[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE SCIENCE OF EPA OVERREACH:
A CASE STUDY IN TEXAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 5, 2014
----------
Serial No. 113-64
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
EXAMINING THE SCIENCE OF EPA OVERREACH: A CASE STUDY IN TEXAS
EXAMINING THE SCIENCE OF EPA OVERREACH:
A CASE STUDY IN TEXAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 5, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-134 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
February 5, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
The Honorable Bryan Shaw, Chairman, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
The Honorable David Porter, Commissioner, Railroad Commission of
Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Mr. Kenneth Dierschke, President, Texas Farm Bureau
Oral Statement............................................... 69
Written Statement............................................ 72
Dr. Elena Craft, Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 75
Written Statement............................................ 77
Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Associate Director of the Maguire Energy
Institute, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist
University
Oral Statement............................................... 92
Written Statement............................................ 95
Discussion....................................................... 106
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Bryan Shaw, Chairman, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 130
The Honorable David Porter, Commissioner, Railroad Commission of
Texas.......................................................... 152
Mr. Kenneth Dierschke, President, Texas Farm Bureau.............. 158
Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Associate Director of the Maguire Energy
Institute, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist
University..................................................... 160
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter from Range Resources, submitted by Representative Lamar S.
Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology... 164
Report from U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, submitted by Representative
Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology..................................................... 171
Comments from Air Alliance Houston, submitted by Representative
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.......................................... 177
Letter from the Environmental Integrity Project, submitted by
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology.............................. 179
Letter from the Lone Star Sierra Club, submitted by
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology.............................. 193
Letter from Mr. Steve Lipsky of Weatherford, Texas, submitted by
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology.............................. 221
Letter from the Texas Association of Business, submitted by
Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman Emeritus, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology................................. 222
Report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology................................. 230
Letter from the Water Advocacy Coalition, submitted by
Representative David Schweikert, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology................................................. 239
Press release from the Georgia Department of Law, submitted by
Representative Paul C. Broun, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology..................................................... 244
EXAMINING THE SCIENCE OF EPA OVERREACH:
A CASE STUDY IN TEXAS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.005
Chairman Smith. Good morning to you all and welcome to
today's hearing titled ``Examining the Science of EPA
Overreach: A Case Study in Texas.''
Before I recognize myself for an opening statement, I do
want to recognize someone in the audience. We have a State
Representative, actually one of my State Representatives back
home, Doug Miller, on the left on the front row. And, Doug, I
appreciate your being here today.
I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
The devastating impact of EPA's overreach can be felt from
state houses to farmhouses across the Nation. Americans are
tired of the red tape that hampers economic growth. EPA's
regulatory ambitions threaten states' rights and intrude on the
everyday lives of our citizens. That is why today's hearing is
important. And that is why this is not just a hearing about
Texas. The Lone Star State is merely a case study. So while we
will hear testimony today from the perspective of several
Texans, the chilling impacts of federal intrusion are felt by
residents of every state.
Perhaps the worst examples of massive government expansion
are found in EPA's air rules. New regulations rely on unproven
technologies and secret science to justify the tremendous cost.
Even EPA admits its new power plant rules will have very little
benefit; however, they will have a very real impact on the
energy bills of hardworking American families.
The EPA's efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are
another example of an agency putting partisan politics above
sound science. After recklessly making wild claims of
contamination, EPA was forced to retract those claims when the
facts came out. The Agency's ``shoot first, ask questions
later'' attitude is not responsible.
Clearly, the EPA is too busy expanding its own powers to
slow down long enough to listen to its own scientists. This
problem is evident with the Agency's draft Clean Water Act
rule. EPA didn't even wait on the Scientific Advisory Board's
review and instead steamrolled ahead, muzzling voices of
dissent along the way.
The EPA's Draft Water Rule is a massive power grab that
undermines states' rights and gives the federal government
control over Americans' private property. EPA wants to tell
Americans what to do in their own backyard. But states and
communities across the country are fighting back to reclaim
control of their own resources. For instance, working toward a
cleaner environment in Texas does not have to be at the expense
of economic growth.
State regulators know how to protect the environment within
their borders better than federal employees in Washington, D.C.
Texas has the second-largest population in the Nation, is home
to six of the largest U.S. cities and our economic growth far
outpaces the national average. But even with the Nation's
largest industrial sector, Texas had made vast improvements in
air quality. For example, from 2000 to 2012, ozone levels in
Texas decreased by 23 percent. The rest of the Nation averaged
only an 11 percent decrease in ozone levels.
This success was reached through a collaborative effort
that included the Texas State Legislature, state agencies,
local governments, industry, and universities. These groups
worked together to design and implement creative and targeted
regulatory controls. Localized data provides state regulators
with the information they need to create effective, targeted
air and water quality management.
Unfortunately, too many within this Administration believe
that the only way to protect our environment is through federal
government intervention and centralized ownership. In the real
world, competition drives innovation, private ownership
inspires stewardship, and smaller government empowers free
people. We cannot lose track of these fundamental truths.
Our Constitution requires a collaborative relationship, not
a federal takeover. This is why we should listen to voices from
the states. It is in everybody's best interest for agencies
like the EPA to help support these state efforts, not hinder
them.
That concludes my opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
The devastating impact of EPA's overreach can be felt from state
houses to farmhouses across the nation. Americans are tired of the red
tape that hampers economic growth. EPA's regulatory ambitions threaten
states' rights and intrude on the every-day lives of our citizens.
That's why today's hearing is important. And that's why this is not
just a hearing about Texas. The Lone Star State is merely a case study.
So while we will hear testimony today from the perspective of several
Texans, the chilling impacts of federal intrusion are felt by residents
of every state.
Perhaps the worst examples of massive government expansion are
found in EPA's air rules. New regulations rely on unproven technologies
and secret science to justify the tremendous costs. Even EPA admits its
new power plant rules will have very little benefit; however, they will
have a very real impact on the energy bills of hard-working American
families.
The EPA's efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are another
example of an Agency putting partisan politics above sound science.
After recklessly making wild claims of contamination, EPA was forced to
retract those claims when the facts came out. The Agency's ``shoot
first, ask questions later'' attitude is irresponsible.
Clearly, the EPA is too busy expanding its own powers to slow down
long enough to listen to its own scientists. This problem is evident
with the Agency's draft Clean Water Act rule. EPA didn't have time to
wait on the Scientific Advisory Board review and instead steamrolled
ahead, muzzling voices of dissent along the way.
The EPA's draft water rule is a massive power grab that undermines
state's rights and gives the federal government control over Americans'
private property. EPA wants to tell Americans what to do in their own
back yard.
But states and communities across the country are fighting back to
reclaim control of their own resources. For instance, working toward a
cleaner environment in Texas does not have to be at the expense of
economic growth.
State regulators know how to protect the environment within their
borders better than federal employees in Washington DC. Texas has the
second largest population in the nation, is home to six of the largest
U.S. cities and our economic growth far outpaces the national average.
But even with the nation's largest industrial sector, Texas had made
vast improvements in air quality.
For example, from 2000 to 2012, ozone levels in Texas decreased by
23 percent. The rest of the nation averaged an 11 percent decrease in
ozone levels.
This success was reached through a collaborative effort that
included the Texas state legislature, state agencies, local
governments, industry and universities. These groups worked together to
design and implement creative and targeted regulatory controls.
Localized data provides state regulators with the information they need
to create effective, targeted air and water quality management.
Unfortunately, too many within this administration believe that the
only way to protect our environment is through federal government
intervention and centralized ownership. This is the wrong way.
In the real world, competition drives innovation, private ownership
inspires stewardship and smaller government empowers free people. We
cannot lose track of these fundamental truths.
Our Constitution requires a collaborative relationship, not a
federal take-over. This is why we must listen to voices from the
states. It's in everybody's best interest for agencies like the EPA to
help support these state efforts, not hinder them.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to put a letter in the record, and this is a
letter from Range Resources concerning EPA's investigation into
the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in Parker County, Texas.
Those claims resulted in EPA enforcement action, which was
subsequently withdrawn and the Texas Railroad Commission
thoroughly investigated this issue and found that Range's
activities had no impact on water quality. And I would like the
rest of the letter to be entered into the record without
objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. At this point I will recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for
her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here this morning.
I am always proud to be in a room full of Texans. As a
native Texan, I know well the importance and the impact of oil
and natural gas development in this country. Our economy has
relied on fossil fuels to power our manufacturing base, our
transportation and agricultural sectors, and more. And for the
foreseeable future, the country will continue to develop these
resources and technologies to achieve our energy, economic,
national security, and in some cases, our environmental
objectives. However, we must acknowledge that the development
of any fossil fuels resource can have significant negative
environmental impacts. I am not speaking about the environment
in the abstract but about the very oceans we fish, the air we
breathe, and the water we drink. These, too, have real economic
value.
While few people get rich from clean air and water,
everybody benefits. Likewise, nobody should have the right to
take these away, regardless of the potential for financial
profit. This is why we have EPA and why Congress has acted in
the past to protect our air and water through legislation such
as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act with the
results being just that, cleaner air and safer drinking water,
and that is something that both Democrats and Republicans
should be happy about.
Today, we will hear from some Members and witnesses that
EPA is acting beyond its authority, that EPA regulations are
killing the economy and jobs, and that the industry and the
State of Texas do not need the federal government to tell them
how to protect public health and the environment. As much as
some might wish for a world where environmental issues are
addressed voluntarily by industry or through the workings of
the free market or through individual state regulations, we all
know that from experience it just does not work that way.
Now, more than ever, American people need a strong EPA to
protect their right to clean air and water. These are people
who, regardless of where they fall in the partisan divide,
universally agree clean air and water are important to them and
to their children and they know that respiratory diseases--and
we have records to show it--heart attacks and premature deaths
are not part of the sacrifice we should have to make for the
sake of achieving the American dream.
Mr. Chairman, I have received a number of letters from
Texans expressing their concern about the air and water in
their communities and their hope that EPA and the state will do
more and I ask that these letters be made a part of the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Johnson. Let me be clear. I firmly believe that we have
both a strong economy and a safe and healthy environment. In
fact, there is much more evidence showing jobs are created and
economy expands following the passage of major environmental
reforms. For example, between 1970 and 2011 air pollution
dropped 60 percent while the Nation's gross domestic product
grew by 212 percent and the number of private sector jobs
increased by 88 percent.
As someone who worked in public health before I entered
politics, I can think of no mission of the federal government
that is more important or noble than EPA's mission to protect
human health and the environment. I am hopeful that Congress
will get past this misguided and disingenuous war on the
dedicated scientists and public servants of the EPA and that we
can come to advance our economy and a cleaner environment and a
healthier public.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here this morning. I am always proud to be in a room full of Texans. As
a Texan, I know well the importance and the impact of oil and natural
gas development in this country. Our economy has relied on fossil fuels
to power our manufacturing base, our transportation and agricultural
sectors, and more. And, for the foreseeable future, the country will
continue to develop these resources and technologies to achieve our
energy, economic, national security, and, in some cases, our
environmental objectives.
