has. doing, but they're the ones that think the federal government or other states should be dictating what we do in our state and i know that's not the feeling of our administrator now. i've read the testimony today and seeing positive results from this administration, now the question for mr. alteri, senator beraso brought up the sue and settle problems we've had and i had the privilege of chairing this committee for a number of years, and i watched that happen in the case in my oklahoma, we
were a victim of the sue and settle that was taking place. we were sued in the northern california courts and forced to comply with a settlement that we were not a party to, regarding the regional haze plan. a decision congress specifically delegated to the states. the federal plan will cost rate payers an estimated $282 million and oklahomas go and electric said the epa's rule would, this is a quote, trigger the largest customer rate increase in og and e's history while the resulting impact on regional haze would be practically imperceptible. mr. alteri, does this sound like a reasonable expectation from a result of a court case like this? are you familiar with this? are there other comparable problems? >> yeah.
specific to regional haze, all of the states are achieving their glide path or their status update. all of the states are achieving those. and i think when epa issues federal implementation plans, it gives a negative connotation to the fact that we are doing our job and the federal implementation plans kind of allude that states are not stepping up to the table and doing their job. >> yeah. well, yeah, but we are and this is -- i've been here for a number of years and this is the same thing you always get, those who are the more liberal individuals, think that someone else can set an example in the case of the federal government, that somehow they know how to do things we don't know how to do. it's kind of rewarding actually when during the last administration, when we had a partnership program take place with fish and wildlife and they went and found that the states actually were doing a better job and i thought that was -- a
question for mr. baker, one of the misconceptions following hurricane harvey was that the epa was missing in action in response to the environmental concerns that texas was potentially facing. your testimony suggested this was not the case at all. can you elaborate on how the epa was a partner with the state in facing the effect of this natural disaster? >> sure. the -- they were with us every step of the way as hurricane harvey was coming in and in the response. they're actually part of a group we call the natural disaster operational work group made up of our agency and the epa and the coast guard, and so we had tabletoped hurricanes coming in multiple times at the staff level so they were already prepared. the big difference here, as opposed to previous administrations, was that after the hurricane hit and we needed fuel waivers, they acted almost
immediately. i went through katrina, ike, rita, all in the government and this one by far was the one that where they were the most reactive and moved with the most efficiency. so we couldn't have done the things that we did without them being at the table with us. they actually had people in our office with us and in the state operations center on a daily basis. >> yeah. you in texas know more about that. you've had more of them. we in oklahoma it's tornadoes, not hurricanes. but the same thing. we've experienced it and we know how to react to them. i think that needs to be talked about. lastly, miss vehr, in your testimony, you highlight the fact that the cooperative federalism is not just implementing federal decisions, but being a part of the decision-making process itself. you mentioned the fact that administrator pruitt announced new policies for the epa's board of scientific counselors, including insure a diverse
composition. you know, why is it -- why do you think it's important for these boards to be regionally diverse? >> so that all of the states voices can be heard and the unique circumstances that are in all states are brought to the table to be considered in decision making so there can be flexibility and appropriate decision making to lead to better improved air quality at lower cost. >> that's good. well thank you very much. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. i would like to recognize the ranking member, wanted to make a quick statement before we close out the hearing. >> i just wanted to point out that one dimension of the role of the epa has to do with assuring fairness between separate states. both senator carper and i as downwind states have lived the world in which from a state
regulator's perspective, the solution, for instance, to air pollution was to build taller smoke stacks so that the pollution went up higher into the atmosphere and was carried out of the polluting state and then landed on our state. it's very hard to ask ohio or pennsylvania or kentucky to crack down on pollution that is not landing in ohio or pennsylvania or kentucky. it's a tough expectation to have for them politically. and we could regulate until we're blue in the face in rhode island but it doesn't help if what's coming in is coming in and deliberately being set to come in on us from out of state. it's in that circumstance that epa plays an essential and vital role and that role cannot be subject to the control by the polluting state. there's another state involved that is the downwind recipient
of all of this. it's that particular situation i think where we have to be very careful about how cooperative this federalism gets if you're not dealing with the polluting -- polluted state as well. just wanted to be clear on that point. >> madam chairman, a response, i agree with you. in this case. >> it's true with water as well. >> however, it's not the case that we were just talking to commissioner baker there. we -- in that case, it's quite clear that they had a lot more knowledge handling their own problems than the federal government did. obviously when -- the case that you cite is one where it does -- there has to be that interference. we understand that. >> right. >> yeah. >> i would like -- >> good to end on a happy note. >> i would like to just reinforce, too, since we're in the land of final comments, that i think what has been -- at least from a -- from my state, is the welcome, the open-door
policy at the epa, the willingness to talk, the willingness to understand the implications at every state, whether it's a downwind state or a heavy energy producing state and so i think if we're going to have any -- if the part of cooperative federalism that's going to work cooperative has got to work. i'm encouraged by what we see. with that -- >> madam chair could i -- >> land of final comments. >> thanks so much. first of all, thank you for giving me the ability to go in and out so i can be in the census hearing as well. i wanted to say again, i thought senator whitehouse really nailed it for those of us at the end of america's tailpipe. i ask you to put yourselves in our shoes. we'll try to do the same thing with respect to other states. but i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the four petitions from the state of delaware to the epa that asks the agency to require upwind lands to install or
consistently operate already installed pollution controls to help downwind states like delaware address concerns for ozone. second request if i could, dealing with glider trucks and i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter that senator udall and i sent to epa regarding concerns about a proposal that would allow some of the dirtiest, heavy duty diesel trucks to circumvent clean air cleanups and looked like new trucks on the outside, but they are equipped with hypoluting diesel engines to emit up to 450 times pollution and 43 times the nitrous oxide pollutions the model 2014/2015 trucks. those are my two requests, madam. >> without objection. >> thanks to the witnesses and to secretary garvin for getting up early and putting up with the train schedule to be here with all of us. you're joined by at least one member of your staff over your left shoulder. looks so familiar.
introduce her. >> my chief of staff, kristen bonnakof short and acting air director david fees. >> nice to see you. >> i could barely see your lips move when he spoke. >> that's good. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. thank you. if there are no more questions -- i want to thank the panel as well for today. members, may submit follow up questions for the record by the close of business tuesday, april 24th, for our witnesses, committee staff, forward any questions from committee members. please respond to those written questions by the close of business on tuesday, may the 8th. again, thank you so much. this hearing is adjourned.
postponed. do you have any idea when it might be coming out now? >> i don't. >> mr. pruitt didn't address this issue when he spoke last week? >> no, sir. >> okay. anything else of interest coming out of the meeting? >> you know, i thought it was well reasoned comments and approach and so i'm hopeful that the subcommittee was able to learn about the significant investments that our utilities have made to improve air quality and to be good neighbors. >> thank you. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you both.
. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> this week, facebook's ceo mark zuckerberg will testify before a senate and house committee on facebook's handling of user information and data privacy. today at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, he'll answer questions during a joint senate judiciary and commerce hearing and on wednesday on c-span 3 he will appear before the house energy and commerce