[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
June 22, 2016
----------
Serial No. 114-85
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 22, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-914 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
June 22, 2016
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................................................ 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Discussion....................................................... 18
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 66
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mo Brooks, Subcommittee on
Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 82
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 87
Letter submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 101
Letter submitted by Representative Lee Abraham, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 103
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 108
Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 110
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 114
ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:07 p.m., in Room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
And welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Ensuring Sound
Science at the EPA.''
Before beginning our hearing, however, I'd like to welcome
a new member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
Warren Davidson from Ohio's Eighth Congressional District. He
won a special election two weeks ago to succeed John Boehner.
Representative Davidson graduated from West Point and has
an MBA from Notre Dame. He served in the Army in the 101st
Airborne Division and as an Army Ranger. After his military
service, he returned to Ohio and took a manufacturing company
from 20 to 200 employees. He will be a member of the Space and
Oversight Subcommittees. As the only member of the Science
Committee from Ohio, he will be popular with the aerospace and
energy R&D companies in his state. Please welcome Warren
Davidson to the Science Committee.
I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement and then the Ranking Member.
The Environmental Protection Agency has become an agency in
pursuit of a purely political agenda rather than an agency that
protects the environment. Little that the EPA has proposes
would have any significant impact on the environment. But that
hasn't stopped the EPA from imposing some of the most expensive
and expansive regulations in its history.
These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy
burden on American families, and diminish the ability of
American businesses to compete around the world. EPA's
political agenda is to rearrange the American economy,
instituting ``command and control'' by the Obama
Administration.
This Committee's investigations have revealed an EPA that
intentionally chooses to ignore good science. EPA cherry-picks
the science that fits its agenda and ignores the science that
does not support its position. When the science falls short,
the EPA resorts to a propaganda campaign designed to mislead
the public.
Today's hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory
agenda and the manner in which the EPA has used suspect
science, questionable legal interpretations, and flawed
analysis to justify these regulations. A glaring example is the
President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This plan is nothing
more than a ``Power Grab'' to give the government more control
over Americans' daily lives.
This regulation stifles economic growth, destroys American
jobs, and increases energy prices. That means costs will rise-
from electricity to gasoline to food, disproportionately
hurting low-income Americans. Even EPA data shows that this
regulation would reduce sea level rise by only 1/100 of an
inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. The Clean Power
Plan represents massive costs without significant benefits. In
other words, it's all pain and no gain.
The President used this regulation as the cornerstone of
his agenda at the Paris climate talks. The Paris agreement is a
bad deal for the American people that will shrink our economy
without any recognized benefit. Even if all 177 countries meet
their promised reductions of carbon emissions for the next 85
years, that will reduce temperatures by only one-sixth of one
degree Celsius. That is incredible.
For almost two years, the Committee requested to see the
data EPA uses to justify Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA's
refusal to provide all the data led the Science Committee to
issue its first subpoena in 21 years to retrieve that
information, and we are still waiting. What is the Obama
Administration hiding?
The Committee's investigation and oversight of the EPA's
development of the Waters of the U.S. rule has revealed
troubling and illegal agency activities. During the course of
our investigation, the Committee found that the EPA engaged in
inappropriate tactics to generate grassroots lobbying in
support of this rule.
This past December, the Government Accountability
Organization issued a legal opinion that found that EPA
violated both the Anti-Lobbying and Anti-Deficiency Acts.
The EPA's relationship with activist environmental groups
and use of questionable science does not end there. The
Committee's investigation of the Agency's decision to embark on
a premature and unprecedented decision to stop the Pebble Mine
has shown that career EPA officials acted with blatant bias to
determine the outcome. Also, these same officials intentionally
used personal email to prevent the Committee and the EPA
Inspector General from discovering the extent of their
incriminating actions. This is just another unfortunate example
of the EPA allowing politics rather than science to drive its
agenda.
Earlier this Congress, the House approved H.R. 1030, the
Secret Science Reform Act. This legislation requires the EPA to
base its regulations on publicly available data. Why would the
EPA want to hide this data from the American people? Because
either the data is science fiction or it doesn't exist.
During the last year, several of EPA's major regulations
have been halted by federal courts. These include the Agency's
efforts to stop the Pebble Mine, the controversial Waters of
the U.S. rule, and the Clean Power Plan. Many of these
regulations trample on the constitutional rights of individuals
and rely on suspect legal interpretations of the law.
I hope the Administrator will tell us today how she intends
to follow the law in writing regulations and when she will
provide the American people with the data and other information
that this committee has requested.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before
I begin my remarks, let me also welcome our new member and to
tell him that I'm a product of St. Mary's and I graduated
before you were born.
And let me welcome Administrator McCarthy to today's
hearing and express my deep appreciation for her distinguished
public service. I look forward to her testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm here by myself on this
side is that every other Democrat is on the House Floor
awaiting a bill, because without a bill, there will be no
break, the bill concerning gun violence.
Based on previous committee hearings with EPA, I have
little doubt that some members will try to argue today that EPA
is an overzealous, job-killing agency that needs to be reined
in, namely, the rhetoric we have heard from our majority
colleagues throughout this entire Congress.
Of course, the reality is far different. Administrator
McCarthy, you and your dedicated agency staff have the noble
and unenviable task of trying to protect human health and the
environment in which we live and work from harm arising from
many different sources. As such, your job is never truly done,
and the ongoing nature of your work makes it easy for critics
to find fault, with some arguing you're doing too much, some
arguing you're doing too little.
Let us be clear. The issues you--that underlie achieving
these goals are complex, necessitating equally complex rules
and regulations that require commitments and sacrifice from all
involved parties to achieve a common benefit, a healthy
environment. I am pleased that EPA continues to rise to this
challenge and has developed regulations that are balanced and
progressive, further illustrating that economic prosperity and
environmental protection can go hand-in-hand. They're not
mutually exclusive.
Just in the last year, EPA has finalized the Clean Power
Plan, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and its
first-ever standards to reduce methane emissions from the oil
and gas sector. While protecting public health, these
regulations have also helped advance our efforts to limit the
harmful effects of climate change. Actions taken by EPA have
demonstrated America's intention to lead the world's effort to
address climate change and have led to such a positive result
as last December's Paris agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will take the
opportunity today to give serious attention to Administrator
McCarthy's testimony and examine what has actually been
accomplished. It is an impressive record and one that this
Congress should support. Unfortunately, that has not been this
committee's approach to EPA's oversight in recent years.
Instead, since the beginning of the current Congress alone,
this committee has sent 28 oversight requests to EPA and has
launched 12 separate EPA-related investigations. EPA has
already delivered more than 15,000 documents consisting of
139,000 pages to the Science Committee. I don't know where
they're getting all these grocery carts to wheel it over here,
with more document demands still outstanding, and I don't know
where we're storing it once it gets here. And you can multiply
these numbers by three to get the number of documents and pages
provided to Congress as a whole over the same period.
We're imposing an incredible burden on the hardworking men
and women of EPA and spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars in
the process to know--I don't know to what end. Does anybody
read it when it gets here? The sum total result of all this
committee oversight can be measured more in press releases that
in any concrete findings that could justify the time and
resources EPA has had to expend in trying to satisfy the
majority's demands.
I would hope that this committee will step back from the
path it is on and not continue to engage in reflexive
opposition to the efforts of an agency simply trying to carry
out its statutory-mandated missions. While no agency is
perfect, preventing EPA from doing its job at all is not good
for the country and not a good use of time. Instead of trying
to score political points through efforts to undercut EPA's
important work, we should work together in a productive way to
advance our economy, a cleaner environment, and a healthier
world for humanity.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Our witness today is the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to
her appointment as Administrator, she was the Assistant
Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. She also
has served as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. During her career, which spans over
30 years, she has worked at both the state and local levels on
environmental issues and helped coordinate policies on energy,
transportation, and the environment.
Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts degree
in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts and
a master's of science and environmental health, engineering,
and planning from Tufts University.
We welcome you, Administrator, and look forward to your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA McCARTHY,
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you,
Ranking Member Johnson, for inviting me to testify today on
EPA's regulatory efforts.
The mission of EPA is to protect public health and the
environment, and the Agency's regulatory efforts further those
goals. We are guided in meeting these goals by science and by
the law, which serves as the backbone of each of the Agency's
actions. I'll focus my comments today on providing more detail
for three rules, which we believe tremendously benefit public
health, as well as the environment.
Climate change is one of the greatest environmental and
public health challenges that we all face. The most vulnerable
among us--including children, older adults, people with heart
and lung disease, and people living in poverty--may be the most
at risk from the impacts of climate change. Fossil fuel-fired
power plants are by far the largest source of U.S. CO2
emissions. To address these emissions, EPA finalized the Clean
Power Plan August 3 of 2015.
While the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the Supreme
Court, we are confident it will be upheld because it rests on a
strong foundation of science and the law. Since the stay was
issued, many States have begun to move forward voluntarily to
cut carbon pollution from power plants. They've also asked EPA
to continue our outreach and development of supporting
information that will help guide States when the Clean Power
Plan becomes effective, which we are doing while ensuring that
we fully comply with the stay.
For example, last week, we proposed design details for the
optional Clean Energy Incentive Program to address States'
request for additional clarification as they consider options
to reduce their carbon footprint. In May, EPA announced steps
to further reduce methane and other harmful air pollutants from
new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, along
with a critical first step in tackling methane emissions from
existing sources. These steps will help combat climate change
and reduce harmful air pollution.
These standards build on the Agency's 2012 rules by adding
requirements that the industry reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases and by covering hydraulically fractured oil wells, along
with additional equipment and activities that were not covered
in the 2012 rules. They also require owners and operators to
find and repair leaks, which can be a significant source of
emissions.
These final standards reflect significant stakeholder input
and in particular provide companies a pathway to demonstrate
that requirements under a State rule comparable to requirements
in the final rule. This would allow sources to comply with the
specific final rule requirement by complying with the State
regulation.
As a first step in the regulation of existing sources of
methane from the oil and gas sector, we have announced an
information collection request that, when finalized, will
require companies with existing operations to provide
information on technologies and costs that are critical to the
development of reasonable and effective regulations. In
addition, EPA plans to seek voluntary information on innovative
strategies that can accurately and cost-effectively locate,
measure, and mitigate methane emissions. The draft ICR was
published on June 3, 2016, and the first two public comments
for--periods will last for 60 days.
Finally, in October 2015 the Agency completed the periodic
review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS,
for ground-level ozone. We have a primary standard directed at
protecting public health and a secondary standard directed at
protecting public welfare. Exposures to ground-level ozone can
harm the respiratory system, aggravate asthma and lung disease,
and is linked to premature death. These health impacts pose
significant costs on Americans and can adversely affect their
daily lives through missed school and work.
The two-step process of a science-based NAAQS review,
followed by implementation and a system that works, that is the
process that we implement. That is the process the Congress
outlined. EPA and State, local, and tribal co-regulators share
a long history of successfully managing air quality. For ozone,
existing and proposed federal measures like vehicle standards
and power plant rules and reducing--are reducing and will
continue to further reduce ozone pollution nationwide. We
expect that the vast majority of counties outside of California
will meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2025 without having to take
additional steps beyond these federal measures.
So I again thank the Committee for inviting me to give a
statement, as well as to be here today, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you and to answer your questions on
these and other EPA actions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy.
And I'll recognize myself for questions.
The first is this. The nonpartisan Energy Information
Administration at the Department of Energy has found that the
Clean Power Plan will reduce economic growth, increase
electricity costs, and result in almost 400,000 jobs lost over
the next 15 years. And all this is with very little impact on
climate change itself. So why has the Obama Administration
imposed this regulation on the American people?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me just be clear if I could, Mr.
Chairman. Our impact analysis that went with the rule indicated
just the opposite of what you're saying.
Chairman Smith. Right. So you----
Ms. McCarthy. Let me answer the question----
Chairman Smith. Okay. But--so you disagree with the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it depends on what you're looking at,
sir. I don't have it----
Chairman Smith. Okay----
Ms. McCarthy. --in front of me, but I will tell you that--
--
Chairman Smith. --real quickly, let me repeat my question--
--
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Chairman Smith. --to make sure you----
Ms. McCarthy. Sure.
Chairman Smith. --address it. They said it would reduce
economic growth, increase electricity cost, and cost almost
400,000 jobs in the next 15 years. This is the Department of
Energy. This is this Administration. This is the Energy
Information Administration. So do you agree or disagree with
their conclusions?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I believe that we have designed this
rule, and it's showing out already that we are following the
energy markets. We are not changing the direction in which the
market is heading, and as a result, you're going to see this
being delivered well--with additional short--small reduction
over a very short period of time. You're going to see short
reductions, but over the length of this rule, you are going to
see significant reductions in greenhouse gases. But also,
you're going to see cost savings on the energy side.
Chairman Smith. Okay. It's clear you disagree with the
Administration. I happen to think they're probably less biased
than the EPA, and I think their conclusions that were reached
probably represent closer to the facts, but we're going to have
to agree----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm----
Chairman Smith. --to disagree on that.
Ms. McCarthy. --happy to take a look at it, Mr. Chairman. I
don't know what the context of their analysis was.
Chairman Smith. Okay. You are not familiar with the Energy
Information Administration or you are?