However, we must acknowledge that the development of any fossil
fuel resource can have significant negative environmental impacts. I am
not speaking about the environment in the abstract, but about the very
oceans we fish, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. These too
have real economic value. While few people get rich from clean air and
water, everybody benefits. Likewise, nobody should have the right to
take those away, regardless of the potential for financial profit. This
is why we have an EPA, and why Congress has acted in the past to
protect our air and water through legislation such as the Clean Air Act
and the Safe Drinking Water Act, with the results being just that--
cleaner air and safer drinking water. And that's something that both
Democrats and Republicans should be happy about.
Today we will hear from some Members and witnesses that EPA is
acting beyond its authority, that EPA regulations are killing the
economy and jobs, and that industry and the state of Texas do not need
the federal government to tell them how to protect public health and
the environment. As much as some might wish for a world where big
environmental issues are addressed voluntarily by industry or through
the workings of the free market, or through individual state
regulations, we all know from experience that it just does not work
that way.
Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to
protect their right to clean air and water. These are people who,
regardless of where they fall in the partisan divide, universally agree
clean air and water are important to them and their children. And they
know that respiratory diseases, heart attacks, and premature deaths are
not part of the sacrifice we should have to make for the sake of
achieving the ``American Dream.'' [Mr. Chairman, I received a number of
letters from Texans expressing their concern about the air and water in
their communities and their hope that EPA and the state will do more;
I'm attachingthese letters to my statement as part of the record.]
Let me be clear. I firmly believe we can have both a strong economy
and a safe and healthy environment. In fact, there is much more
evidence showing jobs are created and the economy expands following the
passage of major environmental reforms. For example, between 1970 and
2011, air pollution dropped 68 percent, while the nation's gross
domestic product grew by 212 percent and the number of private sector
jobs increased by 88 percent.
As someone who worked in public health before I entered politics, I
can think of no mission of the federal government that is more
important or noble than EPA's mission to ``protect human health and the
environment.'' I am hopeful that Congress can get past this misguided
and disingenuous war on the dedicated scientists and public servants of
the EPA, and that we can come together to advance our economy and a
cleaner environment and healthier public.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
At this point I will introduce our witnesses today. Our
first witness is Hon. Bryan Shaw, Chairman of the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. Dr. Shaw was appointed to
the TCEQ by Governor Rick Perry in 2007 and was appointed
Chairman in 2009. Dr. Shaw previously served as a member of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board,
Committee on Integrated Nitrogen, the Environmental Engineering
Committee, and the ad hoc panel for Review of EPA's Risk and
Technology Review Assessment Plan. Dr. Shaw received his
bachelor's and master's degrees in agricultural engineering
from Texas A&M and a Ph.D. in agricultural engineering from the
University of Illinois.
Our next witness is Hon. David Porter, Commissioner of the
Railroad Commission of Texas. Commissioner Porter was appointed
by Governor Perry as the official representative of Texas on
the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and on the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission. Before taking office,
Commissioner Porter built a successful small business around
his CPA practice. He earned his bachelor's degree in accounting
from Harding University.
Our third witness today is Dr. Kenneth Dierschke, President
of the Texas Farm Bureau. Mr. Dierschke first served on the Tom
Green County Farm Bureau Board in 1975 and was elected
President. He became State Director for Texas District 6 in
1996. He later became Vice President of Texas Farm Bureau in
December 2000 and President in 2002. Dr. Dierschke is a fourth-
generation farmer who raises cotton and milo.
Our next witness is Dr. Elena Craft, Health Scientist at
the Environmental Defense fund. Dr. Craft has worked on toxic
air issues focusing specifically on reducing toxic air
chemicals and greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and
transportation sectors. Her efforts have led to the creation of
clean truck programs in Houston and other ports around the
Southeast. Dr. Craft was appointed to serve a two-year term on
EPA's Environmental Justice Technical Review Panel. Dr. Craft
received her bachelor's degree from the University of North
Carolina, her master's in toxicology from North Carolina State
University, and her Ph.D. from Duke University.
Our final witness today is Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Associate
Director of the Maguire Energy Institute for the Cox School of
Business at Southern Methodist University. Dr. Weinstein was
previously the Director of the Center for Economic Development
and Research at the University of North Texas where he is now
an emeritus professor of applied economics. Dr. Weinstein has
authored or coauthored numerous books, monographs, and articles
on economic development, energy security, public policy, and
taxation. He has also previously served as Director of Federal
Affairs for the Southern Growth Policies Board and Chairman of
the Texas Economic Policy Advisory Council. He received both
his master's degree and his Ph.D. from Columbia University.
We welcome you all and appreciate your time and your
testimony. And, Dr. Shaw, we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRYAN SHAW,
CHAIRMAN, TEXAS COMMISSION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Hon. Shaw. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Thank
you, Ranking Member Johnson and Members, for the opportunity to
be here today.
I have spoken on many occasions about the overreach that we
have perceived in Texas from EPA with regard to environmental
regulations, including the Flexible Permits Program, which we
have instigated in Texas--implemented in Texas to help us to
achieve environmental goals, greenhouse gas, as well as the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule.
I want to talk today about some of the challenges that we
face from the standpoint of communications and how poor
communications have exacerbated the challenges that we have had
with regard to EPA overreach and specifically failure to follow
the cooperative federalism that seems to make sense and that we
in Texas believe leads to the best environmental results while
protecting the economy and those who are least available to
afford high cost of energy and other goods and services.
It is clear I think at this point that most people agree
and certainly the courts have that EPA actions with regard to
Texas Flexible Permits Program were an overreach of the federal
authority. We had many--numerous attempts to reach out to EPA
and to try to explain that indeed our program met the federal
requirements. I think the lack of desire by EPA to engage with
us and that is best captivated by a statement--or captured by a
statement made largely by Dr. Armendariz when he pointed out
that EPA didn't want nor like the Flexible Permits Program even
though we had illustrated that that program met the federal
requirements. That led to numerous hours and failure of
opportunity to achieve even greater environmental benefit
because we were basically defending a program that was put in
place to help us to achieve our environmental goals.
Apparently, the courts agreed with the state's assessment
that indeed that was an overreach. They struck down the EPA's
determination to disapprove the Flexible Permits Program, and
in fact, in a rather scathing comment indicated that EPA even
wanted to dictate the sentence structure of the state's
program. This failed communication and overreach from EPA
resulted obviously in lots of loss and cost that took our eye
off the ball of being able to achieve greater environmental
benefit.
With regard to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, among
other concerns, EPA failed to allow for adequate notice and
comment. Our request for opportunity to meet with EPA to be
able to explain and identify issues that were of importance in
their rulemaking were denied, and what that led to, amongst
other things, was that EPA made changes to the rule after
publication, which was based on the assumption--the faulty
assumption that Texas had about 90,000 megawatts of electric
generating capacity when in fact we had only 72,000. Had the
courts--the D.C. Circuit Court not struck down that rule, that
would have led to a great threat to electric reliability in the
State of Texas, and so fortunately, that was struck down,
although it is being appealed to the Supreme Court at this
point. Again, failed communications exacerbated the impact of
this federal overreach.
Fortunately, Texas is a case study not only of some of the
negative impacts, but we have had some recent positive impacts
of communication. We still I think have concerns over federal
overreach, but whenever Ron Curry was named as the regional
administrator for EPA, I immediately reached out to him and he
was very receptive and we have agreed and have had regular
communications since. I believe that those regular
communications have led to some progress, and in fact,
yesterday, EPA signed off--or, excuse me, last Wednesday EPA
signed off on approving the Flexible Permits Program, which,
while it may be a small victory and that we clearly, as the
courts have shown, were in the--in order--in keeping with
federal requirements, it is--at least shows that we--
demonstrates that we can cooperate and work together.
Furthermore, yesterday, Ron Curry informed me that he
signed off a process that was going to help to expedite
transfer of greenhouse gas permitting authority to the State of
Texas so that while we are waiting for appeals to go before the
Supreme Court on greenhouse gases, we can move forward with
trying to expedite greenhouse gas permitting in the State of
Texas, which will increase our ability to continue to meet the
needs of a growing population both from electrical generation
and jobs and economic development.
So we need moving forward to have even greater cooperative
federalism in practice. Good communication and state
flexibility are paramount as EPA develops rules and regulations
associated not only with development--regulating new sources of
greenhouse gases but also as they are looking in considering
how to deal with existing sources. I am concerned that we do
need indeed to have great involvement because EPA's actions
with regard to new sources whereby a rule that they indicated
would have no impact because there would be no coal-fired power
plants built, they made the extraordinary determination that
carbon capture and sequestration is demonstrated technology
even though there are no projects where it has been
demonstrated. The only projects under development are those
that have received extreme federal support. And so I think that
there is great concern that EPA is getting the camel's nose
under the tent with that rule and that we need to see how they
are planning to move forward with regulating existing sources.
Thank you for the opportunity to present and I would be
happy to answer questions at the time that it is appropriate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Shaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.074
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.
Mr. Porter.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID PORTER,
COMMISSIONER, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Hon. Porter. Hello. I am David Porter, Texas Railroad
Commissioner. I would like to thank the Committee for holding
this important hearing and inviting me to testify.
The Texas Railroad Commission is one of the oldest, most
historic state agencies in the country and is world-renowned
for its thorough and mature regulatory framework. As our name
implies, the Commission was originally established to oversee
railroads in 1891. Today, the Railroad Commission of Texas is
the state agency with primary regulatory jurisdiction over the
oil, gas, propane industries, pipelines, and coal and uranium
surface mining operations. Last year alone, the Commission
monitored more than 410,000 active wells, issued over 21,000
drilling permits, conducted over 125,000 field inspections,
plugged 778 orphan wells, including 30 orphan bay wells in
coastal waters. In addition to these functions, the Railroad
Commission works diligently to ensure that our rules and
regulations keep pace with the technology and practices in the
field and remain at the forefront of environmental and public
safety policy.
In 2012, Texas led the way as the first state to enact laws
requiring the mandatory reporting of fluids used in the
hydraulic fracturing process on FracFocus. In 2013, Texas again
was a pioneer in passing amendments to our statewide Rule 13
and we now have some of the most stringent rules nationwide on
well construction, cementing, and integrity standards. We also
amended our water recycling rules to encourage oil and gas
operators to enhance water conservation and we are updating our
information technology systems in order to improve services and
increase transparency. These efforts enhance the Commission's
ongoing effectiveness in overseeing the responsible development
of Texas' energy resources.
One-size-fits-all regulation from a far-removed inapt
federal agency is not the answer. The EPA recently announced
plans to increase inspections by 30 percent over the next five
years. On the other hand, the Railroad Commission has increased
inspections and enforcement to parallel an increase in
activity.
However, nothing exemplifies the severe incompetence and
blatant disregard for sound science as well as EPA's infamous
mishandling of the Range Resources case in Parker County,
Texas. In August of 2010, a homeowner in Parker County filed a
complaint with the Commission of natural gas in his water well.
We immediately opened an investigation and began inspecting and
sampling the wells in question. However, the EPA, falsely
claiming the Commission had done nothing, decided to step in
and conducted their own investigation or what I would term a
witchhunt.
In December, the EPA issued a severely premature misguided
endangerment order against Range Resources, claiming there was
an immediate and substantial risk of explosion or fire.
However, the Railroad Commission determined unequivocally that
the gas found in the Parker County water wells came from the
shallow strong gas field and was not the result of activities
conducted by Range Resources. Moreover, the facts and records
indicated virtually zero potential for any fire or explosion.
Finally, in March of 2012, the EPA withdrew the endangerment
order and dropped the lawsuit against Range Resources.
Consequentially, Armendariz resigned and is now working for the
Sierra Club.
The EPA conducted the investigation they wanted in order to
get the results they wanted and used this complaint to grab
national media attention and further their environmental
agenda.
We in Texas know best how to achieve a balance of economic
vitality and environmental safety as we responsibly and proudly
reign as the top oil and gas producing state in the nation.
Thank you very much and be glad to answer any questions at
the proper--appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Porter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.114
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Porter.
Mr. Dierschke.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KENNETH DIERSCHKE,
PRESIDENT, TEXAS FARM BUREAU
Mr. Dierschke. Mr. Chairman, I am Kenneth Dierschke, and I
am a President of Texas Farm Bureau and a cotton farmer from
Tom Green County, and I thank you for the promotion to doctor
but it is Mr. Dierschke.
In full disclosure, I am a former constituent of Chairman
Lamar Smith under the previous composition of District 21. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee. We
thank the Chairman and members of it for the important role you
perform overseeing the EPA regulatory activities.
Effective environmental policies balance scientific,
economic, social, environmental outcomes. Such policies create
opportunity for farmers to improve net farm income, enhance the
Nation's economic opportunities, and preserve property rights
while enabling farmers and ranchers to produce an abundant and
affordable supply of food, fiber, and energy.
Farmers and ranchers, like Americans in all walks of life,
support sound environmental policy. We believe such policies
depend on sound science. Just as the productivity of American
agriculture is dependent on sound science to feed and clothe
the Nation, sound science--not politicized science--must be the
foundation of the Nation's environmental policy. We appreciate
the oversight role of the Committee, and we support your
efforts to ensure that sound science is used in the regulatory
process.
Texas farmers and ranchers are increasingly concerned about
the intrusion into their daily operations by the Environmental
Protection Agency and its proposed rulemaking process in an
expansion of the Clean Water Act regulatory authority. The
reputation of the Environmental Protection Agency among farmers
and ranchers may be at its lowest ebb in history. We believe
there is good reason.
In September of 2013, EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
sent a draft proposed rule defining the waters they intend to
regulate under the Clean Water Act to the Office of Management
and Budget for interagency review. We believe the draft rule
fails to comply with important regulatory safeguards and is
based on a scientific report that has not had sufficient peer
review. It is troubling that EPA's ``scientific'' report
implies that, because nearly all water is in some way
connected, EPA's authority under the CWA is virtually
limitless. Thus the report, currently being reviewed by the
Science Advisory Board, disguises what is nothing more than a
policy preference as a claim that is justified by science and
the law.
The impact of this broad interpretation, if rolled into
federal regulation, will mean more permits, additional permit
requirements, and government and environmental group scrutiny
of the things we do in agriculture, and the threat of
additional litigation against farmers and ranchers. CWA
jurisdiction also triggers other federal requirements, such as
enforcement under the Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation
Act. This draft proposal, by itself, has created much outrage
in farm country toward the EPA.
The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 and limited federal
jurisdiction to navigable waters of the United States. Congress
at that time explicitly left a role for state regulation of
certain waters by stating, ``It is the policy of the Congress
to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary
responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate pollution.'' In 2001 and in 2006, the U.S. Supreme
Court reaffirmed those limits on federal authority. It appears
that the EPA now seeks to extend its authority beyond the
limits approved by Congress and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court decisions reaffirmed that the term
``navigable waters'' under the CWA does not extend to all
waters. It is important to note that, shortly after those court
decisions, legislation was introduced to overturn them. Despite
aggressive lobbying campaigns, bills in both the House and the
Senate failed to even reach a Floor vote. That happened
primarily for two reasons. First, leaders from both parties
continue to strongly support the structure and goals of the CWA
and do not want to see the EPA intrude on traditional state
prerogatives relating to land use planning and economic growth.
Second, the legislation would have allowed EPA to use the CWA
to regulate activities even on dry land and even when those
activities are not connected to interstate commerce. Such an
overreach goes well beyond anything contemplated by the framers
of the 1972 law.
We are also troubled that EPA seems to routinely ignore the
requirement that SAB panels be fairly balanced. The Agency
routinely selects scientists who are EPA grantees to serve on
SAB panels, and EPA grantees are by definition financially
dependent on EPA and couldn't possibly serve as independent
advisory panelists. According to the Congressional Research
Service, nearly 60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered
SAB panels have received EPA research grants that total nearly
140 million taxpayer dollars.
On the other hand, private sector expertise on SAB panels
is typically minimal, and in many cases entirely excluded,
despite statutory requirements that membership ``be fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented.'' It is
also evident that SAB panel members are not afraid to take
strong policy preferences on issues in which they are being
asked to provide impartial scientific reviews.
Mr. Chairman, we applaud your efforts to ensure an open,
transparent, and fair scientific SAB investigation process and
we appreciate your efforts to get EPA to answer these and other
important scientific questions.
And I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dierschke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.118
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dierschke.
Dr. Craft.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELENA CRAFT,
HEALTH SCIENTIST,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Dr. Craft. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and
members of the committee, it is an honor to have the
opportunity to testify today about the scientific justification
of environmental protections in the State of Texas. Thank you.
My name is Elena Craft. I serve as a Health Scientist with
Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit,
science-based environmental organization. I earned my graduate
degrees in North Carolina and got to Texas as quickly as I
could. After that, I met my husband, who is a computer
engineer, and we have a native Texan on the way who is also
happy to be here.
So I hold an adjunct assistant professorship at the
University of Texas School of Public Health and I work on a
range of regional and national issues primarily with regard to
air quality. Texans have a lot to gain from reductions in
emissions of pollutants such as ozone, mercury, and other air
toxics and greenhouse gases. We can have a cleaner environment
as well as a vibrant economy, but right now, Texas is lagging
behind other states, and the costs of the state's inaction are
being charged to the taxpayers in terms of health. This issue
is exacerbated by the high rates of those uninsured in our
state. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured adults, 33
percent, the highest rate of uninsured children in the country
at 17 percent.
Texas has not taken advantage of ample opportunities to go
ahead and get ahead of federal policy by developing its own
laws and regulations to reduce pollution and now we are behind.
Right now, almost 15 million Texans breathe air that does not
meet federal health-based standards for ozone that were set
back in 2008. Perhaps what is most concerning about ozone in
Texas is that, since 2009, ozone design values have either
increased or remained relatively stagnant in the three largest
metropolitan areas. Hundreds of doctors and scientists across
the country are concerned about the impact that ozone is having
on public health and have been aggressively advocating for even
more protective standards.
Mercury is another pollutant of health concern across the
country but especially within Texas. Mercury is a neurotoxin
that jeopardizes brain development of infants and children.
Texas is home to 6 of the 10 highest-emitting coal plants for
Mercury in the United States. EPA rules are justified,
achievable, and cost-effective. Many Texas businesses are well-
positioned to adopt the new standards, and initial cost
estimates for compliance have proven to be overstated.
With regard to the cross state air pollution, in Texas
specifically, reducing pollution will save up to 1,700 lives
per year in the state and provide approximately 14 billion in
benefits to Texas each year. Independent analysts have assessed
the potential for the State of Texas to comply with the Cross
State Rule without costly upgrades or plant closures.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are the first
nationwide limits on power sector emissions of mercury and are
expected to have a net positive impact on overall employment as
well as economic benefits that outweigh costs by up to 9 to 1.
states across the nation have been preparing for these
standards for years. Plants in Illinois, New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, Maryland have all taken steps to reduce mercury, and
recent statements from utility companies on the standards
suggest that implementation is going smoothly and that
compliance costs will be less than originally expected.
With regard to greenhouse gases, since January 2011, large
power plants and industrial facilities that are newly
constructed have been obligated to use the most efficient and
best-available technologies, taking into account costs and
technical feasibility. Whereas almost all states have revised
their Clean Air Act regulations to incorporate these new
requirements, Texas unfortunately has refused to implement this
program.
Others have found that implementing efficiency and best-
available control technologies for greenhouse gases is a cost-
effective and reasonable process. One of our Nation's largest
utilities, Calpine Corporation, recently submitted a brief in
the Supreme Court supporting the application of these
requirements for greenhouse gas regulations and noting that
obtaining the permits did not delay or add significant costs.
Nationwide, over 100 greenhouse gas permits have been issued as
of September 2013 in at least a dozen major industrial sectors.
Texas' legal action have jeopardized the ability of
facilities and the state to conduct business. While other
states have been planning for new pollution controls, Texas has
stood in the way. Mercury emissions from Texas' electric
utilities have remained relatively consistent since 2001 even
though 17 other states have taken measures to reduce mercury
from their power plants. Texas is the only state that didn't
work with EPA to ensure smooth greenhouse gas permitting,
though other states, even ones that disagreed with EPA on
greenhouse gas permitting, had plans in place so that business
would not be disrupted.
The science on air pollution is clear. It is a killer and
we are paying the price on pollution whether we admit it or
not. And if we don't take aggressive action now, then we are
jeopardizing the future of all Texans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Craft follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.133
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
Dr. Weinstein.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BERNARD WEINSTEIN,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE MAGUIRE ENERGY INSTITUTE,
COX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dr. Weinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Vice Chairman,
and members of the committee, for the invitation to be here. I
am Bud Weinstein with the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern
Methodist University.
Let me talk for a minute first about the economy of Texas.
We have heard from other speakers that the economy is in pretty
good shape. We added 252,000 jobs last year. That was--we were
number one in the Nation. In fact, we were number one for the
fourth consecutive year in job creation. In percentage terms,
we were second to North Dakota. There were more people living
on my block in Manhattan than the entire State of North Dakota,
so it is easy to see a big percentage gain in that state.
But what is happening in North Dakota is similar to what is
happening in Texas. In fact, Texas has accounted for about 50
percent of all the jobs created in the Nation since 2000. And
we weren't immune from the Great Recession. We lost lots of
jobs just like the rest of the country, but today, we are
600,000 jobs ahead of where we were in 2008, while most states
haven't recovered the job losses from the Great Recession, nor
has the United States as a whole.
What is going on in Texas? Well, obviously, part of it is
the energy boom, the so-called shale revolution. Texas accounts
for 25 percent of the Nation's oil and gas production. It has
been on a tear in recent years. If we were an independent
country, we would be the 15th-largest oil and gas producing
state--country in the world. But the energy boom in Texas and
North Dakota and Pennsylvania isn't just benefiting those
states; it is benefiting the entire country. It is benefiting
households and businesses as a result of lower costs for
heating and for electricity. It is helping our exports. It has
been a boon to the petrochemical industry. It is improving the
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and that is one of the
reasons that our trade deficit is shrinking.