Ms. McCarthy. Very much so but----
Chairman Smith. Okay. Have you read their----
Ms. McCarthy. But they do----
Chairman Smith. --report on the Clean Power Plan?
Ms. McCarthy. In the past.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And you disagree with that?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what you just read, sir. I don't
know which one it is----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --so I'm happy to take a look.
Chairman Smith. Well, again, reduce economic growth,
increase electricity costs, and cost 400,000 jobs----
Ms. McCarthy. Is----
Chairman Smith. --over the next 15 years.
Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly opposite of what we believe
will happen based on our----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --independent analysis.
Chairman Smith. It's nice to have the Administration at war
with itself. I'll go to my----
Ms. McCarthy. No----
Chairman Smith. --next question. If the Paris climate
agreement involving 177 countries was completely implemented,
okay, the entire climate agreement completely implemented, you
have distinguished scientists including Bjorn Lomborg and 27
other top climate scientists, including three Nobel laureates,
who have concluded that the reduction in global warming would
only be one-twentieth of a degree Celsius by 2030, one-sixth of
a degrees Celsius in the next 85 years. It sounds to me like if
they're anywhere close to being right, then this Paris Climate
Agreement is almost all pain and no gain. Why is that not the
case?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, no, sir. The Paris agreement was an
incredible achievement that changed the direction of the world
and is going to ultimately----
Chairman Smith. Do you disagree that----
Ms. McCarthy. --allow us to have a better climate----
Chairman Smith. Do you think the Paris Climate Agreement
will have a greater impact on climate change than I just said
and that these 27 scientists said?
Ms. McCarthy. I think it sets us on it course to work
together on a planetary scale to address the biggest----
Chairman Smith. Well, I understand----
Ms. McCarthy. --environmental challenge we face.
Chairman Smith. --as far as the actual impact on climate
change, do you disagree with these 27 top----
Ms. McCarthy. I disagree with the way in which----
Chairman Smith. --climate scientists?
Ms. McCarthy. --you're characterizing it, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect, it is a tremendous step in the right
direction.
Chairman Smith. No, no----
Ms. McCarthy. The numbers you're talking about----
Chairman Smith. Those are----
Ms. McCarthy. --are actually steps----
Chairman Smith. I know those are wonderful words----
Ms. McCarthy. --to be taken by 2020.
Chairman Smith. I'm talking about quantifying the impact.
The impact is one-sixth of a degree over the next 85 years if
every country, all 177 countries----
Ms. McCarthy. There is not a single----
Chairman Smith. --implement it----
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, there's not a single country that signed
that expecting that the 2020 goals would get us where we need
to be.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. It is a step in that direction, and it should
provide us an opportunity----
Chairman Smith. But you don't disagree with the
conclusion----
Ms. McCarthy. --to get the necessary reductions.
Chairman Smith. --of these scientists as far as the climate
agreement goes in Paris----
Ms. McCarthy. I----
Chairman Smith. --as it stands right now?
Ms. McCarthy. The agreement itself was designed as a step
forward.
Chairman Smith. I understand.
Ms. McCarthy. It was not designed to produce all of the
actions----
Chairman Smith. I understand but----
Ms. McCarthy. --that will be necessary to address----
Chairman Smith. --as far as the step forward goes----
Ms. McCarthy. --the challenges.
Chairman Smith. --the step forward is as I described it.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, you can't make a marathon without
getting across the starting line.
Chairman Smith. Okay. It's clear you don't disagree with
their conclusion. You may think it's a beginning, but you can't
disagree----
Ms. McCarthy. I don't even know what----
Chairman Smith. --with their conclusion?
Ms. McCarthy. --their--the context of their conclusion is.
Chairman Smith. Again----
Ms. McCarthy. What I do know, sir, is that----
Chairman Smith. --it's reducing global warming one-sixth of
a degrees Celsius over the next 85 years.
Ms. McCarthy. It's better than we were before, and it's
only the first step. We've made a----
Chairman Smith. One-sixth for all----
Ms. McCarthy. We've made a long-term commitment to get to
the reductions that are necessary----
Chairman Smith. It all sounds to me----
Ms. McCarthy. --to stabilize the----
Chairman Smith. --like it's all pain and no gain, and I
think that's--why punish the American people if we're not going
to have any significant impact on climate change?
Ms. McCarthy. We actually don't think it's punishment. I
think it's about leadership and I think it's----
Chairman Smith. Let me tell you, increase electricity
costs, slow economic growth, and lost jobs is punishment----
Ms. McCarthy. Our analysis shows that----
Chairman Smith. --for the American people.
Ms. McCarthy. --that is not the case with the Clean Power
Plan. It provides----
Chairman Smith. All right.
Ms. McCarthy. --ultimate flexibility----
Chairman Smith. Okay. It's you against all these other
scientists----
Ms. McCarthy. --and reduced energy.
Chairman Smith. --and that's okay. My next question is
this. With out major environmental regulations, we have seen
reduction in carbon emissions in the United States through
technological breakthroughs. For example, in the last 11 years
there's been a 12 percent reduction in energy-related carbon
emissions in the United States.
Rather than impose costly government mandates and interfere
with free market, why not encourage more technological advances
that will reduce the cost of alternative fuels and so encourage
their use? In other words, you're not going to convince
developing countries to go to alternative forms of energy if
you don't reduce the cost. It's not good for them; it's not
good for their economy. So why not allow technology
breakthroughs to solve the problem as they have throughout the
history of the United States? Why engage in these government
mandates to skew the market, cost jobs, and are burdensome to
the American people?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I don't think we're actually
skewing the market; I think we're following it. And what I
think the Clean Power Plan----
Chairman Smith. Government mandates don't skew the market--
--
Ms. McCarthy. --is designed----
Chairman Smith. --and subsidies don't skew the market?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, we're following the direction
of the market because renewable energy is actually becoming
more and more cost-effective.
Chairman Smith. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. It is competing----
Chairman Smith. --why not let the market work?
Ms. McCarthy. --in the market itself.
Chairman Smith. Why not--why impose the regulation? Why not
let market work? It's going the right direction.
Ms. McCarthy. The idea is to look at this as a long-term
venture out to 2030 so that those that want to invest in
innovation will have certainty that their investments will pay
off.
Chairman Smith. Okay. I think we're a democratic country,
and the free market, if allowed to work, will work as it has
been working. I'm just sorry that government wants to interfere
with that. And that's going beyond my time by a minute. And the
Ranking Member from--is--the Ranking Member is recognized for
her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, it has been said that Congress is one
of the few places where you can find the rhetoric of climate
change denial alive and well. While that is disheartening, I'm
reminded that these views are not representative of the
majority of Americans. What kind of response have you seen from
people as you travel the country discussing EPA's work? And
have you found more support and positive feedback than you do
here in this room?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I do find that, as I travel, there is
tremendous concern about the impacts that are already being
felt by climate change. People know it's happening and they're
feeling it and they're afraid it. They're worried about the
safety of their communities and they're worried about the
future of their children and they're worried about the public
health impacts that are so well-defined and well-understood.
And so things are changing. They're looking for us to take
action, but they're looking for us to take reasonable action,
action that respects our energy system, that follows it, that
doesn't increase energy costs and that provides opportunities
for the jobs of the future.
That is what we are doing today. That's what the Clean
Power Plan is all about. It's not trying to redesign the
system. It's trying to understand that right now today our
energy system is in transition, and it's moving towards a clean
energy system. And we know internationally that the countries
that lead in this transition are going to be the ones that come
ahead.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Environmental challenges are often
most severe among communities of color. The NAACP highlighted
this fact stating that African-American children are twice as
likely to die of asthma and three times more likely to be
admitted to the hospital for asthma attack while African-
American adults are more likely to die of lung disease while
being less likely to smoke.
The NAACP went on to applaud the EPA's progress in setting
a stronger standard but echoed the call of every major health
organization by stating that our children, families, and
communities deserve better than the new standard.
The NAACP also criticized the National Black Chamber of
Commerce for citing a widely debunked report to justify claims
of economic harm to communities of color as a result of these
regulations.
What bearing do you at EPA and EPA's activity have on the
issue raised by the NAACP? And how can we prevent the most
vulnerable among us from bearing a disproportionate economic
and public health cost of environmental inaction?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Ranking Member, I'm glad that you
mentioned it because I think we've done a wonderful job
nationally in looking at these issues, and it's one community
and one vulnerable child at a time, and we have to be focusing
our efforts in that direction.
We know that our new ozone standard is a standard that was
designed by law to be protective of public health with an
adequate margin of safety. That means that ozone levels will be
coming down, and those ozone levels reducing will mean less
asthma attacks for our children. It will mean more protection
for those that are most vulnerable.
So we are following the science in providing the right
standards and working with States to make sure that they
continue to make progress moving down our air pollution, which
they have for decades worked with us to achieve. And so it's an
exciting opportunity.
Now, on the Clean Power Plan, we wanted to make sure that
while we gave States ultimate flexibility that we provided
incentives for investment in low-income communities that most
need it for opportunities for renewable energy and energy
efficiency. So we developed an incentive program in there. It's
voluntary, but that's what our Clean Energy Incentive Program
is. It's to make sure that every community and every vulnerable
individual has an opportunity to invest in the technologies of
the future that are going to keep our planet stable and also
protect public health.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Opponents of the new ozone standard
of 70 parts per billion often criticize EPA for setting it
before all areas of the country have attained the new--the old
standard of 75 parts per billion, accusing EPA of shifting the
goalpost. Why is it important that we build on existing
improvements to air quality and not wait until the old
standards of 75 parts per billion be attained by more parts of
the country? And how does setting a new standard encourage
additional action to achieve attainment? To those who claim
attainment efforts will prove too costly, how would you
characterize the cost of inaction to this issue?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the cost of inaction is borne out by
health impacts for our kids and our elderly, and we can show
that this is not--is an incredibly cost-effective step forward
that will save thousands of lives. And so it's important in and
of itself.
But the important thing to remember about air pollution is
over the past 40 years we have been able to reduce air
pollution 70 percent while the economy tripled. We are not
raising our ability to protect public health on the backs of
workers. We are growing jobs at the same time in this country,
and we can do both.
But one thing--and one statistic always sticks out at me is
this is an incremental step forward. We work with States to
incrementally reduce air pollution, and of all of the areas
that were designated nonattainment in 1997 when we set a new
standard, 95 percent of them have achieved that standard
already. So it is a steady march forward in which we work
together with States and local communities for the benefits of
our kids, for the benefits of public health, and we've been
able to do that without a detriment to business or jobs. That's
how EPA does its job. That's how it was designed to happen.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is--my time
really hasn't expired. I'm going to give you back 20 seconds.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Well, yield to me?
Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy,
the Cancer Assessment Review Committee report on glyphosate
published on April 29 and then removed on May 2 came to the
same conclusion as other global regulatory bodies about the
safety of a vital agricultural tool. The report also addressed
several deficiencies with the International Agency for Research
on Cancer's monogram from early 2015, which, as you know, came
to a different conclusion on glyphosate than your agency's
report.
I guess my first question, the Cancer Assessment Review
Committee, they found that glyphosate is not a carcinogenic, is
that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That--not--say that again. Not likely.
Mr. Lucas. Found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.
Ms. McCarthy. Not likely is I think the term that we use--
--
Mr. Lucas. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --but I understand your point.
Mr. Lucas. Was this report marked final and signed by the
scientists at the Cancer Assessment Review Committee who
completed the report?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, my understanding of the Cancer
Assessment Review Committee is they do a memo. They do about 40
of these registration reviews. It's pretty mundane. It's
routine work for the Agency, although important work. So my
understanding is that that memo was done. It was unfortunate
that it was mistakenly released by a contractor because it is
still in review in the Agency. And when we have an issue that's
important--as important as glyphosate is to the agricultural
community, we want to make sure that we get the science right.
Mr. Lucas. But, Administrator, was the report dated October
1, 2015?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't have exact date in front of me, sir,
but that's reasonable.
Mr. Lucas. My understanding is the document that was placed
online----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --on the 29th----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --had been dated the October before, some months
earlier, and I'm under the general impression that it was
signed out to the--the memo was by the scientist----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --who participated in it?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. So why did--and this begs the question, why did
EPA wait several months to post the report marked final, then
remove it from the Web site a few days later with no immediate
explanation?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, because it's----
Mr. Lucas. Could you expand on that?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. It's just--it's a step in the process
towards the Agency's decision, and we know that it will
ultimately be made public. The question is we don't want to
confuse the public with interim decisions being made.
And in this case--and I really want to be very clear here--
the--what we call the CARC, which is our committee, is an
internal committee. But very often, no less than 10 or 15
percent, maybe five percent at the least, there is--there's an
issue that's large enough that it warrants larger agency
review. And this was one of those occasions.
It is a big deal, sir, to deal with glyphosate both in
terms of its international context and the importance it has
for U.S. agriculture, so we have expanded that----
Mr. Lucas. So, Administrator----
Ms. McCarthy. --and it's one step in the process, but it's
not a final decision----
Mr. Lucas. But, Administrator----
Ms. McCarthy. --for the Agency.
Mr. Lucas. --if it was not a final document, why was it
marked final?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Why was it signed out in the fashion it was?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was a final review from that that
particular committee. It was not a final agency action, and if
you look at it----
Mr. Lucas. But you understand why those of us who follow--
--
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we do.
Mr. Lucas. --very carefully the actions that your agency
takes----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --and all of the oversight work you have, the
impact of these decisions is dramatic----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was----
Mr. Lucas. --in certain areas.
Ms. McCarthy. --it was extremely unfortunate. It was
released with a number of other documents that weren't yet
ready for public viewing. It will be ready, and I don't want it
to be----
Mr. Lucas. But you would understand why there would be----
Ms. McCarthy. --any signal other than we're still in the
middle of a decision
Mr. Lucas. --some concern from those of us----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --who watch the process----
Ms. McCarthy. I get it.
Mr. Lucas. --that perhaps a decision made in regular order,
in regular process by the people of responsibility who
understand----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --the issues had been overruled----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --somewhere else on high and backed up----
Ms. McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Lucas. --and that would be a grave concern----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, there's two----
Mr. Lucas. --if we were putting a----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --post-science decision that changed the outcome
of the scientific work that had gone into the initial decision.
Ms. McCarthy. This----
Mr. Lucas. You can see the concern.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. There's two things that are very
unfortunate here. One is our Cancer Assessment Review Committee
does great work. It is not an indication when we take their
memo off the table that we don't appreciate it and agree with
it. It was a question of making sure that we had fully
articulated that in the decision-making process.
Mr. Lucas. That----
Ms. McCarthy. That's not the end of the line of the
decision. That's all.
Mr. Lucas. That said, Administrator, when will we see the
final report?
Ms. McCarthy. We're--given that it's raised concerns, we're
going to try to get it out as soon as possible. I know we
always try hard, but I'm--this fall should be the likely--
Mr. Lucas. Raised concerns within the scientific community
doing the review or raised concerns from those that----
Ms. McCarthy. No, just----
Mr. Lucas. --oversee the scientific community?
Ms. McCarthy. --from yourself who would interpret this as
some kind of a backing up or not in agreement with a final
agency action. The problem we have here is this was not a final
agency action. It was a step in the process. And we appreciate
the work of the Committee----
Mr. Lucas. But these are the kind of things,
Administrator----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --that causes such doubt and concern----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --in the public and in Congress and in the
entities that are affected.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't want it to send a signal----
Mr. Lucas. This is not good for anyone----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --to do it this way.
Ms. McCarthy. You should not take it as a signal that the
decision--that any decision has been made or what direction
that decision will go. The committee offered us wonderful
information. We just need to make sure that it's as robust as
it needs to be for a decision as big as this.
Mr. Lucas. And now the extra attention will be incredible
when the final report----
Ms. McCarthy. I'm sure.
Mr. Lucas. --does come out.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think it was always----
Mr. Lucas. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy. --very important, sir, and I appreciate it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you for being with us today and----
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --we--you were aware that this was going
to be a tough hearing, and thank you for being here and sharing
your views with us----
Ms. McCarthy. I'll do my best.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --on this issue.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So now I'll have my shot.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. First of all, let me ask you this.
Do you expect that the public and the people of this country
need to comply with the orders of the EPA where you are
exercising your lawful authority? Do you expect them to do so
in a timely manner?
Ms. McCarthy. To the best of their ability. Often, that
doesn't happen----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. --and we discuss----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Ms. McCarthy. --what we need to do to work together.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But there are several cases in which
people were not complying, and EPA was very tough on them in
your administration. There are those cases as well. Let me just
note that we have lawful authority on this side of the aisle to
it----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Here we are. We have legislative authority
to oversee what our federal tax dollars are using. Yet since
August of 2015, we have sent ten letters to you. The letters
contained 35 total requests, and we got four replies back. And
of those four replies, only one was fully responsive. The other
seven were only partially responsive to the requests that were
made.
So we have 27 requests, more than 77 of all of our requests
for information in pursuing our lawful authority to oversee
what you're doing and getting a good understanding and
protecting the American people's right to know these things, 77
percent were not answered, six out of ten letters have received
no reply at all. Do you consider that compliance and--with the
lawful authority, our lawful authority as a legislative
oversight of your agency?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I have tremendous respect for the
job of this committee, and I will assure you that we are doing
everything we can to respond to your request in a timely way.
Now, I know that we have--we continue to do searches that
are necessary. It is very challenging, the amount of requests
that we receive from this committee and others. We do our best
to make sure that everyone gets the--every gets the attention
it needs, and will do our best to respond----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --to the outstanding letters----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note----
Ms. McCarthy. --inasmuch as we can.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --that if this was just you and we had an
established working relationship with you and saw the tough job
that you have, that might--we might actually take a different
approach to this and give benefit of the doubt, repeated
benefit of the doubt
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --over the years of not getting the type
of cooperation we need. But this seems to be a pattern
throughout this Administration, the idea of cover-ups, of
inadequate professionalism and the job that needs to be done.
I mean, there's an example here of this coal mine and
several other cases like this where the EPA delayed in actually
notifying people about toxic spills, and yet when we make
requests for information, we don't get replies back. We're
trying to protect the people and here you're saying, well,
we're just doing our best.
We see this in other agencies and departments throughout
this Administration. I think it comes from the top where
there's an arrogant disregard for legislative authority. The
President comes to give a State of the Union and says I'm going
to do this on my own. If I don't get my way, it's the highway.
And then we come across things where we don't get even our
request for information answered. I think that this does not
speak well of the Administration, and I would hope that you
could do better. I think that this is unacceptable. We need to
make sure that if the EPA's requests are going to be taken
seriously by the American people because that's your lawful
authority, our lawful authority to oversee this and get the
answers on why this--why we had this spill--and by the way,
there's a judge actually backed this observation up where
didn't he recently say that the EPA may have lied in court to--
and demonstrated a total lack of commitment to carrying out the
law? This was your Administration now that a member of the
judicial branch is pointing out is just unacceptable.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I--no one would like to produce
these documents more quickly than I would because I have great
faith in the way in which EPA in this Administration has
followed the science and the law. I want to be able to provide
you information as quickly as I can. And, you know, we'll do
our best. The Gold King Mine incident was--unfortunate is
probably too weak a word in this issue. It was a disaster. We
have been doing our best to take full responsibility for that.
I am full well aware that while we notified people in advance
so that efforts could be taken to make sure that contaminated
water didn't get into farm fields, it does not excuse the
fact----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. --that our notice process wasn't up to snuff.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --you can't say you're trying to protect
farm fields by not letting the information out.
Ms. McCarthy. I understand that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me just say that this type of
stonewalling of mistakes and things and we're only trying to do
our best, it just doesn't cut it when we see this happen so
often in this Administration.
Ms. McCarthy. All right, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is
recognized.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator, for being here today.
Ms. McCarthy. You, too.
Mr. Neugebauer. As you know, as the Ranking Member pointed
out, we've had numerous hearings about all the EPA regulations,
both those proposed and finalized. And many of the witnesses
that testified before this committee have consistently
testified that EPA's regulatory agenda will harm the American
economy. And so I'm concerned about that regulatory agenda that
will regulate the United States into some kind of economic
irrelevance.
Now, the Clean Power Plan is a good example of EPA's
command-and-control mentality. I don't think this is
environmental protection, but I think it's unconstitutional
usurpation of power in the name of environmental activism. Even
President Obama's constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe
stated that ``EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta,
usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress, and the
federal courts all at once, but burning the Constitution of the
United States, about which I deeply care, cannot be a part of
national energy policy.'' This is not necessarily a very
conservative jurist.
So the question I have, Administrator McCarthy, does the
Constitution give the EPA the right to ignore the will and
intent of Congress and carry out its own agenda?
Ms. McCarthy. No, it requires us to actually follow the law
and follow science.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, numerous states, including my home
state of Texas, for example, disagree with your analysis. In
fact, the Supreme Court has placed a stay on the rule until
it's examined whether it's constitutional or not----
Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. --is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So citizens and businesses in my home
state are very concerned about the increase in electricity
prices that will occur when the Clean Power Plan goes into
effect. And I think you said a while ago that you believe that
the cost of electricity--did I hear you say you think the cost
of electricity is going down with the Clean Power Plan?
Ms. McCarthy. I--by 2030 our estimate is that it will be--
an average family will actually reduce their energy bill
annually by $80. Yes, I--yes, that's what you heard me say.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I don't believe that and I would
yield to the Chairman, but, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that
anybody has testified before this committee that that the cost
of electricity is going down, have they?
Chairman Smith. That's correct/
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So I think we've got EPA with one
perspective and we've got the entire utility industry with
another perspective, and not just the utility industry but
other outside groups that disagree with that. So the question
is can you furnish this committee with a cost-benefit analysis
that you did that shows that the cost would go down? And have
you shown that report to----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --others to validate your finding?
Ms. McCarthy. Our regulatory impact analysis is part of the
final rule, and I'm happy to forward that if the Committee does
not have it.
Mr. Neugebauer. So the question is sometimes I think folks
on our side of the aisle get painted with the perspective we
don't care about the environment. We care very much about the
environment. But we care very much about making sure, as the
gentleman from California said, being good stewards of the
taxpayers' money and making sure that the policies that are
implemented in the Administration are policies that are in the
best interest of the country. And I think one of the things
that--and as the Chairman was pointing out, even if you employ
all of these certain practices that are put in place, we're
talking about making an infinitesimal change in the
environment.
And so I think when you look at--and I haven't done a cost-
benefit analysis, but when you say it's almost as thin as a
sheet of paper and you're going to cost billions and billions
of dollars, I don't know how that's in the best interest of the
American people.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that issue has been directly addressed
by the Agency and backed up by the Supreme Court in its
decisions. It was very clear that climate change requires a
multiple of actions to be taken in order to address the
changing climate and the challenge that that poses to the
future of our communities, our kids, and our planet. No one
action is going to resolve it, but inaction is going to
preclude us from taking care of this very real and imminent
danger. And in the----
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I'm going to stop you there. I mean,
here--I think what we have to kind of put this down in
perspective, you know----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --we can talk about numbers and billions
and stuff. You know who I think about? I think about that
little single mom----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --that's raising two kids that's working
two jobs and she's worried about whether she's going to be able
to pay her electric bill or she's going to be able to buy
gasoline to get to work to support her family and to make sure
if those kids need to go to the doctor that they're able to do
that.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. And what we're saying is we're willing to
sacrifice those people for some long-term goal that we don't
even have a clear picture of whether it's actually achievable,
number one, and secondly, whether it's beneficial. And what do
you say to her?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we're both looking at protecting the
very same people from the very same concerns that you
articulated. There is nothing in the rules that we have done on
the Clean Power Plan that is going to threaten that woman.
What's going to threaten her and her family is no action on
climate and other efforts that we can take to reduce pollution
that will allow them to have a healthy and viable future.
And we can do this. It is already happening, sir. The very
transition that we are looking at in every State and every
region that said let's look at how we tackle this problem
together, every State and every region is seeing a shift to
clean power. Texas is perhaps the largest producer of renewable
energy in the country.
Mr. Neugebauer. My district is.
Ms. McCarthy. They are not--well, you're not doing it
because of the Clean Power Plan. You're doing it because the
market demands it. Likewise, the Clean Power Plan is
underpinning that to ensure that those investments continue and
that market continues to move in the right direction----
Mr. Neugebauer. But I don't think we need the EPA----
Ms. McCarthy. --for those kids.
Mr. Neugebauer. As the Chairman said, why don't we let the
market determine it? The reason that I have more wind in my
district than any place in the country, one is because of some
very attractive tax credits----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --quite honestly, but the other is----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --you know, obviously, we've got a little
wind out there. But I think the perspective that I'm saying
is----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. --that the mandates--I don't have very many
calls of people say, boy, the air sure is dirty here today.
Would you do something about it? But I do have a lot of calls
in my office with people calling and saying, you know, I can't
afford my electricity bill, I can't afford the gasoline. I
mean, those----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I----
Mr. Neugebauer. --are the calls that I get.
Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to share----
Chairman Smith. Thank----
Ms. McCarthy. --with you some of the calls that--the
information and the communication we get from some of the
communities in Texas and other places. But I appreciate your
point of view, sir, and I want you to know that we are thinking
about those kids, we're thinking about jobs, we're thinking
more than about climate change when we design our rules.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On August 31, 2015, I along with 17 other members of this
committee sent you a letter regarding concerns about the ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards that were in the process
of being finalized. The final ozone rule was issued in October
of last year. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record
our letter dated August 31, 2015.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix]
Mr. Brooks. Several committee hearings in 2015 raised
serious doubts about the underlying science used to justify the
proposed ozone rule. You acknowledged two distinct sets of
scientific studies used during the rulemaking process. The
first set contains large population studies which you yourself
acknowledged as being unreliable. The second set are human
exposure studies of which there are only four such studies that
the EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both
reviewed.
In particular, the committee's letter raised concerns that
the proposed ozone rule was based on a single study by
Schelegle of just 31 individuals, 31 individuals, a remarkably
small and unreliable sample size. More disconcerting was the
inability of the Schelegle study to replicate key results from
two other studies, as we clearly stated in this August 25
letter. In other words, your entire rule depends on one study.
Administrator McCarthy, do you agree that the basis for the
ozone rule relies heavily on this one study by Schelegle?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, sir, I believe it's part of a
weight-of-evidence approach where we have thousands of studies
that have been generated over decades. Ozone is perhaps the----
Mr. Brooks. Okay. That's not answering my question. Please
just answer my question. Do you agree that the ozone rule
relies heavily on this one study by Schelegle, yes or no?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I don't think in an extraordinary
way. I think it relies on the entire weight of the evidence
before us. There are a thousand new studies that were
considered in the latest ozone standard.