But Texas is also thriving because we have what I call a
positive business climate and cost-effective, sensible
regulation of energy and other sectors of our economy. And
contrary to what we have heard from Dr. Craft, Texas is not a
toxic wasteland. I mean we care very much about the quality of
our air, the quality of our water, the quality of our land, but
we try to ensure that regulation is cost-effective and it isn't
burdensome to the point of discouraging investment.
Is the EPA overreaching? We have heard a number of
examples. I am not going to repeat what we have heard from
other witnesses. I do have some comments in my written
testimony about the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and the
Utility MACT and what some independent assessments conclude
would be the costs or will be the costs of implementing
regulations, particularly the impact on the coal industry and
how that in turn can affect the cost of electricity and not
only in Texas but throughout the country. And it is pretty
significant.
But I want to talk for a couple of minutes about these
greenhouse gas regulations. The fact is that we have got about
35 percent of our power generation in Texas coming from coal.
There is no existing coal plant in our state or in the nation
probably that could meet the standards that have been proposed
for new power plants, and we have yet to see what is coming
down the pike for existing power plants.
You know, Texas--you know, not only do we generate coal, we
have got a dozen coalmines in our state; the coal industry both
on the production side and the power generation side represents
a lot of jobs. We are also concerned in Texas about the
potentially onerous carbon regulations in terms of how they may
affect our refineries. We have 25 percent of the Nation's
refining capacity. There is some good news, as we heard from
the Chairman of TCEQ about this new agreement with EPA on
flexible permitting. But all of these regulations have
implications for grid reliability and not just in Texas but
across the United States. And--but it comes down to this: if we
kill coal, if coal goes offline too rapidly, it is not clear
that we have alternatives that can substitute for that lost
coal in short order. It is going to take time to change the
power mix in the United States.
Finally, some comments on fracking. The notion of the EPA
getting into the business of hydraulic fracturing is very much
in vogue. EPA is champing at the bit. I like to liken it to a
party to which the EPA wasn't invited and isn't needed, and I
say that because EPA oversight of hydraulic fracturing is just
going to be another overlay that is going to push up the costs
of regulation and could stymie the shale revolution. And
furthermore, not all shales are created equally. I mean if we
have one national standard, that is going to cause all kinds of
problems because the Eagle Ford in Texas is different from the
Marcellus in Pennsylvania. So why have another cost--another
layer of regulatory oversight when there is absolutely no
evidence that Texas and other states are doing a poor job of
overseeing hydraulic fracturing?
And we need to keep in mind that regulation is not cost-
free. I did a study for the Joint Economic Committee 30 years
ago on the cost of regulation, and that study really laid the
groundwork for a lot of the regulatory reform that we saw in
the 1980s and '90s. And one of the things we found in that
study is that you have got to be real careful when you do cost-
benefit analysis, and that is particularly true of the EPA. And
I think it is fair to say that the EPA hasn't been especially
transparent. Let me just give you one example. EPA is assuming
a cost of carbon of $30 a ton. Do you know what carbon is
trading for in Europe? $5 a ton. So this is just one example of
the EPA's assumptions maybe being out of whack with reality.
Now, look, careful--you know, careful oversight of the
energy industry is necessary. I am certainly not opposed to
that, but what does concern me is what I perceive to be
overreach by EPA and other federal regulatory agencies that
could derail the energy revolution that has been a real game-
changer for the United States.
A colleague and I authored this book about--we call it
``The Energy Logjam: Removing Regulatory Obstacles to Fuel the
Economy.'' There is a link to it in my testimony. If any of you
would like a hard copy, I would be happy to supply you with
one.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Weinstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.144
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein.
I will recognize myself for questions and would like to
address the first one to Dr. Shaw. Dr. Shaw, the EPA says that
its power plant regulations apply only to coal but isn't it a
fact that the so-called coal-powered plant regulations could
also apply to natural gas power plants or manufacturers or even
refineries?
Hon. Shaw. Thank you, Chairman. I think it is not only
likely that it could but I think it would be clearly
appropriate to assume that it will. I think that if you look at
a number of examples we have seen where, especially with regard
to greenhouse gas, it seems that the approach is to, as I like
to say, get the camel's nose under the tent and at that point
you can no longer get the camel out very easily. I will give
you an example very quickly is I think that is similar to what
we see from the standpoint of EPA's action to include carbon
capture and sequestration in their new source rule that they
proposed. If there--as they said, there is no coal-fired plants
going to be built, there is no benefit, no cost to the rule,
why would they make that extraordinary effort to suggest that
that is achievable unless at some point they are looking at
that, making it more easy to require such technologies to
existing sources?
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.
Mr. Porter, in regard to fracking, particularly fracking at
Eagle Ford in South Texas, what is the Railroad Commission
doing to protect the groundwater from being contaminated?
Hon. Porter. One of the most important things to do as far
as protecting groundwater from being contaminated whether you
are talking about hydraulic fracturing or conventional well
drilling is what we addressed when we redid our Rule 13 as far
as making sure that wellbore integrity is there, that the
concrete jobs or cement jobs are well done, that type of
rulemaking and that is what we--that is the reason we redid
that and that is what we are working on.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Porter.
Mr. Dierschke, EPA says it is clarifying its Clean Water
Act rulemaking. Why does that make you nervous and why do you
think they are going beyond just clarification? If you could--
yeah, make sure your mic is on. Okay.
Mr. Dierschke. I am from West Texas and if you are familiar
with West Texas which I think you are is that our rainfall out
there--and I think you heard in some of my testimony I was
concerned about the dryland, some of the activities----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Dierschke. --that they are working on dryland, but in
our area we get a good rain about every eight years whether we
need it or not.
Chairman Smith. Whether you need it or not, yes.
Mr. Dierschke. Yes, so I am really concerned that they are
going after some of the streams and dry riverbeds that would
cause us as ranchers and farmers and private property owners in
our part of the state or in Texas real concerns about what will
happen if they get control of all the water in Texas. We think
that that will be a real problem. It will be a problem with
keeping up with all the regulations that will be implied.
And we are good stewards of the land. Farmers and ranchers
and private property owners and all the citizens of Texas have
been pretty good stewards of the land, we think, and using our
resources very, very efficiently. And we also have the NRCS
that is out there that we work through. It does a very good
job. It writes the current time on soil erosion and those kind
of problems that----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Dierschke. --supposedly are out there.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dierschke. I
appreciate that.
Dr. Weinstein, you talked about Texas' economy and you
talked about indirectly the United States' economy. What is the
cumulative impact of the EPA's regulations on particularly
energy production throughout the United States and subsequently
the economy?
Dr. Weinstein. Well, it is not just EPA. There are a host
of regulatory agencies that are intruding into the energy
sector, and I am not saying that all that intrusion is harmful.
Some of it is necessary. But, you know, one could cite not
only, you know, EPA regulations for greenhouse gas emissions,
the Bureau of Land Management regulations on hydraulic
fracturing on federal lands. Most federal lands are off-limits
to drilling. Virtually all of our offshore fields are off-
limits to drilling right now. Much of Alaska is off-limits.
There--we just have a host of regulatory restrictions and legal
restrictions that impede our ability to develop our energy
resource to their fullest.
And I realize this isn't a hearing on energy exports but,
you know, I think it is time to at least start talking about
exporting oil, which is currently prohibited. We do have four
permits approved for natural gas facilities to export liquefied
natural gas. There are another dozen applications pending. If I
had my way, I would be expediting those permits. The--you know,
the world is hungry for gas and we have got the largest gas
supply in the world so why don't we export it? So I mean I
could go on and on but there are just many, many areas where
federal policy is impeding the development of our energy
resources.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein.
That concludes my questions and the Ranking Member, Ms.
Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Craft, in your testimony you state that an estimated
6.5 million people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are breathing
air that does not meet the federal health standards for ozone.
You also indicate that, due to concerns over high levels of
ozone, the Dallas Medical Association petitioned the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality to reduce pollution from
three coal-fired power plants that contribute to high ozone
level in Dallas. Is the current EPA ozone standard adequate to
protect public health or can you tell us more about the health
effects from exposure to ozone?
Dr. Craft. Yes, thank you. So currently, the EPA ozone
standard is not adequate to protect public health, as has been
mentioned and supported by hundreds of scientists and doctors
around the country.
I want to be clear about one specific item. EPA is not
trying to set some de minimis risk level where we won't have
any exposure effects from ozone. The estimate in the slope
factor for the risk is in the range where we see exposures
right now. And what that means is that because we are in the
range where the risk is occurring, EPA is simply trying to
reduce that risk by lowering the standard. The degree to which
that standard is lowered is informed by volumes of evidence
ranging from mechanistic studies, epidemiological studies and
human exposure studies. We are not getting rid of all of the
risk just because we happen to lower the standard.
With regard to the health implications of ozone, ozone at
concentrations below the current standard is linked to impaired
breathing and increased use of medicine for children with
asthma and to increased visits to hospitals and emergency rooms
for lung diseases. We also know that ozone is linked to
cardiovascular events and premature death, as well as new
research linking ozone to low birth weight in newborns.
I wanted to just clarify one point, too, that was made by
Chairman Shaw regarding the flexible permits. The flexible
permits issue was not something that came up recently. That
issue has been going on for two decades back when Ann Richards
was Governor of Texas. And so, you know, we--I am really happy
to hear that the state is working well with EPA. The fact is is
that most of the facilities that had flexible permits, which is
around 140 facilities in the state, had already transitioned
out of those permits, so just a quick point of clarification
there. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Industry groups in states complained that the
background ozone levels are a major obstacle for communities in
meeting current ozone standards. Has EPA created any
flexibility in its compliance for programs for states with
these challenges?
Dr. Craft. So EPA's newest review, which was released I
guess earlier this week, does use advances in modeling
techniques to estimate contributions of different sources of
ozone in the atmosphere. What we know is that it doesn't matter
where the ozone comes from. The health affect is there. And so
when EPA sets the standard, by law it must base that decision
solely on what it takes to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. In other words, the only legitimate
concern is the impact on human health. So thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. It is critical that we begin to
take steps towards curbing our carbon emissions to address
climate change, and I support the EPA's pursuit of sound
scientifically-based greenhouse gas rules that will spur a new
generation of clean electricity-generating facilities and curb
harmful carbon emissions in some of our Nation's oldest coal-
and natural gas-fired plants.
I find some of the arguments by my colleagues across the
aisle that are addressing climate change as too costly to be
the height of irresponsibility given that we already know that
our planet is growing increasingly warm as a direct result of
human activities. And let me hasten so I can give you this
question. What are the environmental and public health risks if
unchecked carbon pollution at coal and natural gas plants is
allowed to continue, Dr. Craft?