Mr. Brooks. As a party of this committee's oversight and
investigations, we requested documents concerning the ozone
role from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has
produced documents to the Committee with massive amounts of
redactions. Administrator McCarthy, these are apparently
PowerPoint presentations titled ``Ozone NAAQS Option Selection
Briefing and Ozone NAAQS Information Briefing.'' Almost the
entirety of it is redacted as nonresponsive to the committee
requests.
So let me just show you some of the stuff that we got.
We've got 65 pages of responses, nonresponsive, nonresponsive,
nonresponsive, nonresponsive, 65 pages. I would submit to you
that these redactions are unacceptable, and I'll ask you today
if you will agree to provide all of these documents to the
Committee without any redactions?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, we have provided this committee and in
the docket of our ozone standard deliberations, it is--probably
would stand this tall if I brought it in. You've got an
integrated----
Mr. Brooks. That's fine. I'm asking are you going to send
to this committee the documents we have requested? I'm not
concerned about documents you have sent. I'm concerned about
documents that have not been sent.
Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know, we----
Mr. Brooks. Will you commit to----
Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know we have provided you full
response, but I will go back and make sure that we have done
that. Redactions are common when it's deliberative material. It
protects our ability to work inside to make sure we do our
jobs.
Mr. Brooks. And so to the extent then that there are
materials that have not been submitted, you're telling this
committee today that you will submit them?
Ms. McCarthy. Only if they're--if they're available to me
and they're appropriate to submit, I will submit them. That is
not a blanket statement that I'm going to provide the Committee
with information that's inappropriate to provide and--or that's
not responsive.
Mr. Brooks. And it seems that a lot of your argument for
these regulations is based on global warming or climate change,
which seems to be the term that's used, but aren't you really
talking about global warming?
Ms. McCarthy. Not the ozone one, sir. That's----
Mr. Brooks. I know not the ozone. I'm going to the broader
brush now----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we tend not to----
Mr. Brooks. --carbon by way of example.
Ms. McCarthy. --call it global coming because it--that is
not particularly an accurate term. It's a changing climate,
which can result in many different types of impacts and----
Mr. Brooks. And is sea rise one of the concerns?
Ms. McCarthy. Sea level rise, yes.
Mr. Brooks. What is the largest body of ice on the planet?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know that, sir. I'm not--I'm not a
scientist. I don't want to answer that.
Mr. Brooks. I'm sorry, you don't know--we're talking about
melting ice that you are arguing is going to increase sea
levels. That in turn is going to cost the American people
billions of dollars to try to rectify it based on these
standards that you're pushing down on them without
Congressional approval, and you're telling me you don't know--
--
Ms. McCarthy. Sir----
Mr. Brooks. --what the largest body of freshwater ice is on
the planet?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I don't agree with the way in which
you've characterized this, but I hesitate to go down the lines
of speaking like a scientist.
Mr. Brooks. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. You've had the President's scientists here--
--
Mr. Brooks. Wait, I've got----
Ms. McCarthy. --that you've been talking with----
Mr. Brooks. --limited time. You don't know that the
Antarctic----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, well----
Mr. Brooks. --continent----
Ms. McCarthy. --I'm aware of the Antarctic, and I'm aware
of the----
Mr. Brooks. --comprises about 70 to 90 percent----
Ms. McCarthy. --yes.
Mr. Brooks. --of the freshwater ice on the planet? I mean,
that's a rather remarkable amount. That's not like there's a
close second place that you have to worry about.
Ms. McCarthy. Is there a question?
Mr. Brooks. Now, have I refreshed your recollection with
respect to the Antarctic being the largest body of freshwater
ice on the planet?
Ms. McCarthy. I'm aware of that.
Mr. Brooks. Now you're aware of that? Okay. That's good.
Now----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Brooks. What a bummer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. But thank you, Mr. Brooks, for those great
questions.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Administrator.
Ms. McCarthy. How are you?
Mr. Bera. I'm doing fine. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking
Member.
I grew up in California, in southern California in the Los
Angeles area in the 1960s, and I recall as a kid there were
days where my mom would not let us go outside because if we did
sneak outside, as kids are known to do sometimes, we'd get out
there playing--we could see the air that we were breathing
sometimes. And when you came in after playing, you could
actually feel the burning in your lungs.
And it was through understanding the damage that was
causing to our population, our people, through enacting laws
either through legislation or companies doing the right thing
and understanding that they had a responsibility that we were
able to clean up the air in Southern California so that we
still have a ways to go. But we were protecting the public. It
was a public health measure through acts like the Clean Air
Act, through acts like the Clean Water Act to impact our public
health.
Now, fast forward. You know, I decided to become a doctor,
went to medical school, went into internal medicine. To this
day we're seeing dramatic increases in asthma rates. We're
seeing impacts that are disproportionately affecting, you know,
urban areas, lower-income communities, communities that don't
have the benefits of some of the rules and regulations that we
have in California, and we've still got a long ways to go. And
that does have a net cost. It has an impact. It has an impact
on individuals; it has an impact on their health.
You know, Administrator, if you could just share from your
perspective some of the public health benefits of, you know,
Clean--the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, some of the things
that--and then some of the negative consequences of trying to
roll back some of the legislation that really in many ways has
helped save and impact hundreds and thousands of lives.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think probably if you're returning to
Los Angeles, you will see the benefits as well as feel it.
We've been talking a lot about this to try to understand what
we're going to do to educate people about what the world looked
like before these environmental statutes actually came into
being and Congress was wise enough to challenge us to limit the
amount of pollution in the air we breathe and the water that we
drink.
I think you know as well as I do that these rules, when
they reduce pollution, it's not an abstract concept; it's a
real-life issue. You know, it has helped to save--and we can
show you certainly our impact assessments. We have showed you
that we are saving millions of lives. We are protecting kids
from exacerbated asthma attacks, from trips to the hospital,
many of which are African-American and Hispanic kids because
that's the ones that have much higher prevalence of asthma.
We are now understanding the cardiovascular challenge that
it poses. If you have, you know, obstructive--what is the
word--pulmonary disease, you are in a lot of trouble on a high
ozone day.
So part of the challenge we have with providing these NAAQS
standards is to try to make sure that people have sound
information to protect their own lives while we work with
States to reduce that actual pollution.
And we have had so much success. We have reduced by 70
percent the amount of air pollution. We are where every other
country wants to be on air pollution. But the more we learn, we
more we know that there continues to be extreme challenges that
we all have to face. We can see it in our drinking water. With
lack of investment in our infrastructure, you are going to see
more and more cities putting their hands up in the air and
saying I cannot deliver drinking--clean drinking water because
nobody's invested in my system for 20 years.
So we are--have to really regroup and remember that we--our
country has had our economic engine roaring ahead because we
have a place where people want to live, where they want to grow
their families, and that's all about making sure that
environmentally we can be safe and healthy.
Mr. Bera. And it's a shame that this body, which
historically has been able to come together as Democrats and
Republicans on issues of public health, on issues of public
safety, is not doing that. And there is an urgency of now.
There is an urgency to prevent the next Flint, to invest in our
public health and our infrastructure because it's not just
about us, it's about our kids, and I don't want my daughter or
my grandchildren eventually to go out and be able to see the
air that they're breathing. I want that air to be cleaner and
healthier.
So thank you for what you're doing, and then let's buy it
for the next generation. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Administrator
McCarthy, good to see you again.
Ms. McCarthy. You, too.
Mr. Posey. And let me just follow up what the last speaker
was saying. I believe everybody on both sides of the aisle on
this committee most certainly wants clean air in the most
honest, efficient way possible and transparent way possible.
Last year, EPA proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion
of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars.
The regulation would have made the sale of certain products for
use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was
contained within a non-related proposal entitled ``greenhouse
gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, phase 2.''
In response to the behavior, members of both the U.S. House
of Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced legislation
with bipartisan support, I might add, that would clarify the
Clean Air Act to explain that it has always been illegal to
modify a street vehicle into a racecar.
It appears that three EPA employees, Mr. Brooks, a Ms.
Werner, and a Mr. Belser, were involved with placing the
provision in the rulemaking process. When those EPA officials
briefed our committee staff on this issue, they readily
admitted to conducting no scientific analysis on the impacts of
the regulation whatsoever and with no scientific underpinnings.
Your staff was questioned on the secretive nature of notifying
the proposed regulation.
Again, your staff confessed that YouTube videos of diesel
trucks co-rolling hybrid vehicles was the primary motivation
for the proposed regulation. They even brought pictures of the
YouTube videos to illustrate their concerns. That reasoning,
frankly, is embarrassing. I hope it is to you, too, and a clear
overreach by your staff and the EPA who is charged with
rulemaking based on sound science, as you say often, not of
unsubstantiated videos posted on the Internet. In fact, your
agency was forced to drop the controversial language from the
heavy- and medium-duty truck rule, and thank you for that.
The question is do you agree now with sneaking a provision
into an unrelated rule without conducting any scientific
analysis whatsoever and based on YouTube videos is not the
proper way to do rulemaking?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me begin by saying that EPA
supports the motorsports industry and it contributes
tremendously to our economy and our contributions.
I will have to say that this turned out to be a very
misunderstood and misinterpreted step to try to clarify
existing law. It was never intended to change the playing
field----
Mr. Posey. Okay. I read those reports----
Ms. McCarthy. --so they----
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next question
here.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Posey. Have any steps been taken to reprimand or
discipline the officials involved in sneaking this provision
into the rule?
Ms. McCarthy. I disagree with the characterization that it
was sneaking. They were intending to put clarification in in a
heavy-duty vehicle rule about vehicles. Was--did it turn out to
be a surprise and something we certainly should have discussed
before? I think we should have discussed it. I don't like
surprises any more than you do. I don't think they intended it
to be nefarious in any way. They were clarifying for the
benefit of what they believed to be the racing industry.
Mr. Posey. I'm still concerned that EPA wants to regulate
the amateur racing community and those who use non-road
vehicles for racing. It is my understanding that the Clean Air
Act never had the intent to regulate these vehicles, as you've
indicated, and that subsequent report you've heard.
Ms. McCarthy. Dedicated racing vehicles have never been a
focus of our attention, and the question was could the--could
we be clearer about that. And I think that's what the intent of
the language was, but I understand your concern.
Mr. Posey. Okay. So can you assure the American people
beyond any shadow of doubt that non-road vehicles modified
specifically for the purpose of racing will be exempt from the
Clean Air Act in the future?
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is that we have considered
them to be exempt since day one as long as you have dedicated
racing vehicles. Our concern is just with companies that may be
selling these sort of defeat devices for on-road vehicles.
Mr. Posey. Well, and the racing community wants you to
chomp down on those people.
Ms. McCarthy. That's exactly right.
Mr. Posey. You know, but----
Ms. McCarthy. That is true. That is true.
Mr. Posey. We would just like to have your personal
assurance that, you know, you say they're exempt now, but there
will be no future efforts to change that exemption.
Ms. McCarthy. If we--in the future--when I'm here, if we
want to resolve this issue and clarify it, we will work with
the industry and stakeholders to make sure that we do it in a
way that they understand it and we all agree that it's written
as intended.
Mr. Posey. Okay. So you--are you giving me the assurance
and the American people that non-road vehicles modified
specifically for the purpose of racing will be exempt from the
Clean Air Act?
Ms. McCarthy. As long as they are dedicated racing
vehicles, they are exempt, and as far as I know----
Mr. Posey. Is that a yes?----
Ms. McCarthy. --they will be.
Mr. Posey. Can I just take that as a yes?
Ms. McCarthy. As long as it's phrased the way I said it,
absolutely.
Mr. Posey. All right.
Ms. McCarthy. But I--you know, I do want to apologize
because I know this raised a lot of issues, and frankly, it
came out of conversations with the racing industry. It wasn't
done well, not the way we generally do it, which is to road-
test--sorry the pun----
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. --but to talk to people about it, and we will
make sure that that doesn't happen again.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director McCarthy, thank you for being here.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. In your discussion with Randy Neugebauer, you
said that Texas probably was the leading clean energy producer
in the country----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --and I can tell you from being from Texas,
having worked on the Environmental Reg Committee, that it is,
wind industry.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it's amazing.
Mr. Weber. And then you also said that you're not doing it
because the Clean Power Plan requires it but because the market
demands it.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. So Texas--the Texas Legislature, the Texas
energy industry if you will was a little foresightful in that
regard, wouldn't you say?
Ms. McCarthy. I think that they--obviously, they were very
forward-leaning----
Mr. Weber. They were----
Ms. McCarthy. --and they took advantage of a lot of
investment----
Mr. Weber. Very foresightful.
Ms. McCarthy. --for your state.
Mr. Weber. And Texans are benefiting from that now,
wouldn't you say?
Ms. McCarthy. I would hope so.
Mr. Weber. Right, absolutely. So you would argue that--you
would say--agree that the Texas Legislature had a legitimate
purview and did the right thing for Texas constituents, and
their constituents are benefiting from it? The reason I ask is
because of the Clean Power Plan. Now 26 states, including
Texas, which took the lead, by the way, filed a suit against
the Clean Power Plan citing it as overreach----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --and the Supreme Court seems to have, at least
for the interim, agreed. Would you agree----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, they've stayed it.
Mr. Weber. They've--until they can look at it further.
Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
Mr. Weber. So in staying it, what they've said is that
apparently there's some merit here, we better take a look at it
and not just remand it to the lower court decision?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, they certainly stayed it----
Mr. Weber. Okay. So----
Ms. McCarthy. --that's right.
Mr. Weber. So, in essence, if the Texas Legislature has
that kind of overview, purview, shouldn't Congress have the
same kind of overview on the Clean Power Plan in those actions?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the Supreme Court will certainly get
their eyes on this again.
Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad you recognize that. I appreciate
that.
What I want to ask is that, last month, EPA released its
proposed renewable fuel standard, the RFS rule, setting the
renewable fuel volumes for 2017.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Now, under the proposed rule, the EPA requires
18.8 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into the
fuel supply by 2017, which is actually an increase from the
EPA's 2016 rule. The proposed rule increases biofuel volumes in
every category, even though the United States is currently not
on track to meet the 2016 targets. So here's my--right? You
understand that?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. So here's my question. Do you believe that the
proposed RFS rule for 2017 is achievable?
Ms. McCarthy. We proposed it because we believe so, but it
is in a comment period, and we're certainly welcoming those
comments----
Mr. Weber. I'm happy to hear you say that. The EPA's
proposing to increase cellulosic biofuel volumes----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --by 82 million RINs even though the United
States is on track to produce only less than half of the 2016
mandate. So if you've looked at it and you've proposed it
because you think it can be done, you're proposing to increase
the advanced biofuel volumes even though the trend suggests
that on the current path we're on we're going to see a 380
million RIN shortfall in 2016. The reality is the EPA has
proposed an increase in the RINs with no demonstrable way to
meet that mandate.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay. Well, again, we're welcoming comments,
but in the packet itself----
Mr. Weber. Well, if we can't meet 2016 and you're
increasing in 2017, how do you propose that to happen?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, you know, we are taking a look at
what we know is happening in 2016, what's available to us
because it's a long year. It's not quite over.
Mr. Weber. Well, let me just argue in the last minute that
I've got----
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Weber. --that I would say just as the Texas Legislature
demonstrated its foresightfulness in helping be the wind-
producing state that it is, how about Congress being given
credit for having some foresightfulness, too, when we think the
EPA has overstepped its bounds and is promulgating rules that
are unrealistic? It ought to be up to us to point that out so
that our constituents benefit as well, and I just want to make
that point.
I do want to segue to a little bit different topic. It's
come out that some EPA employees were using their personal
emails for official business in an apparent effort to evade
Congressional oversight. Now, in our estimation, this is a
violation of the Federal Records Act. What do you intend to do
about it?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what issue you're referring to,
sir. We've certainly had many discussions about the use of
private emails. We've had an OIG investigation into that issue,
and I am unaware of any evidence to suggest that we're trying
to subvert the normal process or not complying at this point
with all of the rules and regulations that govern----
Mr. Weber. So you're unaware of any violations in that
regard?
Ms. McCarthy. I am unaware that anyone has indicated that
we have a systemic problem with using emails to subvert the
process and subvert----
Mr. Weber. Well, I didn't say systemic; I said any.
Ms. McCarthy. You--I'm sorry, sir. You're going to have to
show me that because all the times that I've been here, you
know, we certainly had an IG. They did not verify that there
was--that this was a practice in EPA, so I feel pretty good
about where we are. And if there's information that you want to
provide me, I'm happy to look at that.
Mr. Weber. You're going on record today saying that you
don't have any evidence of that in any of the Agency at all?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm not suggesting that there hasn't
been, you know, an email that--a specific incidence, but to
suggest that we're doing it to subvert a--the public process is
what I am objecting to. You know, you will get oftentimes
people sending--receiving something on their email. We have a
direct policy that speaks to how you enter that in, if it's
work-related, into the public process and to meet all of our
federal obligations----
Mr. Weber. Does that also apply to the Pebble Mine
investigation?
Ms. McCarthy. The Pebble Mine investigation is
multifaceted. Folks have been----
Mr. Weber. I'm talking about them using personal emails and
corresponding.
Ms. McCarthy. There have been--I do know that there was a
gap when a person left the agency where we had trouble locating
their emails and we've been trying to fill that gap----
Mr. Weber. Okay. So you are aware. That kind of contradicts
what you said earlier, you weren't aware.
Ms. McCarthy. No, you asked me if someone was using their
private system to subvert the public process. I am----
Mr. Weber. So you know that they potentially did it in the
Pebble Mine incident but you haven't been able to find those
emails?
Ms. McCarthy. If there a potential, I would like to be able
to address the situation.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator
McCarthy----
Ms. McCarthy. How are you?
Mr. Moolenaar. --thanks for being here with us.
First of all, I want to commend you. You apologized for the
rule, the racing vehicle rule. You heard the feedback from
stakeholders. You withdrew the rule, and you responded very
promptly, and I want to--you know, I actually have a business
in my district that really--that would have basically put them
out of business, and so I want to thank you for that, first of
all.
Now, I want to tell you about another rule that has people
in my district very concerned, farmers, property owners, home
builders. That's the Waters of the U.S. Rule, and I would say
that the EPA's approach, that has been very different when you
consider that 32 states are suing the federal government over
this, where the goal was to offer clarity and clearly that has
not happened. I feel that the stakeholders involved in that are
still very concerned about it, and I'm sure you hear from them,
although I am also concerned about some of the, you know,
social media efforts to promote the rule, lobby for the rule,
if you will, that didn't give you really very accurate
feedback, and I know your goal has been to clarify aspects of
the Clean Water Act but I would suggest that rather than what
happened before where I commended you, this has been just the
opposite, and it has added further confusion. And are you
hearing that from people?
Ms. McCarthy. I am certainly hearing that people continue
to both be for and against the Clean Water Rule but it is a
final rule, and it is in court and we'll see where that
litigation proceeds. Do I wish I could have had one moment
where everybody would understand and agree? I wish I had it. I
don't have it on this rule.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I think it's pretty strong indication
when a majority of Congress has voted to disapprove of the rule
and 32 states are suing over that rule so I don't know if
there's anything you can do to rescind it or modify it at this
point but I would encourage you to reach out to the
stakeholders to do something new on that because it's still
more confusion and more concern throughout Michigan.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I appreciate that, and I'll do the best
I can to reach out. I mean, it's primarily the agricultural
industry that's worried about it and our farmers, and you know,
I think what I'm most concerned about is that I paid very close
attention to their comments and concerns, and in finalizing the
rule, I went above and beyond the exemptions and exclusions in
that rule.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I don't-
Ms. McCarthy. I did everything I could not just to protect
it but go beyond it. That's what confuses me and concerns me.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Well, I would just encourage you to
reach back out and see what----
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that.
Mr. Moolenaar. --can be done. I know there's a company, and
you may have heard about this, that has been working for 30
years to get a 404 CWA permit. Are you familiar with the ESG
companies?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I don't believe so.
Mr. Moolenaar. They recently testified in the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the vice
president stated that the EPA is working to change the rules
again with the regulation, WOTUS, that would redefine the scope
of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. They are trying
to accomplish this by adding new terms, definitions and
interpretations of federal authority over private property that
are more subjective and provide them with greater discretionary
latitude, and you know, I'm just concerned that that may be an
indication of what other companies are experiencing, and I
think you know that Justice Kennedy stated that the region's
systemic consequences of the Clean Water Act remain a cause of
concern. So I would just again encourage you to revisit this.
I've only got a minute left, but I also want to talk to you
about Flint because--and I had hoped that there might be some
Democrats here who would want to, you know--because I know
there was significant interest a while back from the Democrats
on what happened in Flint, and----
Ms. McCarthy. And there still remains a lot of concern.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, and you know, is the water in Flint
safe to drink?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, right now we're using filters and
bottled water but we're making progress and we're hoping that
there'll be some new testing done actually this month and
available to us early next to tell us whether we've now got the
system where it needs to be.
Mr. Moolenaar. And then do you--I mean, in hindsight, do
you wish you would have listened to Miguel del Toral, who kind
of raised this issue almost a year in advance before the EPA
took action to address the problem? I mean, he's an EPA
employee, and at some point people weren't listening to him.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm not sure whether he would
characterize it that way so I don't want to speak for him, but
had I known earlier the situation that was happening in Flint,
I absolutely would have raised a red flag from the highest
mountaintop.
Mr. Moolenaar. And do you feel----
Ms. McCarthy. And the fact is, I did not.
Mr. Moolenaar. A while back you told me that you believed
the EPA Region 5 Administrator, Susan Hedman, was a hero.
Ms. McCarthy. That's right.
Mr. Moolenaar. My sense is that she should have been the
one on point listening to the employee who was raising these
concerns and taking action. I don't consider that heroic, and I
guess I'm wondering if in hindsight that should have been
addressed at the region level.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, as you know, she did resign her
position because I think she felt that she should have known
and wanted to make sure that wasn't distraction on us focusing
on the people in Flint, and I think it resulted in that.
You know, I think there are a lot of failures in the
system. We're trying to address those and the way in which we
work and do oversight, but it was an extraordinarily
challenging circumstance that in hindsight, if we could have
addressed it earlier, it would have been all the better. So I
can--I'm not defending the agency or anybody on Flint. The only
thing I'm doing is trying to fix the situation and learn from
it as best I can and make sure that there are no other Flints
out there, and we'll do the best from this point forward.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
here, Administrator McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Babin. On April 28th, this Committee heard testimony
from Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLaren about the EPA's
efforts to limit the potential Pebble Mine project by using
Section 402(c) of the Clean Water Act before the project had
even applied for a permit.
Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
Mr. Babin. The Committee demonstrated to Mr. McLaren that
it has uncovered that EPA employees used non-official email
accounts to discuss the Pebble Mine matter with mine opponents
and determined that EPA employee Phil North provided edits and
suggestions to a petition letter, which EPA claims is the
impetus for starting the preemptive 404(c) process. The EPA
Office of Inspector General found in agreement with your agency
that this official may have misused his position as a federal
government employee, and according to documents and deposition
testimony received by this Committee prove that the petition
from Alaska Native tribes the stated impetus for Region 10's
Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment was in fact drafted with the
help of at least one EPA employee.
Doesn't this fact along with other EPA briefing materials
and communications prove that the assessment was done solely to
provide the political cover for an eventual Pebble veto?
Doesn't this in fact prove that?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I don't want to speak to anybody's
motivations and we'll certainly address the issues that you've
raised, but the motivation for taking action under 404(c) was
multifaceted, the first and foremost being the value of Bristol
Bay and the amount of jobs that Bristol Bay provides----
Mr. Babin. But they had not had a chance to even file their
plan yet, so how would you know that?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, they have had ample years prior to us
using--initiating this process, and they continue to have
opportunities to submit a permit. The simple issue is that they
were disrupting that area in a way that made us worry about
our----
Mr. Babin. Well, it just seems----
Ms. McCarthy. --ability to----
Mr. Babin. It seems very, very specious that one of your
employees would be helping to draft this type of a document.
Next question. The Committee has uncovered documents that
show that EPA employee Richard Parkin stressed the following
before a group supportive of EPA's action to stop the Pebble
Mine: ``While a 404(c) determination would be based on science,
politics are as big or a bigger factor.'' Does this concern you
that this was the sentiment of a career employee or employees
at the EPA with regard to the agency's determination regarding
the Pebble Mine?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again----
Mr. Babin. Does that not raise a red flag with you?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again, I have no idea what he was
referring to or talking about. I know what----
Mr. Babin. What he was referring to is that politics----
Ms. McCarthy. --actually happened at the agency.
Mr. Babin. --would be as important or more important than
the science. That doesn't concern you?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what politics he's talking
about. I know the reality of decision-making in the agency. I
know why we moved down this road, and I know what we were
trying to protect, and you know, one of the missing pieces that
I just want to make sure you are aware of is that in the
history of the EPA and its relationship with the Corps on
404(c), the Corps has done two million permits. We have only 13
times ever used this, and it's because of the uniqueness of
that resource----
Mr. Babin. This----
Ms. McCarthy. --and the challenge that the tribes had that
rely on that salmon fishery.
Mr. Babin. All right. Peer reviewers repeatedly warned EPA
that the assessment was insufficient as a basis for a
regulatory decision, a claim that the EPA publicly agreed with.
Why did the agency then rely exclusively on the assessment when
it launched the 404(c) determination?
Ms. McCarthy. It didn't, sir. The assessment wasn't part of
the 404(c). The assessment was looking at the value of the
watershed. The documentation that was produced in the 404(c)
process by the region was actually the policy and regulatory
action. Did it consider the science? Absolutely, but that
science document was not a policy document or a regulatory
document.
Mr. Babin. It sounds like the politics trumped the science
to begin with.
Ms. McCarthy. I don't consider policy to be politics or
regulations to be. They're entirely different vehicles and I
think appropriate to use for the agency.
Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you.
Isn't it true and hasn't your agency openly acknowledged
that a preemptive veto of this kind had never been done before
in the history of the Clean Water Act? Wasn't this the first of
its kind?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't--I'm not--I don't know. I don't--I
can't answer with certainly. I'm happy to get back to you on
it.