Dr. Craft. Thank you. So in September of 2013, an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was released
with seven key findings. It is virtually certain that the
planet has warmed since the mid-20th century. Scientists are 95
percent certain that humans are the principal cause. Further
warming is imminent and short-term records do not reflect long-
term climate trends. The surface could warm anywhere from 2.7
to 7.2 degrees. The melting pace of land ice is accelerating in
the Arctic and Antarctica. The IPCC's estimates of temperature
and sea level rise are conservative and weather extremes are
expected to change from human influence.
Now, with regard to the health publications of all of these
impacts, in 2010 the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, which is the premier environmental health
organization in the world, NRTP published a report on the human
health consequences from climate change. The report found 11
human health impacts as a result of climate change, including
increases in asthma, respiratory allergies, and airway
diseases; increases in cancer; increases in cardiovascular
disease and stroke; increases in foodborne diseases and
nutrition; increases in heat-related morbidity and mortality;
human developmental effects; mental health and stress-related
disorders; neurological diseases and disorders; vector-borne
and zoonotic diseases; water-borne diseases; and weather-
related morbidity and mortality. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. My time is expired. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The Chairman Emeritus, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall,
is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
holding this important committee and hearing and I thank the
witnesses, at least most of them, for their testimony.
And ahead of this hearing, though, the Committee received a
letter from the Texas Association of Business. You know, that
is the bipartisan organization representing thousands of Texas
companies and small businesses. The letter outlines a variety
of concerns with the scientific basis of many EPA regulations
pointing out that ``many of these actions are not based on
valid scientific evidence.'' The Association further argues
that ``EPA regulations that increase energy costs and reduce
employment force individuals to make economic choices that
could negatively impact their health and welfare.''
Mr. Chairman, this letter has been shared with the minority
and I would ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the
record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Hall. And, Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead with my
questions if I might.
Our committee has played a very important role, I think, in
providing effective oversight of the EPA for several years. And
I was here when we wrote the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act, and I am embarrassed that we gave the EPA--we built them
into some role of authority because I thought even the energy
people that I support day in and day out needed some oversight
and they also needed some help from our government. The State
of Texas is a case study of the EPA's overreach and I
appreciate the expert witnesses who are appearing here today
and thank you for your testimony.
We have had several hearings that have focused on the
faulty science behind EPA's proposed regulations under the
Clean Air Act and other hearings about the EPA's faulty
conclusions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Today, we
have heard testimony from Mr. Dierschke, President of the Texas
Farm Bureau concerning a draft proposed rule by the EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that would expand the EPA's
regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, a proposal that
would have very serious implications for our nation's farmers
and ranchers. Mr. Dierschke, you stated in your testimony that
you believe ``the draft rule fails to comply with the important
regulatory safeguards and is based on a scientific report that
had not been sufficiently peer-reviewed.'' Would you like to
elaborate on that on the regulatory safeguards that have been
ignored and the lack of sufficient peer review? A lot of them
have testified here. I was Chairman of this committee for two
years and on occasion from the EPA I would want to remind them
that they were under oath. And of course you all are under oath
when you come here, and sometimes I think they have stretched
the importance or lack of scientific background that they
testified to. I think that is a dangerous thing for them to be
doing. Would you like to give me an answer on my question?
Mr. Dierschke. We have questions also about the SAB and
their appointees about whether they are acting in response to
some of the things they are supposed to be doing. But we--the
biggest concern we have is that the EPA doesn't support maybe
some of the recommendations of the SAB.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Dierschke, you also noted that it is
troubling that EPA's report implies that because nearly all
water is in some way connected, EPA's authority under the Clean
Water Act is virtually limitless. Can you--do you want to
describe the term ``playa lakes'' and their existence in the
South Plains of Texas and describe farming practices in and
around such?
Mr. Dierschke. I will try that. Mr. Neugebauer, Congressman
Neugebauer probably knows more about playa lakes than I do, but
historically, they are----
Mr. Hall. Yeah, but you are under oath and I can't get him
under oath.
Mr. Dierschke. You can't get him? Maybe you should try that
sometime. Anyway, it is my knowledge that playa lakes were--
once upon a time were buffalo when they were roaming the
plains.
Mr. Hall. I remember that.
Mr. Dierschke. You remember that? Well, I was chasing those
buffaloes also. But when buffaloes came to watering holes and
they stood there and that is kind of where those developed, and
they are mostly south of Lubbock and on the South Plains. They
have no connections to each other, so when you talk about
navigable waters, I don't know how you can have a playa lake
considered to where one would be going into the--one would be
overflowing into the other. I have never seen that in my
lifetime but it could possibly have happened. But anyway, that
is my explanation of the playa lakes.
Mr. Hall. Well, my time is almost up but let me just close
and ask you what would be the impact of an EPA determination
that creeks and streams on your place are ``navigable waters?''
You have got time to answer me.
Mr. Dierschke. Okay. I think that--me personally, I have
several ranches and I have some farmland and I think it would
be--more regulations, we would be under and we would have to--
forms that we would have to fill out, it would just be
economically not a disaster but it would be a real problem to
fill these forms out. I have gone into the NRSC to talk about
some water quality issues, and when you go in there and talk--
start talking about dry streambeds where they may not run for
15 or 20 years, they are wanting us to put fences around them
to keep livestock out of them and those kind of things. So
there would be a lot of more expense, so our expensive--our
inexpensive farm and agricultural sector I think will be
carrying a lot of burden.
Mr. Hall. And I thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Craft, we continue to hear concerns about the
possibility of water contamination and other problems like
earthquakes in connection with natural gas development. For
example, Mr. Steve Lipsky and his wife from Parker County,
Texas, who I understand are in the audience today, have been in
a dispute with the EPA, the Texas Railroad Commission, and the
owners and operators of a gas field near their home. Now, some
of our witnesses today have suggested that the EPA does not
have a role in ensuring that families such as the Lipskys have
safe drinking water. So do you agree with that premise,
especially when the homeowners have drinking water that is
effervescing and can be set on fire? Thank you.
Dr. Craft. Thank you. So there have been 42 cases of
confirmed groundwater contamination under the jurisdiction of
the Railroad Commission's oil and gas division in 2012. Whether
they were related to fracking or other elements of the drilling
process have not necessarily been determined, but I think it
speaks to the fact that groundwater contamination is an issue
with regard to drilling and we do need to have some interaction
between the states and the federal government to ensure that
groundwater is protected. I can think of no better example than
what just happened in West Virginia with regard to the leaking
storage vessel. You know, that was a situation where we need to
make sure that we have an understanding of all of the risks
associated with the processes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, as I understand, the EPA is
currently carrying out a detailed study to determine whether
there is a link between hydraulic fracturing activities and
groundwater contamination. Is such a study important and why?
And I have a couple more questions so briefly----
Dr. Craft. Sure. Sure. Yes, that is important. I mean, in
order to be able to understand the health implications, we need
to understand that risk. So any information that we have to
collect that risk and to understand it is definitely needed.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, Dr. Craft, some claim that
the EPA's regulation of carbon pollution from future coal
plants will destroy or kill the industry, but several
independent analyses have found that other factors are
currently playing a very significant role in the projections
for coal in the United states, regardless of potential carbon
regulations. For example, could you talk a bit about the
current competition between coal and natural gas industries? Is
this competition at least a partial reason if not the primary
reason for the lack of construction of new coal plants across
the country?
Dr. Craft. So if we want cheaper energy, building coal
plants right now doesn't make sense, irrespective of EPA
regulations. The EPA should not be blamed for coal being too
expensive. In the most recent Energy Information Administration
analysis of construction and operation costs of new generation,
new coal without CCS, they found that it is more expensive than
wind, baseload natural gas, and geothermal power. All of these
can provide ample baseload generation including coastal wind,
which is a strong and level output through the day. In
addition, new coal--solar power plants are regularly financed
at cost or 30 percent lower than the cost of new coal. Now,
there is not public information on this but Austin Energy has
publicly stated that they have seen offers at $70 per megawatt
hour or lower for solar, while according to the EIA, new coal
is $100 per megawatt hour. So thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I have another question as
well. There has been some discussion about the jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act and some suggestion that it is clear
when there is jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and
actually not quite. Can you discuss a bit about when the there
is jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and why it is
important that water be clean, even sometimes water that is
running through private property if there is some nexus or
connection with other waterways? Thank you.
Dr. Craft. Well, my expertise is not in water and legal
issues, so I don't know that I would be able to answer that
question directly but I would be happy to supply some
information on that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I yield back the
balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this important hearing.
Chairman Shaw, thank you for being here. Over the past 6
months, my colleagues and I have repeatedly questioned EPA
about their conclusion that carbon capture and sequestration or
CCS technology is commercially available and/or adequately
demonstrated in a manner sufficient to impose it as a
requirement on a new coal plants. Based on your technical
expertise, do you believe that the CCS technology has been
adequately demonstrated?
Hon. Shaw. Thank you. No, sir, I do not believe that is the
case. We have actually conducted a study in September of 2012
evaluating our clean energy programs and concluded that at the
time there were no plants that were achieving that, and more
importantly today, there are no plants that I am aware of that
are even under construction or planning that don't have
significant federal funding to support that. And so there
brings to mind the issue that there is a significant parasitic
load associated with carbon capture and storage and that cost
not only is economic but requires building bigger plants to get
the same generation capacity, requires more fuel to generate
that capacity later, and what is often I think ignored is the
fact that it will tend to increase the emissions of other
pollutants of concern in order to get the same megawatt down
the wire. You are burning more fuel; you are having more
emissions of the non-greenhouse gas emissions. Just because you
are capturing CO2 doesn't make those more healthy.
So there is a lot of implication of that that I think cause
concern.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yeah, and I think one of the points that
you made is that many of the projects that are being sited as
an example of this actually are getting some federal
assistance. And if I am correct, that makes them not eligible
to be considered commercially available.
Hon. Shaw. That is currently--certainly the role that we
use in Texas. We make that evaluation, that it has to be
commercially viable and has to be one that has not received
funding from state or federal agencies in order to ensure that
that is commercially viable, not just can you spend enough
money to get it done. And so, yes, you are correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter in the record TCEQ's report analyzing the
commercial availability of CCS in the context of Texas efforts'
on----
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Neugebauer. Recently, EPA's Science Advisory Board, the
SAB or SAB, however you want to pronounce that--West Texas has
a little bit different inflection on some of those words--
declined to review the science behind EPA's inclusion of a
requirement in their CO2 standards for new power
plants based on EPA's claim that the rule only applies to the
capture of carbon emissions and not storage or sequestration of
captured carbon. This seems like a bureaucratic response to me
that doesn't seem to address the simple reality that captured
CO2 has to go somewhere. Dr. Shaw, you want to----
Hon. Shaw. Certainly. I had the same--the same facts jumped
off the page at me whenever I read it and heard about that. It
seems interesting if you are an agency that is looking at
having great transparency, that you would appear to try to
discourage the Science Advisory Board from reviewing carbon
capture and sequestration and then to go through the
extraordinary means of suggesting that sequestration is not a
part of that. As you point out, clearly, if you are going to
capture it, you need to do something with that. It makes one
wonder why they are concerned about having a further scientific
review of the process.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think one of the concerns that this
Committee has had is that the EPA seems to want to shy away
from any kind of evaluation of the science and, you know, I
think most everybody thinks that the science ought to be
driving the policy and not the policy driving the science.