Mr. Babin. I hope so.
Well, anyway, my time's expired, Mr. Chairman, so I thank
you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator,
welcome.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. You always do your job with great forcefulness
and intellect, so we thank you for that.
Today's hearing appears to be a revival of hearings we've
held before, proposals that strengthen standards to protect
public health and to protect our environment, an environment
that we're going to then extend to the next generations, and
claims that meeting these standards will be too costly,
possibly not achievable, and in general a serious drag on our
economy. So, you know, here we go again. So I have a few
questions for you.
Let me start where you just ended. Proponents of the Pebble
Mine accuse EPA, particularly Phil North, of inappropriately
colluding with tribal groups. Region 10, I'm informed,
according to the EPA website, includes some 271 Native tribes
in its jurisdiction. Can you speak to EPA's special
responsibility to tribal governments, and if you could,
Administrator, compare that with EPA's relationship with the
given states and outside interest groups?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, with the tribes, we have, I think
you know, a very special relationship because we treat them as
government entities. We have a trust responsibility in our work
with the tribes, and I think we paid very strong attention to
the tribes as well as states that had concerns about protecting
what is one of our most precious resources, Bristol Bay and its
salmon fisheries, and we worked very closely with both the
states but most importantly, there are tribes there whose
culture depends on salmon. It is their livelihood as well as
the focus of their lives and their community, and I think we
were very cognizant of that when the region was looking at
whether or not 404(c) was an appropriate step to take. For
states, work with states and local communities, in general, we
have a partnership relationship with them. They are co-
regulators for many of the work we do. We delegate
responsibilities to them and we try to be a good partner in
terms of providing the kind of web of protection that Congress
intended.
Mr. Tonko. Well, we appreciate that, and again, thank you
for the leadership that you provide the agency and the country.
Let me switch to CASAC, the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee. I believe it was created in 1977 with the Clean Air
Act Amendments. Their first report on ozone came out in the
mid-1980s, and there have been a number of subsequent reviews
over the past 35 years with much new research since the
original report. Has CASAC found that ozone is less of a health
risk than 1980s science determined that it was?
Ms. McCarthy. No. They actually on the basis of much more
robust science understand just how damaging ozone is to our
public health.
Mr. Tonko. And does it contribute less to other
environmental problems--damage to plants, to visibility and
other effects?
Ms. McCarthy. No. We understand it's more than we had
anticipated then.
Mr. Tonko. So, if anything, research over the years has
confirmed that ozone is a health risk and an environmental
problem. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct. That was the basis of recent
decisions that were made, yes.
Mr. Tonko. And have past standards been criticized on the
basis of their projected costs and/or benefits?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, most, if not all, yes.
Mr. Tonko. Well, it's interesting because I believe that
it's clear that we have been able to achieve cleaner air and
grow the economy as we have strengthened the standards. Is that
now not indeed the outcome?
Ms. McCarthy. That's very accurate, yes.
Mr. Tonko. And is there any reason to believe we cannot
keep that record going?
Ms. McCarthy. No.
Mr. Tonko. You know, will the states have flexibility and
discretion to determine how they might meet new standards in
the most cost-effective manner?
Ms. McCarthy. In the wisdom of Congress, that's how it was
defined and designed, yes.
Mr. Tonko. And as I understand it, EPA and others have
estimated the benefits achieved by lowering the ozone standard.
Can you please elaborate on what those benefits are about?
Ms. McCarthy. Sure. Give me one second to pull it up. The
benefits--the health benefits are estimated to be $2.9 to $5.96
billion. That relates to issues relative to our kids in
reducing asthma attacks and visits to the hospital. It has to
do with cardiovascular improvements for adults and especially
the elderly. So it's direct public health benefits, which
considerably outweigh the costs, which are estimated to be $1.4
billion.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. You know, I've exhausted my time, but
I do want to thank you for leading the fight for clean air,
clean water, response to climate change, a legacy that will
imprint itself not only for this given political generation but
for generations to follow.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this discussion
a little different direction, if I may. I have a video I'd like
for Administrator McCarthy to watch along with everyone in the
room.
[Video playback].
Mr. Palmer. You know, it's very easy to sit here and have
this discussion about all these regulations and try to deny
that they have an impact on people but, you know, you are
having an impact on people and unnecessarily so. You've
destroyed thousands of jobs. You've impacted thousands of
families, not just Alabama families but families all over the
country, and I don't look at them as collateral damage. I mean,
here's a guy who one of those families sat there and he cried
through the interview. You got another guy whose wife's
diagnosed with cancer right after he lost his job, two
daughters having to drop out of college. You know, there's a
price to pay for this, and you know, you may deny that this is
impacting things.
You know, the Energy Information Administration projects
EPA's Clean Power Plan is going to kill 376,000 jobs in 2030,
reduce GDP by about $58 billion. You've got a room full of
young people here that all they're hearing is this climate
change agenda. You talk about asthma. Asthma rates have gone up
even though air quality has dramatically improved. You're not
getting the whole story here, and I think the American public
needs to get the whole story.
You talk about it impacts people. I just want to read you
some highlights from a recent report by Mr. Oren Cass, who
testified before our Committee this past December, and I'm
submitting this report, Mr. Chairman, for the record.
``President Obama's policies for tackling climate change would
impose heavy costs borne disproportionately by lower income
U.S. households.'' There's been a lot of talk today about how
important is to take care of lower income people. His Clean
Power Plan and proposal for a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax or
equivalent of a 25 to 30 per-ton carbon tax would cost
American's poorest families tens of billions of dollars per
year. For households in the lowest quintile, such policies are
equivalent to more than 160 percent of federal income tax.
I just want to share something with you. Again, the
National Energy Assistance Survey shows that because of the
difficulty they face in paying utility bills, these households
are forced to make choices that carry serious health risk. As
many as thirty-seven percent went without medical or dental
care. Thirty-four percent did not fill a prescription or took
less than their full dose of prescribed medications. In
addition, twenty-four percent went without food at least one
day, and nineteen percent became sick because the home was too
cold. These were decisions that low-income people made because
their energy costs went up because of the EPA's policies, and
we're talking again hundreds of thousands of jobs that have
been lost.
Administrator McCarthy, if you don't remember anything else
out of this hearing today, I want you to remember the faces and
the voices of the people who have had their lives absolutely
destroyed by the EPA's policies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
And the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator McCarthy, for being here today.
I would like to go back to the line of questioning that
Representative Lucas brought up, the glyphosate studies that
were done, and for the benefit of those who haven't been
following this and those who may be watching on television, let
me just go back to review. This is a herbicide that is widely
used both commercially and residentially. I've used a
particular product to kill weeds. It does a very good job at
it. In 1986, the EPA ruled or classified this as a group B
chemical, which in layman's terms says there's no evidence that
it causes concern. We are determining that there's no evidence
that it does. And then in 1991, it was classified by the EPA as
a group E, which says there is evidence that it does not cause
cancer. So it sounds like we're finding out that this is
actually a safer product than what we actually envisioned it to
be.
Then there was a term, because in March of 2015 the
International Agency for Research on Cancer did a study saying
that it probably is carcinogenic, it probably does cause
cancer, which from what it appears as it prompted the EPA to do
another study, which I can understand. Somebody else says that
it probably does cause cancer, then we're going to study it for
ourself. But in September 16th of 2015, the Cancer Assessment
Review Committee of the EPA basically countered what the
international study and said it's not likely to be carcinogenic
to humans.
So with that, my question to you is, did any EPA officials
work on IARC's glyphosate review?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me just clarify one thing if I
might, and then I'll answer your question. It wasn't what
prompted the review.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. This was a standard regulatory----
Mr. Loudermilk. So it was just a regular review?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. But here we got an international committee
that says something different than what our team of scientists
have determined. So--but we came up with something different.
Was anyone at the EPA actually working with IARC or
participating in that review?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, nobody was involved in the question
of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. We had three EPA
employees. One was actually there as an observer. He
participated----
Mr. Loudermilk. But did not--who was that?
Ms. McCarthy. Hang on one second and I will----
Mr. Loudermilk. Was that Peter Egeghy?
Ms. McCarthy. Hang on. We had--while I'm looking, I'll give
you the names.
Mr. Loudermilk. We have limited time so----
Ms. McCarthy. One was--participated in information relative
to exposure.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. It was not relative to the carcinogenicity.
None of them had any----
Mr. Loudermilk. No one participated in the work?
Ms. McCarthy. And one had to do with some of the tox
information and how we helped them categorize it.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Your staff did indicate to us that
Matthew Martin participated in the IARC conference but did not
participate in the glyphosate review.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, and I have a Mr. Egeghy.
Mr. Loudermilk. Egeghy?
Ms. McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Loudermilk. And he did do some limited participation.
Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. He actually just--he helped to draft and
review portions of the human exposure. There were a number of
pesticides being looked at at the same time.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. It really had nothing to do with its
carcinogenicity.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. He looked at how it was used and that kind of
thing.
Mr. Loudermilk. And this was all in Lyon, France, with the
112----
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know where he was when he was----
Mr. Loudermilk. Can we bring up the slide? I have an email,
if you could bring that slide up, and this email--obviously it
was Frank is responding to--or Matt is responding to Frank, who
is part of the IARC, and if you notice on the first line of the
original email, it says ``First, may I repeat it was a real
pleasure to meet and work with you for IARC monograph volume
112,'' which is the subject that we're talking about. And of
course, the subject of the email is ``DZN and GLY'' which is
indicating that glyphosate is what they're talking about. If
Mr. Martin was not involved in glyphosate review, why is on the
email chain with the team that was working on that?
Ms. McCarthy. I can go back and look but I am--I have asked
a number of times, and my understanding is that none of these
individuals were there in the EPA capacity to participate in
the issue of carcinogenicity.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. Clearly, we have understanding of glyphosate
and the other pesticides that were being looked at.
Mr. Loudermilk. Can we pull up the next slide as well?
[Slide]
Mr. Loudermilk. In our second slide here--excuse me, let me
make sure I get my proper slides up----
Ms. McCarthy. My glasses are good but not that good.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, this is again an email that's to a
distribution list of those who were working on the glyphosate
review, and Mr. Martin is also included on this, which this
happens to be a list of talking points of how to answer the
questions on glyphosate. So again, my question is, if he didn't
participate in the glyphosate review--here's what I'm getting
at.
Ms. McCarthy. He----
Mr. Loudermilk. I'm concerned that there is some
interference between EPA and the IARC, and let me jump to one
other----
Ms. McCarthy. Could I just clarify on Mr. Martin? He
apparently was involved in the review for glyphosate but he
didn't participate in the issues relative to its
carcinogenicity. So I just wanted to make that clear. That was
an entirely separate part of the----
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, Mr. Jess Rowland was the lead--he was
the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee that did
the actual report that was contrary to what the IARC--and we
would like to be very interested in interviewing Mr. Rowland
but I understand that he is retired from the EPA. Do you know
when he retired?
Ms. McCarthy. May of 2016. He went there as an observer. As
far I know, he did not participate in the IARC process. Can I
clarify? Because I made a mistake.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Very quickly.
Ms. McCarthy. It says Mr. Martin was a computational
toxicologist. He wasn't involved in the IARC review for
glyphosate but he did participate in the IARC conference on
other matters, and we have no toxicological data on glyphosate
so he couldn't have contributed to the carcinogenicity issue.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, one of the lines in the email thanked
him for his work but----
Ms. McCarthy. Well----
Mr. Loudermilk. --let me move forward because I'm really
interested in Mr. Rowland and his retirement.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Loudermilk. Does his retirement have anything to do
with the controversy over the CARC report?
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of. He worked for the
agency for many years is my understanding.
Mr. Loudermilk. Have you investigated whether or not these
circumstances are linked? It's just interesting, right after
this report comes out that is contrary to what the
international agency has determined that--now--and I have the
report here if we can bring it up. It is stamped as a final
report----
Ms. McCarthy. It's a final memo.
Mr. Loudermilk. --which--well, it actually says ``final
report,'' not memo on the page, which indicates to me this is
final, it's done, but you can understand the concern we have
here is that it's a final report but maybe it didn't turn out
the way that you anticipated it would so now we need to study
it a little bit more.
Ms. McCarthy. I know that the mistake that was made by the
contractor to post this has caused all kinds of conspiracy
theories to erupt but there's nothing that's unusual about the
process we're following with this and we'll do it on the basis
of the science----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman----
Ms. McCarthy. --and I don't want you to think that anyone,
including me, is prejudging what our scientists say about this.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
Loudermilk.
And the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, thank you. I was pleased earlier
that you were personally familiar with the Waters of the U.S.
Rule as you discussed with my colleague from Michigan, and my
understanding is that this rule was a joint rule between the
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Davidson. Were you aware that the Army Corps of
Engineers raised some technical concerns? Were they in the end
supportive of your rule?
Ms. McCarthy. That's my--that certainly is my understanding
in my communication with the Assistant Secretary who oversees
the Corps, yes.
Mr. Davidson. Are you familiar with concerns that they
raised during the rulemaking process?
Ms. McCarthy. Not each of them because that was handled at
the career staff level.
Mr. Davidson. Are you familiar with a series of memos known
as Peabody memos from Major General Peabody?