One last question. Mr. Dierschke, thank you for being here.
You know, I want to follow up with what Mr. Hall, I think,
started in towards the end. You have several ranches and in
many parts of the country we don't have stream fed tanks for
cattle to get water from. Some of them are stream fed but some
of them are captured by runoff and so forth. And, you know, if
EPA begins to move in the direction that some of us fear, where
are your cattle going to get a drink?
Mr. Dierschke. That is an excellent question. We are not
real sure because they want to fence off the streambeds and
keep the cattle from the streambeds because of the
contamination and those kind of things, so we are not sure. A
lot of places we don't have groundwater and we rely on surface
water for stock water. And it will probably--once again, we
will either have to get out of the business or we will be with
a very big expense of hauling water from somewhere. We will
have to purchase water and haul it to them, which will increase
the price of beef at the supermarket.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yeah, I think on top of already a pretty
tough cattle market because we have had fairly severe drought
around cattle country and I think cattle numbers are at an all-
time low now and for--and so now the federal government wants
to restrict where you--additional opportunities to water your
cattle. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But thank you so much
for your--being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I come from an area of the country in Southern
California that has been greatly benefited by the Clean Air
Act, inland Southern California. And as a teenager and as a
child, I remember having to deal with smog alerts, and we don't
have those as much anymore. And so, you know, I am mightily
grateful for Mr. Hall and others who participated in the
creation of EPA for the tremendous progress we have made in
clean air.
Dr. Weinstein, I want to ask you something. Today's hearing
is entitled ``Examining the Science of EPA Overreach: A Case
Study in Texas.'' I understand that you are an accomplished
economist but you don't have any substantive experience or
expertise in environmental science or public health, is that
right?
Dr. Weinstein. I am not formally trained in those areas,
no.
Mr. Takano. Great. On your financial disclosure form, you
wrote that you were only representing yourself today and have
not had a federal grant or contract since October 2011, but
your biography says that you have been a consultant for AT&T,
Texas Instruments, Reliant, Entergy, Devon Energy, the Nuclear
Energy Institute, and the Cities of Dallas and San Antonio,
Texas, among other places. Can you tell us which private
companies you have consulted for since October 2011?
Dr. Weinstein. I haven't consulted with any private
companies since then. I am on the board of a bank.
Mr. Takano. Okay. The Beal Financial Corporation?
Dr. Weinstein. Yes.
Mr. Takano. And you have been a director of Beal Financial
Corporation since the early 1990s?
Dr. Weinstein. I have been on the board for 22 years, yes.
Mr. Takano. And are you still a director of that company?
Dr. Weinstein. Yes.
Mr. Takano. You said yes. Did you receive any financial
compensation as a director of Beal Financial Corporation?
Dr. Weinstein. Yes.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Do you know if Beal Financial Corporation
or Beal Bank and their affiliate companies have made any loans
to the oil and gas industry?
Dr. Weinstein. I don't believe so.
Mr. Takano. And I have some financial records that--on the
corporations--I mean so I have some documents that would show
that the Beal Corporation has made loans.
Dr. Weinstein. Can you tell me to whom they were made?
Mr. Takano. Just a second here. Let me find it.
Dr. Weinstein. We do--we have made some loans to utilities.
Mr. Takano. Well, let's see. If you bear with me for a
moment. We see Merchant Power Plant, $336,700,000 term loan;
Odessa Power, $280 million; Merchant Power Plant, $215 million;
Allegheny Energy, Greenberg, Pennsylvania, $185 million. I
could go on but----
Dr. Weinstein. Well, as I said, we have made loans to the
power generation industry. You asked me if we had made any
loans to the oil and gas industry and not to my knowledge.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Well, fair enough. But don't you think
that on your form that you submitted to the Committee you said
that you were only representing yourself----
Dr. Weinstein. Yes.
Mr. Takano. --and that you have had--well, I just thing
having this information that your connection--your business
connections would have been----
Dr. Weinstein. It is all on my resume. I answered the
questions on the form honestly.
Mr. Takano. My--I understand but I still feel that this
disclosure, you know, would have been helpful for members of
the committee and the public to understand how your testimony
might----
Dr. Weinstein. You are----
Mr. Takano. --be colored by----
Dr. Weinstein. I think you are implying that my testimony
is somehow colored by the fact that the bank on whose board I
sit has made loans to the power-generating sector. I am not on
the loan committee. I oversee the general operations of the
bank, but I--frankly, I resent the implication that somehow my
testimony has been colored by the fact that the bank on whose
board I sit has been making loans to the power-generation
industry.
Mr. Takano. Well, nevertheless, the title of this hearing
is ``Examining the Science of EPA'' and you clearly don't have
a background in public health or environmental science, but you
do have a background in----
Dr. Weinstein. I have a background in economic----
Mr. Takano. --economics----
Dr. Weinstein. --science, yes.
Mr. Takano. All right. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting
to sit in a hearing where all you Easterners--okay, that is
funny--Arizona--never mind. There are a handful of different
questions I wanted to sort of try to run and it is the joy of
having only five minutes. On the panel who would be most
comfortable with navigable waters of the United States in a
background question? Anyone want to take a run?
Hon. Shaw. I can take a stab at it.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. You understand some of the rule
promulgations, some of the mechanics out there right now.
Succinctly, how broad are some of the operational definitions
moving right now?
Hon. Shaw. Some of the definitions that are being
considered are extremely broad. You know, the--including
prairie potholes, slews, things that--those playa lakes that--
any body of water I think would be potentially included in some
of the most broad definitions.
Mr. Schweikert. In some of the meetings, seminars, briefs
you have read, areas that have not actually had consistent
water running through them for decades and decades and decades?
Hon. Shaw. Correct. Even in some cases where water might
traverse through a pipeline has been considered, which no
physical connection except for manmade connection has been
bandied about in some of those discussions as well.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. Mr. Chairman, the reason for this
particular question is I represent the Phoenix area and we have
the Salt River that literally was a seasonal flow. It literally
has not flowed for 100 years. And we have actually now put
parks and recreation and we have actually cleaned up some
brownfields and we have been very diligent and it seems about
every ten years we go through this battle of, well, someone
once went down a raft on it 100 years ago during a flood, so
therefore, it might fall into the definition, and what is
horribly frustrating about this is often it is a barrier to
good conduct, good, you know, community efforts to clean up and
do things and now we are fearful of other layers of
bureaucracy. So I don't know if that sort of fits into some of
the narratives you have heard out there.
Dr. Craft, you have an interesting specialty. You have a
little one on the way? Congratulations. Are you sure you
wouldn't want to be--or he or she wouldn't want to become an
Arizonan instead of a Texan?
Mr. Hall. Texan. Tell him Texan.
Mr. Schweikert. I love my Texas brothers and sisters, but
even on the right and left, I swear it is a cult. But that is a
different discussion.
I have noticed in your testimony a couple of times you have
sort of focused on ozone, so I am assuming that is somewhat in
your area of specialization in your research?
Dr. Craft. Well, we are very concerned about ozone because
of the ozone concentrations in Houston and as well the fact
that ozone concentrations are increasing in some of the Texas
major cities.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. But, I never play gotcha, so this
is----
Dr. Craft. Okay.
Mr. Schweikert. I am trying to be very honest in dialogue.
But one of the statistical backgrounds you specialize in your
data sets as a researcher?
Dr. Craft. Am I a statistician? I am not a statistician.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. Well, then--all right.
Dr. Craft. Okay.
Mr. Schweikert. But even from the narrative of ozone and I
know it is complicated; there are lots of moving parts. Can you
give me a little background of your understanding of just sort
of organic background ozone, ozone that actually is affected by
literally activities of--you know, around the world and how you
sort of do--if you were ever doing a data set, how you would
reach out and do a normalization for those types of activities?
And why this is important is it being from the desert
Southwest, we have certain benchmark that is just there with
man, without human--I mean it is--there are certain things that
are going to exist. When you are looking at the data set, how
do you do a normalization for it?
Dr. Craft. Well, that is more of an air modeling question
as opposed to a statistical question or a health-based
question. What we look at more of is the health implication of
the exposure to that ozone, and that doesn't matter where the
ozone was formed or how it got there, whether it was
background, which in most cases has been shown not to impact
whether an area meets the federal attainment guidelines.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. As a researcher, particularly when
looking at health data sets and affects on some populations, do
you have a concern that sort of our static regulatory
environment doesn't seem to move nearly as fast as technology
and that sometimes there is technological opportunities out
there but because we have sort of a command-and-control
regulatory environment, we are always a decade or sometimes
more behind in regulatory design compared to current
technology?
Dr. Craft. Well, I think that is an issue we probably have
across a number of----
Mr. Schweikert. Well, no, that is systemic and a command-
and-control regulatory environment instead of sort of a crowd-
source type of creative, flexible regulatory environment.
Dr. Craft. Right. I mean I guess I would say that the
science on, say, ozone for instance is revised every several
years to reflect the latest science and there are over 17,000
articles just yesterday if you look in PubMed on ozone and
health. And so there is more information that is pulled into
the record on a routine basis.
Mr. Schweikert. I know I am way over time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your patience. The doctor actually hit one of my
fixations of sometimes the arrogance of what we think we know
on how things work today will be different tomorrow because our
understanding of the data and how it is modeled and where it is
different and how are we going to have these discussions, make
sure we are designing optionality and flexibility in these
things. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses.
I really feel good about today because I feel like I don't
have to ask anymore about whether climate change is a fact. I
mean the President said it last week in his State of the Union
message and I am just going to take it as a given that climate
change is a fact so we don't have to debate that.
My question goes to Dr. Craft. In your testimony you cite
an article from the Texas Tribune that is titled
``Antiregulation Politics May Have Hurt Energy Industry.'' As I
understand it, the EPA began requiring greenhouse gas permits
about three years ago that TCEQ refused to enact the rule and
EPA had to step in and begin issuing permits. Can you describe
the current situation and how what can only be called heel-
dragging by TCEQ has negatively impacted Texas businesses and
jobs and created regulatory uncertainty?
Dr. Craft. Yes, thank you. So we have been very concerned.
This is one of the points in my opening statement about Texas'
unwillingness to address the issue of greenhouse permits in our
state. Like I said, we were the only state in the Nation that
did not work with EPA to ensure greenhouse gas permits.
Essentially, what happened is that once facilities--Texas
penned some very aggressive language to EPA saying that they
were--they did not have any intention at all to change their
rules to be able to issue greenhouse gas permits. And as a
result, the deadline came, there was no permitting authority
within the state, so facilities that needed those greenhouse
gas permits could not get them. EPA stepped in and had a
federal implementation plan so that those facilities could
continue to operate. This is a situation where, had EPA not
stepped in, businesses would not have had a permitting
authority by which to obtain permits to operate in the state.
What----
Ms. Edwards. So Texas' refusal to actually issue the
permits could have caused havoc within the industry sector had
EPA not stepped in?
Dr. Craft. Well, exactly, and it did cause havoc within the
business sector. It resulted in essentially a dual permitting
authority situation in the state whereby facilities had to go
to EPA for their greenhouse gas permits and then they had to go
to the TCEQ for their air permits. When businesses realized
that this was the implication, they recognized that it was a
dual permitting authority. It was very onerous to do that, and
the Texas Pipeline Association, which I think is mentioned in
the article, they said that more than 50 planned projects since
early 2011 have been significantly delayed by the Texas
permitting process putting 48,000 jobs at risk. What has
happened is TCEQ has recognized that they need to be the
permitting authority for greenhouse gases and they are now in
the process of trying to transition to be the--to issue those
permits instead of EPA, but, you know, like I said, it has
caused a dual permitting authority situation and it is bad for
business in Texas.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much. I mean, you know, it
really is clear to me--I mean there are other states that went
about the implementation because it is the law and the
regulations. TCEQ decided not to do that and has wreaked havoc
in the industry, perhaps cost jobs and cost to the industry
because of a dual permitting process that is actually far more
onerous. So I appreciate your sharing that.
I have one other question for you, and it is actually
related to just regulating. You know, we have heard in some of
the testimony that companies shouldn't have to disclose the
names of chemicals contained in fracking fluids and a question
around transparency. Could you just talk for a minute about
what it means for, for example, the 300,000 people in West
Virginia who are left without usable water to drink, cook, or
bathe in and it is still a problem there just last month
because of failure to disclose those chemicals and how
dangerous that is to public health.
Dr. Craft. Sure. So we have been looking at the chemicals
that are used in the hydraulic fracturing process, and I can
tell you EPA is also looking at this issue. For many, many,
many of those compounds--and there are thousands of compounds
that are used--they are not used in very high concentrations
but the fact is is that we don't know a lot of information
about the toxicity of those individual compounds. And so even
though they might be used in small concentrations, there are
issues with transportation of those compounds to the site, for
instance. There are other factors which play a role in terms of
risk and health. And so we are very interested in understanding
that risk and toxicity of compounds that might be found in
fracking fluid compounds.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I just wanted to ask Dr.--Mr.
Dierschke, you didn't mean to suggest that because EPA was
putting--requiring fences to be put around places of water
contamination that it would be better for Texas cattle to drink
the contaminated water for the beef that we eat, right?
Mr. Dierschke. They have been doing it for centuries, so I
suppose they will survive. The cattle will drink the stream
water.
Ms. Edwards. Right. So you are okay with the cattle
drinking the contaminated water and then us consuming the beef?
You are okay with that?
Mr. Dierschke. As long as science is----
Ms. Edwards. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized
for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Schweikert. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman. In my rush to ask
a dozen different questions, I had a letter from the Water
Advocacy Coalition I just wanted to put into the record.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, thank you.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Mr. Dierschke, why don't you all just put up signs that say
don't drink the contaminated water, okay?
Glad to hear that the President announced that global
warming is--climate change is a fact and so we no longer have
to be concerned about it. I didn't know that hope and change
was--I didn't know that that meant climate change, okay, but
then again, he never said if you like your climate, you can
keep it. I just want to get that out of the way.
Mr. Weinstein, I am glad to hear that your business
actually makes money by loaning money to industry and I regret
that the gentleman from California is not here. I would suggest
that you all meet up afterwards and you give him a course in
economics that that is how this country survives.
And I want to address the foot-dragging question of the
TCEQ, and the fact that Texas is losing jobs or could be losing
jobs. I think Dr. Craft issued that concern, and we are glad
you are concerned and we are glad you are in Texas. As Mr.
Weinstein so aptly pointed out, Texas has created more jobs
than any other state of the lesser 49 states in the Union and
so can you imagine what we would have done, you know? Gosh, we
could have really been off to gangbusters had it not been for
the foot-dragging of TCEQ. I do want to address that.
And by the way, Dr. Craft, we are glad that even you
recognize Texas is the place to be. So are you glad----
Dr. Craft. Thank you. I just wanted to comment that it
wasn't my comment about the jobs. It was the Texas Pipeline
Association----
Mr. Weber. No, I got you.
Dr. Craft. --so just a clarification.
Mr. Weber. Yeah. No, I got you. And there is a lot of them
in Texas, and as you probably know, the pipeline has a 99.9
percent safety rating. It is the safest way to move oil or
transport oil.
But, Dr. Shaw, I want to go to you. Foot-dragging on the
part of the TCEQ--and I was in the Texas legislature. I was on
the Environmental Reg Committee. I watched it very closely. How
did you all get that past me?
Hon. Shaw. Well, Congressman, one of the things I think
that is key that I have been asked to--and I have a
responsibility to fulfill in my duty as Chairman of the
Commission on Environmental Quality is first to uphold the law.
And once we made the determination that we didn't have the
legal authority to issue those permits, it no longer was an
issue about whether I liked it or wanted it. It was an issue at
its core about whether it is legal to do that. Furthermore,
this was definitely an issue that has longer-standing
implications from a principle standpoint. There were--imagine
if you will what regulations we would be looking at from EPA at
this point with regard to new and existing sources of CO2
had Texas and other states not questioned the deadline that EPA
gave about two months when we had to decide if we were going to
comply with that. We might see even more burdensome and less
science-based regulations had we not questioned and taken a
stand. So we have a hearing before the Supreme Court next month
that also was on this issue and perhaps at the end of the day
things might look a little different.
Mr. Weber. Well, I appreciate that.
And, Dr. Craft, you are quite the Twitterer it turns out. I
think you have even mentioned in one of your tweets that Greg
Abbott has been busy suing the federal government, our great
attorney general. Do you remember that?
Dr. Craft. Personally, I have not tweeted in a long time. I
do more blogging than I do tweeting, but----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Dr. Craft. --I am trying to get better about it because----
Mr. Weber. I have been able to find a couple of those, and
I would submit what Dr. Shaw mentioned was that if our great
attorney general, soon to be governor, had not been busy suing
the federal government and keeping them out of Texas, then Dr.
Weinstein would not have been able to make the statement that
Texas has been leading the way for creating jobs in this
country.
Dr. Craft. Well, I guess, you know, my concern was really
that it is not clear what the theory of victory was there. I
mean, you know, what would be the harm of going ahead and
working with the EPA to establish the permits while you are
challenging them? And just one comment about the Supreme Court
case that is coming up, the Supreme Court case is not going to
hear the argument----
Mr. Weber. Let me----
Dr. Craft. --about the endangerment finding----
Mr. Weber. Let me cut you off----
Dr. Craft. --which is that----
Mr. Weber. I got you.
Dr. Craft. --he is there----
Mr. Weber. I am running out of time. Carbon capture and
sequestration, I have the three coastal counties of Texas
coming from Louisiana going West and Southwest. Valero has a
plant in Port Arthur, carbon capture and sequestration, the
largest I would say arguably in the world; I am sure it is in
the United states. Are any of you on the panel aware that it
was built with 66 percent federal dollars from the Department
of Energy from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act? And
so when you start talking about CCS, carbon capture
sequestration storage, double S there, it is not economically
feasible.
We had the CEO from Mississippi Power in to speak to the
House Energy Action Team where they have cost overruns because
of CCS in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not
duplicable, it is not efficient, it is not effective, and there
is no way that we can say that it can be duplicated on a large
scale. Are you all aware of that? Apparently somebody is
calling me and I have been on hold too long. Are you aware that
it is not duplicable, Doctor?
Hon. Shaw. Yeah, correct, Congressman. You are absolutely
correct that I am aware of no commercially demonstrated even
close----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Hon. Shaw. --and the costs are significant.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just one
quick question to Mr. Porter. Forty-two cases of contaminated
wells was the figure bandied around under the Railroad
Commission's watch. Do you remember that comment?
Hon. Porter. Yes, I heard the comment.
Mr. Weber. Okay. How many wells in Texas?
Chairman Smith. Mr. Weber, your time is----
Mr. Weber. A couple hundred thousand? Help me out here.
Hon. Porter. About 400,000 roughly.
Mr. Weber. Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized.
Mr. Beasley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Porter a quick question. Oftentimes on
this Committee or just we are talking about these environmental
issues in general, it often gets deduced down to very black and
white, you know, very simple style issues. And I wanted to
specifically ask you about your hearing that you had on the
earthquakes in Parker County not too long ago and I believe in
Azle. You got about 1,000 people to show up to that meeting.
And tell us just very quickly--people were very concerned about
that, is that right?
Hon. Porter. Yes, you are correct, Mr. Congressman. They
were extremely concerned about that. And of course we at the
Commission are concerned about it. We are trying to make sure
that we understand exactly what is going on as far as the
science and what the evidence is showing us. We have moved to
hire a seismologist at the Railroad Commission. In fact, I
believe interviews of that seismologist are starting today for
that position. We are trying to gain a clear understanding of
exactly what is happening and what kind of activity, if any,
that we need to do at the Commission. You know, when people are
having problems with their homes there, of course extremely
concerned as the folks in Azle were.
Mr. Beasley. Right. Well, I appreciate that. And the reason
I wanted to bring that up again is that, you know, it is
oftentimes on this committee--it gets very--the argument gets
very black and white, Republican versus Democrat type issues,
but in Azle, that is a very, very, very conservative area,
probably one of the most conservative areas in the entire
state, definitely in North Texas. And people there were
concerned about the earthquakes, just--not just people that are
liberals concerned about earthquakes. So the last time we had
the issue on earthquakes, that was how the discussion ended up
being deduced down to and so I wanted to bring that up.
Dr. Shaw, good to see you again from my days serving on the
Environmental Regulation Committee with Mr. Weber, and I wanted
to talk with you about something that has come out lately and
that is the pro-business stance that is bad for Texas that has
been talked about a lot. And the--I know that one of your
missions on the TCEQ is sustainable economic development, but
the failure of Texas to adopt the 2010 EPA rule has resulted in
the backlog of about 80 permits waiting for approval at EPA.
This has delayed construction of facilities in Texas ranging
from natural gas power plants, natural gas compressors,
chemical processing facilities, and has even resulted in a
decline in drilling activity in the Barnett Shale in the area
that I represent. Wouldn't it have been better for Texas to
work with the EPA instead of making lawyers rich and going into
these costly court battles?
Hon. Shaw. Congressman, thank you. Certainly, my desired
approach is always to work together, and unfortunately, the
discussions that we had with EPA were not fruitful in that
manner. For example, the letter that we--or the mandate that we
got from EPA was that we were given about 2 months to decide if
we were going to move forward with allowing EPA's regulatory
scheme and we were going to implement that. I will refresh your
memory that at that point we had no idea what regulating under
EPA's program would mean because they had yet to give any
information about what BACT, best available control technology,
would mean for regulating greenhouse gases. So at that point
they were asking us to commit to doing something that we
arguably determined we didn't have the legal authority to deal
with, as well as the fact that we didn't have any understanding
of what EPA thought that would mean. And so we felt that it was
appropriate, certainly the legal aspect is enough, but that it
made sense for us to continue to try to work with EPA to
maintain an opportunity to ensure the regulations were not
overly draconian. And long-term, we are still not out of the
woods yet.