Ms. McCarthy. I am now aware of them, yes.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. Are you aware that in a 27 April 2015
memo, General Peabody says ``The just-completed review reveals
that the draft final rule continues to depart significantly
from the version provided for public comment.''
Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that a few memos were written. I
was not aware of them at the time but that's an internal Army
Corps issue that I assume was raised and resolved during----
Mr. Davidson. They weren't talking about what they shared
with the public. They were talking about what you shared with
the public.
Ms. McCarthy. No, they actually issued the proposal with us
and issued the final as well.
Mr. Davidson. It seems to me that they raised the concern
that what was being shared with the public is what's different
than what was in the final rule, what was in the rulemaking
process.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, my belief is that you listen to public
comment and you make changes that you think are reasonable
after deliberating on that. That was the process that we
followed.
Mr. Davidson. Did you listen to the Army Corps?
Ms. McCarthy. We certainly did. They were a partner in
this. They had to sign off on it. They issued the rule with us.
It was jointly done.
Mr. Davidson. Do you know why in a May 15th, 2015,
concluding statement to a memo, General Peabody would conclude
``We stand ready to assist the EPA in improving the technical
analysis and to develop logically supportable conclusions for
these documents if and when requested.''?
Ms. McCarthy. It sounds like a collaborative partnership.
Mr. Davidson. It sounds like he's got concerns that the
documents are not logically supportable and that perhaps they
were not previously requested, therefore, they were ready, to
me.
Earlier in this memo, he provides the support for his
conclusion. He says, ``To briefly summarize, our technical
review of both documents indicate that the core data provided
the EPA has been selectively applied out of context and mixes
terminology and disparate data sets. In the Corps' judgments,
the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with
no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical
deficiencies and logical inconsistencies. As a result, the
Corps' review could not find a justifiable basis in the
analysis for many of the document's conclusions. The Corps
would be happy to undertake a comprehensive review with the EPA
to help improve these supporting documents, which we recognize
are critical to the rulemaking.'' Have you read that before?
Ms. McCarthy. I may have, sir, but that was an internal
Army Corps issue, and again, the Army Corps signed off on this
so those issues had to have been internally resolved between
them and us and certainly internally at the Corps.
Mr. Davidson. Don't those concerns fit with the pattern
that the Chairman of this Committee has raised with you, that
in fact, the EPA has been selective in applying this? This is
not just some pernicious claim, this is supported by what's
actually happening by our uniformed officers. This is a general
in our Army. Would you recognize the Army Corps as an
authoritative body with respect to rulemaking on the Waters of
the United States?
Ms. McCarthy. Which is why I was satisfied by them signing
off on the rule itself. There is much deliberation that goes on
among the staff. I think that's healthy. I think we should
challenge one another so our rule is legally sound and based on
science.
Mr. Davidson. It seems to me that the Army Corps' advice
was ignored and by a political appointee, the Administrator,
disregarded what the sound science of the Army Corps was doing.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but there's enough
concerns that there's a stay thankfully blocking the
implementation of this rule.
Earlier you spoke with one of our colleagues, and in fact,
the Chairman, about saying that the EPA does not distort the
market and in fact follows the market. Is that your view of
what the EPA does?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe in the Clean Power Plan, we
recognized a market--the market transition in the energy world,
and we did our best to follow it knowing full well that that
was the least and most cost-effective way to do it.
Mr. Davidson. If you don't distort the market, then what is
it that you're actually accomplishing if you're not actually
steering the market in some way?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're doing our--under the law what
we're required to do, which is follow the Clean Air Act, which
actually requires us to address pollution that endangers public
health.
Mr. Davidson. Are you attempting to steer the market with
respect to your pending 4,000-page rule on medium-duty diesel
engines?
Ms. McCarthy. I'm not--we are not attempting to steer the
market. In this issue, we are attempting to reduce pollution.
What we try to do is understand where the market is heading so
that we can get the most cost-effective, flexible way to
achieve the reductions while letting the market drive how to
get there. That is exactly what we did with the Clean Power
Plan, and we do it every opportunity we can get.
Mr. Davidson. My time is expired. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
And the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is
recognized.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator
McCarthy, I believe that you desire to see the United States
lead the world in environmental protection. Is that a fair
statement?
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly to the extent that Congress gives
me that charge.
Mr. Westerman. Are there other countries or regions of the
world that are doing good things for the environment such as
Western Europe, U.K., or the Netherlands?
Ms. McCarthy. I'm sure that every country is doing the best
they can and some have very interesting programs that they've
initiated.
Mr. Westerman. So any of those in particular that----
Ms. McCarthy. Nothing that I want to highlight, no.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. Secretary Vilsack sent a letter to the
U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in which
he wrote, ``The U.S. wood pellet industry increases our
forested area, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and improves
U.S. forest management practice.'' He went on to state,
``Demand for wood pellets also delivers compelling carbon and
societal benefits to the United States. Independent analysis
undertaken has consistently shown that demand for wood pellets
promotes U.S. forest growth and reduces risk to U.S. forests.''
And without objection, I'm going to submit this letter for the
record.
[The information appears in Appendix]
Mr. Westerman. Given this stated position of the Secretary
of Agriculture, how will EPA take into account these comments
in the scientific analysis on which it is based?
Ms. McCarthy. We are in the middle of looking at different
types of biomass for its use and how we can account for the
greenhouse gas benefits. We are in a science process with our
Science Advisory Board to develop an appropriate accounting
process for that. So we're excited to be able to make progress
in that because we do believe that there are many types of
biomass that really will provide us an opportunity to move
forward with----
Mr. Westerman. Do you disagree----
Ms. McCarthy. --reductions in greenhouse gases.
Mr. Westerman. --with the Secretary's position, what he
stated about wood pellets and the use of biomass and wood
pellets? Is there still science to be determined on that or the
science that he based his analysis on correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to talk to him and see what is the
basis of his letter. I don't think that we're in disagreement.
I think he knows that we're in a process to try to better
account for those emissions.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. And I was jotting down a few of the
things you were saying earlier about people are expecting us to
take reasonable actions, that you're following the science. I
hope that you would continue to do that.
You also said that the, switching gears a little bit, the
Gold King Mine is a disaster. You said you're doing your best
to hold people accountable. I want to talk a little bit about
the Gold King Mine spill that took place last August.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Westerman. Given the gravity of the situation, is it
fair to say that you took that spill very seriously?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Westerman. And you've conducted your own internal EPA
investigation?
Ms. McCarthy. We have for the most part relied on
independent investigations by both internally with our Office
of Inspector General as well as externally.
Mr. Westerman. So what EPA employees did you find to be
responsible for the Gold King Mine spill?
Ms. McCarthy. We did not find that anyone was derelict in
their duties but we continue to have investigations and we're
going to wait to see what they say.
Mr. Westerman. So you didn't find anybody to be at fault in
this mine spill?
Ms. McCarthy. So far, the reports that I have read that
were independent continue to show that we were there working
with the state and those communities to try to prevent the
tragedy, that preliminary site work did cause a problem there
and we've done our best to try to make sure that we take
responsibility for that and work with those states and
communities and tribes to resolve this.
Mr. Westerman. So given your commitment and expertise on
the issue, who was the EPA on site coordinator the day of the
Gold King Mine spill?
Ms. McCarthy. I can't recall his name. I'm sorry.
Mr. Westerman. I believe his name is Mr. Griswold, Hayes
Griswold.
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah, that was it. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Westerman. So is Mr. Griswold responsible for the Gold
King Mine spill?
Ms. McCarthy. I think the actions of EPA certainly caused
the spill. It depends on what you think of ``responsible.'' If
that indicates that he did something wrong, I'm certainly not
willing to say that.
Mr. Westerman. So is he to blame for the Gold King Mine
spill?
Ms. McCarthy. I think what's to blame is a history of those
mines being left and abandoned where we knew there was a
problem and EPA came in to try to help fix it. Did we fix it?
No.
Mr. Westerman. So who's to blame for the spill?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the spill happened. The spill happened
because we were doing preliminary----
Mr. Westerman. Because somebody----
Ms. McCarthy. --work to try to resolve----
Mr. Westerman. --failed in their execution of the project.
Has Mr. Griswold been reprimanded or received training or a
suspension for his role as onsite coordinator?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not believe so.
Mr. Westerman. As head of the EPA, do you take
responsibility for the spill?
Ms. McCarthy. I take responsibility for the agency's role,
certainly I do.
Mr. Westerman. So you take responsibility of the agency's
role, which was to the on-scene coordinator, so I'm trying to
connect the dots here.
Ms. McCarthy. So we have many responsibilities here, and we
have a responsibility not just to explain ourselves why we're
there, what we were doing, what we thought contributed to the
problem. We have a responsibility to look at how we long-term
monitor that situation. We have a responsibility to look at
whether or not we can help effect a solution, which will be
hopefully looking at whether or not it's appropriate for
listing as a Superfund site. We have responsibilities to take a
look at whether our notification was good and how to make it
better.
Mr. Westerman. Do you have a responsibility to hold
somebody accountable?
Ms. McCarthy. If somebody did something that was incorrect
and inappropriate----
Mr. Westerman. That was last August. Has anybody been held
accountable for the spill?
Ms. McCarthy. We are all held accountable for the spill. If
you ask me whether I----
Mr. Westerman. Has anyone been reprimanded or faced any
consequences for their role----
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Westerman. I've exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Administrator, for being here today.
Just a couple notes to clarify the record. Yes, Texas does
have the most wind. There is no doubt about that, but
California leads in solar by a huge, huge margin, and I think
it's absolutely laughable that we think that 1.78 percent over
the last year is great growth, but that is what we have.
You're aware that this Committee has been very active in
attempting to understand the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. This Congress alone, we have held three
hearings and sent numerous letters to EPA on the topic.
Democrat Senator Michael Bennett stated that this ozone
regulation is a perfect example of applying the law but doing
it in a way that doesn't make sense on the ground. State air
regulators from Texas, California, Arizona, and Utah have
testified before Congress calling for a delay in implementation
because EPA is unprepared to take background ozone into account
when implementing the standard.
Now, I come from California, and it is very, very clear
that ambient is a problem, that--that air standards that we do
not have an effect on, that we did not create is a problem in
California. The problem is, if we didn't create it and yet we
are responsible for it because of standards, it makes it very,
very difficult for us to be in compliance. In fact, we'll be
out of compliance and we will be at a problem with these types
of standards. The background ozone issue is one that is very
important. Do you think that the EPA has adequately addressed
the concerns of the states that have identified background
ozone as an issue for compliance, much like California?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we have made great progress. Areas
like California have actually a considerable amount of local
and regional ozone that is being emitted by manmade activities,
which falls well outside the boundaries of background. So we've
held a conference. We've developed a white paper. We have put
together, one a rulemaking, one a guidance that's been proposed
and will be finalized to try to make it understandable and
easier for states to take a look at wildfires that cause these
types of exceedances. If we can document anything that's coming
into nationally, we certainly recognize that that's not
something that the state will be responsible for. So we think
we've made a lot of progress, but as you know, we continue to
work with states on the implementation.
Mr. Knight. But you also understand that at certain states,
and I won't be too over-the-top about California, but certain
states do have certain issues that other states just do not
have. In fact today, we have major wildfires that are affecting
the air that we breathe, and that is something that happens in
California every summer without a doubt. We wish it didn't
happen but it does happen, and----
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that's why we're putting out a guidance
document. We are well aware, and in fact, with the changing
climate, we're concerned that those wildfires are going to be
more expansive and more frequent.
Mr. Knight. Well, we're afraid of those wildfires when
certain people go out and start those fires, but one witness
told the Committee that due to background ozone, EPA's new
ozone standard will unfairly punish communities due to air
pollution they did not create and that the state cannot
regulate. The National Association of Counties stated,
``Additionally, a more stringent ozone standard challenges
local governments' ability to increase economic development
within their regions because areas designated as nonattainment
can have a more difficult time attracting industry to their
counties due to concerns that permits and other approvals will
be too expensive or even impossible to obtain.'' Many areas in
California today, you basically cannot do any more activity
there because they have gone to the limit. That means the
credits are no longer there or the credits have been taken by
other areas that are ports in the southern California are
almost to the very limit of what they can do because of the
credit situation.
Now, that's not EPA but that is exactly where I'm going
with this with the standards that the EPA is setting, and that
local or state areas are being the regulators for, much like in
California because--and I'm sure in every state of this--of the
diesel regulations that are coming that the EPA will or
probably already is looking at regulations to change the diesel
standards to have the states be in compliance.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I recognize that California has
incredible challenges, and a lot of that is related to
geography and the weather there, and I perfectly well
understand it, but what we know about this ozone standard is
that the vast majority of counties that aren't achieving the
standard now will be achieving it just as a result of national
rulemakings that are moving forward, ones that are already on
the books and in place and that you well know of. So we're
working hard with the states to get there.
But California's made tremendous progress, and they
continue to look at every opportunity, and we'll keep working
with them on it, but I don't think background is really the
issue there. I think we've well documented the inventories that
are contributing to the ozone problem and working hard with the
state to see if we can figure that out.
Mr. Knight. Well, I would agree that we have made many
strides and I would agree that we have many challenges but I
would disagree that background is an effort--or is a problem in
California that basically we have to adhere to, just the West
Coast, and it does affect all the way over to Arizona. It does
come all the way over to states on the West that have to do
that that other states do not have to, and I would appreciate
looking into that a lot harder, and making sure that this is
not something that's just discriminatory toward the West Coast.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Knight. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator McCarthy, for being here. I know you've been here
for over two hours, and appreciate your testimony here today.