One of the things I will remind you of is that EPA passed
what is called the Tailoring Rule, and if you recall, the
justification for that was the Absurdity Doctrine--I don't know
if I have that right--the Absurd Results Doctrine in that EPA
wanted to avoid the absurd result of having the Clean Air Act
applied as written to greenhouse gas regulations because,
according to EPA's own number, that would result in I think 6
million additional permits across the United States. They----
Mr. Beasley. Let me ask you one more question because my
time is about to expire----
Hon. Shaw. Sure.
Mr. Beasley. --here. As someone that is concerned about
sustained economic development that--which is part of the
mission of your organization, the lawyer for the Texas Pipeline
Association said that there has been a lot of flaring of
associated gas and that the delay in the permitting process has
put about 48,000 jobs at risk in our state. Again, don't you
think that it would have been better to work with the EPA and
save these jobs, these 48,000 jobs, because right now all the
jobs that we are creating in Texas--not all the jobs but the
majority of jobs that we are creating in Texas are service-
related jobs that pay a lot less than these 48,000 jobs would
have paid in the oil and gas industry?
Hon. Shaw. Right. As I mentioned, one, we didn't have the
legal authority; and two, had we not taken the stand, I would
contend that we would have even greater loss of jobs had we not
taken a stand to force EPA to base their regulations in science
and to have a more reasoned approach moving forward because
this is the tip of the iceberg. Right now, we are looking at--
certainly Texas has been performing well relative to other
states. Could it have been better? Yes. Would we like that to
have happened? Yes. And certainly we are moving as we are given
authority from the Texas legislature to be the permitting
authority for greenhouse gases. But clearly, there are longer-
term economic and, I would contend, environmental damages
associated with EPA's approach with greenhouse gas at this
point.
So we took a principled stand. We are going to work and--as
we have been to continue to find ways to streamline the
process, but we felt that the immediate cost was less than what
the long-term costs would have been.
Mr. Beasley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beasley.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, is recognized.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has really been interesting being on this committee with
so many Texans and hearing the debate today on the growth and
the jobs and the economic activity. And as a New Yorker
representing the highest-taxed, most-regulated, least-business-
friendly state in the nation where we count how many jobs we
lose, and if we lose a few less this year than we lost last
year, somehow within New York's mindset, that is considered a
win. So I do represent New York but don't agree at all with the
tax and regulatory status of our state and say that that speaks
volumes about what is right about Texas and not right about New
York.
But, Dr. Craft, you made a statement that I want to
clarify. You stated that coastal wind is more economical than
coal?
Dr. Craft. I believe I said that coastal wind was--did not
have--is consistent is what the point was of that statement.
Mr. Collins. Oh, it is consistent but you said it was----
Dr. Craft. More consistent----
Mr. Collins. --less expensive than coal.
Dr. Craft. I would have to go back and look. I have some
notes of my comments. I don't remember saying that.
Mr. Collins. Okay. I mean wind is generally considered
twice as expensive as coal, and if you take away the subsidies
and it is interesting whenever I hear folks talk about wind,
they never talk about how wind is so heavily subsidized. And if
you take the subsidy away, then every cost number that you ever
see put out relative to wind is gone.
Dr. Craft. Well, you know, Texas is generating more wind
energy than any other state in the Nation right now, so----
Mr. Collins. Well----
Dr. Craft. --it is a big----
Mr. Collins. It is.
Dr. Craft. Yeah.
Mr. Collins. And because of the tax credits and the
production tax credit, it is incentivized in a way that makes
it more affordable than otherwise. So I would just suggest
that--because I thought I heard you say that wind was more
cost-effective than coal, and it is clearly not.
Dr. Craft. I can clarify----
Mr. Collins. Dr. Weinstein, I would like to just as a
member of the committee say I appreciated your testimony and
certainly would suggest that the line of questioning directed
toward you probably speaks volumes to how accurate your
testimony was and how hard-hitting it was when the only
question that came back had absolutely nothing to do with your
testimony. So thank you for that testimony.
But I would like to really----
Dr. Weinstein. Let me say something about your question on
coastal wind.
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Dr. Weinstein. The most recent study of comparative costs
conducted by the Energy Information Administration for
different energy power-generating sources in the year 2016
combining both the construction and operating expenses found
that solar thermal would be the most expensive and coastal wind
would be the second-most expensive.
Mr. Collins. Right. And those are the same facts that I
have always understood to be the case. Representing Western New
York, there was a proposal to put wind turbines out in Lake
Erie. As the county executive, I can tell you I fought that
every which way I could. And when the numbers came out, to the
extent it had any economic viability, it was all based on tax
credits, not real costs. So in a day when our country is
running deficits and debt, the last thing we should be doing is
providing tax credits to an industry that is mature. So I would
just let that stand.
Now, Mr. Dierschke, I represent the most agricultural
district in New York. It is about 90 percent of the economy of
the 27th Congressional District, a lot of dairy, a lot of
specialty crops and the like. And I can tell you my farmers
will tell you the EPA is one of the biggest impediments they
have to expanding their farms and that every dollar they spend
adhering to these EPA regulations, some of which are absolutely
outlandish, especially when it comes to wetlands, is a dollar
not invested in expanding their farms. And I just in my closing
moments would like to hear your overview of farmers in Texas to
see if they share some of those same concerns as our New York
farmers.
Mr. Dierschke. I think the Texas farmers and ranchers and
private landowners also, we are getting a lot of fractured up
ranches, a lot of ranchettes coming in, and they are also
expressing their disappointment in having to--what all they
have to do with involvement with EPA. So I am trying to be as
nice as I can in----
Mr. Collins. Well, my farmers aren't very nice. They just
call it out right for what it is. Were it not for some of these
overreaching EPA requirements defining in some cases mud
puddles as wetlands and worrying about the runoff from their
dairy farms into their own pond, they would be investing more
money, growing their farms, producing more milk in the 27th
Congressional Districts. They don't pull any punches
whatsoever.
Mr. Dierschke. Okay. I will agree with you on that.
Mr. Collins. Thank you all very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun, is recognized.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Clean Air Act has traditionally been grounded in
cooperative federalism where the federal government and the
states worked together to enforce air regulations. However, it
has been widely known that the EPA does the bidding of special
interest groups by way of sue-and-settle agreements. The Sierra
Club targeted 36 states whose air programs EPA had previously
approved, forcing them to change their State Implementation
Plans or ``face adverse EPA action.''
The Attorney General from my beloved State of Georgia,
along with 11 other states including Texas, have filed a
Freedom of Information Act request for information on EPA's
settlements and 45 lawsuits brought by environmental groups.
EPA denied it for being too broad and failing to, as they
described, ``adequately describe the record sought.'' On
February 6 of 2013 the states filed a new request and a fee
waiver regarding the CAA's Regional Haze Program. Both were
denied. After an appeal, the states filed a federal lawsuit. I
would like to enter into the record this release from the
Georgia State's Attorney General Office that I understand was
shared with the minority yesterday, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shaw, using some of EPA's recent regulatory
decisions on the basis of your comments, how would you
characterize the current relationship between the EPA and the
states?
Hon. Shaw. It has been one where EPA has been less
interested in having that cooperative federalism you talked
about take place and more interested in taking efforts to have
a one-sized-fits-all or, as was quoted to me from some
administrators of EPA, to level the playing field, suggesting
that EPA should do more than set the criteria that we are
trying to attain and let the creativity----
Mr. Broun. So they are not working with you all very much
at all. Okay.
Given your experience to date with the EPA concerning
issues such as Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Regional Haze,
and the Flexible Permit Program, are you concerned about the
role states like Georgia and Texas will play in future EPA
regulations like carbon limits for existing power plants?
Hon. Shaw. Extremely so. I think it is critical that we be
involved and I am concerned that we may not be able to have
influence on the EPA's programs to move forward in the manner
that allows us to have strong environmental programs that
aren't damaged by greenhouse gas programs, for example, as well
as maintain economic competitiveness.
Mr. Broun. The EPA claimed that states were given notice in
this SIP call. Do you believe the states and the public at
large have an adequate opportunity to comment on policies that
the EPA effectively issues through guidance?
Hon. Shaw. I think guidance is one of those issues that is
of great concern because EPA has often argued that it is not
legally enforceable, and yet, in practicality, it is. So they
can issue guidance. If there is no opportunity for public
comment and input, they basically go through an ad hoc
rulemaking process that doesn't have any oversight, and I think
that is poor policymaking and leads to decisions that are
certainly not transparent and leads to bad decisions.
Mr. Broun. And not scientifically based either, is that
correct?
Hon. Shaw. Well, there is no way to know if they are to be
able to bring to bear review to ensure that they are. So it
makes it much easier for bad science to be--or no science to be
involved in setting those rules.
Mr. Broun. There is no transparency as such. It seems to me
that this Administration that said it was going to be the most
transparent administration, their definition of transparency is
obscurity.
Where does Texas stand with their numerous FOIA requests
and lawsuit filed by the 12 states?
Hon. Shaw. To my understanding there has been no progress
in getting access to those forms--or to the data, which is
problematic as sunshine and public ability to look at raw data
and to look at data helps to lead to better decisions.
Mr. Broun. Do you know how many FOIA requests are being
granted to the Sierra Club?
Hon. Shaw. I do not but it is more than have been granted
to us.
Mr. Broun. Well, it is my understanding that as of May of
2013, out of 15 requests from the Sierra Club, EPA has granted
11. And the states are trying to do their business and are not
granted what these environmental groups are.
Hon. Shaw. And as partners, it certainly would be helpful
for us as we are partners with the federal government in this
cooperative federalism, it would seem that we would be at the
front end of the list of getting access to shared data so that
we can have informed and cooperative decision-making.
Mr. Broun. Well, thank you, sir. I am a physician, I am a
scientist, I am an applied scientist, and I just want to enter
into the record that the idea of settled science is totally an
unscientific philosophy. And we have seen a lot of people,
particularly in this Administration--and my friends on the
other side continue talking about settled science, about not
only human-induced global warming but many other issues, and it
is totally unscientific in that philosophy. There is should
never be and never has been in the true scientific philosophy
an idea about settled science.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Broun.
Let me thank our witnesses as well for your expert and
much-appreciated testimony today. I happen to think it is nice
to have an all-Texas panel every now and then, and we certainly
did benefit from your knowledge and your testimony so----
Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Broun. I want to thank you for having an all-Texas
panel. I can understand all of them and I hope they can
understand me being from Georgia, too. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Broun. And we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Honorable Bryan Shaw
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.191
Responses by The Honorable David Porter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.197
Responses Mr. Kenneth Dierschke
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.199
Responses by Dr. Bernard Weinstein
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.201
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter Submitted by Committee Chairman Smith
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.014
Report Submitted by Committee Chairman Smith
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.207
Letter submitted by Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.018
Letter submitted by Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.032
Letter submitted by Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.060
Letter submitted by Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.061
Letter submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.152
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.161
Letter submitted by Representative David Schweikert
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.166
Letter submitted by Representative Paul C. Broun
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8134.168