I know a couple of my colleagues have asked about the
proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, and in my district in
Illinois, I represent a fairly heavy ag district, and I think
the frustrating part for me is, when I travel around my
district and I talk to people, you know, they ask all the time,
well, you know, Darrin, how did this law get passed, what
happened, how did this law get implemented, and I explain to
them that this isn't in fact a law, this is a rule implemented
by EPA that really circumvents Congress and circumvents the
Constitution in a lot of ways and that really unelected people
are putting in this rule, and they also couple that with the
real-world effect that this rule's going to have on
agriculture, whether that's a puddle or it's a stream or it's a
creek on a farmer's land. And when I travel around my district,
I can't find anybody that thinks this is a good idea, and you
look at a rule or a law or a statute as fixing a problem. No
one in my district thinks that there's a problem that needs to
be fixed.
And I would also point to you that back on October 9th of
2015, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, second highest court
in our country, issued a stay on implementation of the rule on
the Waters of the U.S.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. LaHood. And that decision, written decision, stayed,
that said this rule cannot go forward. In there, they
specifically cite a significant legal question as to whether
certain parts of this rule are supported by science. Now,
that's not Republicans saying that on Capitol Hill. These are
two independent judges, second highest court in the country
saying this.
So when I look at that, I guess my question to you is, do
you disagree with the court on the basis that this rule lacks
science?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, far be it from me to disagree with the
court. We are going and hopefully with the full information
available that we have that the court will have through oral
arguments and our briefings in the record that the court will
agree with us that it is well documented why we came to the
decisions we made on the basis of science, on the basis of
history of ours and Army Corps' experience here.
You know, one of the biggest frustrations I have is that--
is the fact that I think the agriculture community really--we
would benefit from further discussions on this because we have
actually expanded the exemptions for agriculture. We have
provided clarifications that should allow them to produce the
food, fuel and fibre that we rely on. We did everything we
could to make sure that it wouldn't add any permitting issues
or responsibilities to the agriculture community. We did
everything we could not just to protect their interests but to
make their interests clearer and more sustainable.
Mr. LaHood. Well, I appreciate that, but I mean, again,
that's not what the Farm Bureau says, that's not what the
Illinois State Farm Bureau, the American Bureau says. I don't
think you're going to get that from anybody in agriculture
thinks the way you're doing it.
And I think the other thing is, there was lots of talk and
rhetoric from the EPA and the Corps is, we're going to listen
to your comments, give us all your comments, we're going to
listen to them, we're going to take them into account, and I've
seen the detailed merit-based comments that were given to you
and your department and the Corps, and all of them in my
estimation fell on deaf ears. None of them were taken into
account when you look at the rule and how it's implemented and
the effect that it has on them, and it's consistent in the
agriculture community that people are absolutely opposed to
this rule and the way that it's being put forth.
The other thing that I would mention, you know, this--as
you implemented this rule, you abided by the Administrative
Procedure Act, the APA, in doing that, and you testified back
on March 4th, 2015, in the Senate, and Senator Sullivan from
Alaska had asked you about the WOTUS rule, and you--concerning
the APA Act and following that, and you said there have been--
``There have been individuals represent various constituencies
in the states that have commented but we have received over one
million comments and 87 percent of those comments we have
counted thus far are supportive of the rule." I find that
absolutely hard to believe. Is that still your statement today?
Ms. McCarthy. That is my understanding when folks looked at
the record. That's correct.
Mr. LaHood. Eighty-seven percent is supportive of this rule
across the country?
Ms. McCarthy. The comments, yes.
Mr. LaHood. And has that changed since then? That was your
testimony on March 4th.
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what--I haven't surveyed folks
throughout the United States at this point to see whether or
not they still would feel the same way.
Mr. LaHood. And can you name for me any agriculture groups
that are supportive of this rule today?
Ms. McCarthy. I probably can't go down that road, sir. I
know there's a lot of concern among the agriculture community.
I think we've received certain letters and support from
individuals. Whether or not there's any association,
agriculture association, I can identify, I don't think I can.
Mr. LaHood. And my time is almost up. And you're also aware
there's another Federal District Court in the Dakotas that has
also issued a stay here for many of the same reasons that were
done in the Sixth Circuit. I think that was at the federal
district level. Are you aware of that also?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is
recognized.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, let's you and I pick up a discussion that we
left off on a previous hearing. In one of your previous
appearances, you testified that ozone exacerbates asthma.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Abraham. Yet you went on to specifically state, and I'm
quoting here, that ``the scientists actually have not made any
connection between the levels of ozone and the prevalence of
asthma,'' and Mr. Chairman, I'll ask to submit for the record a
letter signed by many, many Members of the House and Senate
that questions EPA's anticipated health benefits.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, that will be made
a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Ms. McCarthy, are you familiar with some of
the other factors that can exacerbate asthma other than ozone
as the EPA claims?
Ms. McCarthy. Sure.
Mr. Abraham. Would you elaborate, please?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, certainly. There are--we have an entire
asthma portion of our agency that works with local communities
to identify triggers for asthma attacks. That can have
everything to do with dust in individuals' homes, so indoor air
contributes significantly.
Mr. Abraham. And what is the role of indoor pollution in
asthma, in your opinion? What role that does that indoor
pollution play?
Ms. McCarthy. Mold and dust can certainly be triggers for
asthma attacks.
Mr. Abraham. So they can exacerbate it?
Ms. McCarthy. They certainly can.
Mr. Abraham. I mean, you know, I'm a doc and I've treated
children with asthma for 20-plus years, and you know, I'll just
read a partial list from the CDC and from medical textbooks
that are exacerbaters of asthma: plant pollen, pet dander,
dust, dust mite feces, cockroach feces, insect bites, mold,
eggs, peanuts, soy, wheat, fish, shrimp, salads, fruits,
respiratory infections, cold air, exercise, certain medications
including aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen, sulfites and
preservatives in foods, and the list goes on and on.
I guess the question that this leads to, you were having a
discussion with Mr. Tonko about the benefits of cardiovascular
disease with possibly ozone. I guess you believe it maybe
exacerbates that. Did the EPA's final ozone NAAQS regulation
take into consideration all these additional factors in its
analysis to determine if a new standard needs to be implemented
at this time?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, my understanding is that during the
development of our Integrated Science Assessment, the look at
all of the health and exposure information would have looked to
determine whether or not outside ozone levels contributed to
additional attacks or hospital visits and other things. So they
would have factored those issues into those considerations.
Mr. Abraham. And you know, let me remind you that, again,
we had this back and forth last year, that the ozone levels
have decreased dramatically over the last three decades yet
asthma has gone up, and after all these years, you or your
advisors have never really managed to connect those dots and
look into the indoor air pollution aspect of it.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, you just indicated how many factors go
into asthma attacks. The issue--the point I'm making is that it
seems very clear from the science that outdoor ozone levels
cause problems for kids who have asthma. That seems pretty
clear to me.
Mr. Abraham. And again, I could probably debate that on
another day on an issue as far as, you know, I've seen some of
your data that you rely on but I've seen other data that would
refute that most mightily, let me say.
What did your advisors say specifically about the issues of
indoor air pollution and asthma?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not believe that the information
provided to me in terms of the science spent a great deal of
time talking about indoor asthma.
Mr. Abraham. So I mean----
Ms. McCarthy. It talked about outdoor asthma, which is what
we were looking at----
Mr. Abraham. And I guess that's my point. You know, how can
the EPA's analysis, how can you say it's complete if, you know,
your advisors have really failed to address this issue----
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Abraham. --and failed to understand the importance of
indoor air pollution on these poor children.
Ms. McCarthy. Because their reports to me looked at
thousands of studies that actually did factor in different
considerations that concluded based on the weight of evidence
that ozone contributes to exacerbating asthma attacks. I don't
know how much clearer I can get.
Mr. Abraham. Well, I can be much clearer myself because
I've seen thousands of studies also that would refute your
scientific basis, and that's where we, I think, diametrically
oppose each other is on your, what I will put in quotes,
objective scientific data. I think it's flawed, and I think we
can refute it on every level and turn. And again, nobody here
wants to see a child's asthma get worse. We don't even want a
child ever to have asthma. But I think we have to be honest and
fair with the child and the family as to what's causing it, and
again, I don't think we're addressing that fully.
Ms. McCarthy. I think we've established that causal
relationship.
Mr. Abraham. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Abraham.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is
recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator.
I'd like to first submit for the record the following
bipartisan letter from members of the Illinois delegation, both
Republicans and Democrats, regarding the proposed closure of
two nuclear power plants. A state report found--and I'd ask to
submit that to the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, it will be made a part
of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix]
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
A state report found that Illinois would lose 4,200 jobs
and $1.2 billion in annual economic activity as well as
significant increases in electricity rates and carbon emissions
if these two plants closed their doors. Such a result would be
bad for the State of Illinois and devastating for the
communities in which they operate.
The premature closure of these plants would also
significantly impede the ability of the state to submit a
viable implementation plan for the Clean Power Plan should the
Supreme Court stay be lifted and the rule remain. As a matter
of fact, even if the stay of the Clean Power Plan is lifted,
I'm concerned that Illinois will fail to meet the plan even
though the state may do everything possible in its power to
meet it.
Does this news concern you, Administrator?
Ms. McCarthy. It certainly is an issue that we'd like and
be open to working with the state at any time on. I think we
well knew that there are many older nuclear power plants that
right now are not called upon regularly to generate, so the
closure of those facilities will have to be considered by the
states, and we made that pretty clear. But I do not think that
we have made the Clean Power Plan standards so challenging that
states cannot address the changing circumstances.
Mr. Hultgren. That's not what we're hearing from Illinois,
but let me ask you, how did EPA take into account existing
nuclear power when designing the mandates you're sending to the
states for carbon emission reduction? Seems like we're being
penalized for being ahead of the curve.
Ms. McCarthy. No. Actually--well, I don't believe we
considered it to be penalized, but we were looking for were
reductions that were achievable on a baseline of 2012. If those
were producing electricity, we included those in the baseline.
If they were new facilities, which there are some new nuclears
being constructed, those would certainly go as counting towards
reductions that would be achievable under the law that would be
included or compliance purposes.
Mr. Hultgren. It seems like the goal again of what you've
stated of, you know, reducing carbon emission, exactly the
opposite is going to be happening with potential closure of
these Illinois plants plus certainly the loss of a significant
number of jobs. And again, this is bipartisan. This isn't a
Republican issue, it's not a Democratic issue. It was split
exactly 50/50, Members from Illinois on both sides of the aisle
concerned about that.
Are you concerned what's happening in Illinois may happen
in other states, making it more difficult to comply with the
plan?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again, we made the plan to be
extraordinarily flexible to deal with things on an individual
state basis, regionally, nationally----
Mr. Hultgren. Well, let's--can you get into specifics on
that? What flexibilities specifically will states have in this
specific kind of incident? So these two plants in Illinois,
what specific flexibility will they have to be able to remain
and continue to provide great service? Illinois is again one of
the leaders in this field, very successfully so. What
flexibility is in the plan?
Ms. McCarthy. I can't say I know all of the circumstances
here, sir, but I do know that--my understanding is, there was a
lot of concern about nuclear facilities potentially being
closed. There was a lot of discussion about individual states
taking action to keep them open, to support upgrades and needed
construction at those facilities to allow them to stay open for
certain longer periods. But those are all individual state
decisions that get made in the individual market. I don't think
we should suggest that the Clean Power Plan is going to solve
those problems prematurely because there's no compliance window
until beginning in 2022----
Mr. Hultgren. Well, you mentioned there is flexibility
there.
Ms. McCarthy. There is.
Mr. Hultgren. We're just not seeing it, and there's great
concern. Again, both sides of the aisle have grave concern of
negative impacts, exactly the opposite of what you're trying to
accomplish.
Ms. McCarthy. Can I just----
Mr. Hultgren. I only have one minute left. Let me--have you
requested any legal analysis to ensure that the agency has the
legal authority to pursue and expend resources on regulatory
actions and implementation of the Clean Power Plan while a stay
has been issued?
Ms. McCarthy. We have certainly been consulting in close
coordination with the Department of Justice to make sure that
we fully comply with the stay, and we are fully complying with
the stay.
Mr. Hultgren. The question was, have you received any legal
analysis to ensure that the agency has the legal authority to
pursue and expend resources on regulatory actions and
implementation while the stay is in? So it's not complying with
the stay, it's----
Ms. McCarthy. We are not implementing the rule or spending
resources to implement the rule.
Mr. Hultgren. Are you moving forward with model trading
rules?
Ms. McCarthy. There's no decision that's been made. We're
looking at----
Mr. Hultgren. When will that decision be made?
Ms. McCarthy. --what's appropriate and what path needs to
be moved forward.
Let me provide a little bit of clarity, sir, and that is
that we are not implementing the rule. That does not mean that
we cannot continue to support states that voluntarily want to
keep moving forward and ask us to develop tools that would
allow them to hit the ground running when the stay decision is
made.
Mr. Hultgren. As far as the model trading rule goes,
doesn't this deprive states and other stakeholders the benefits
of the stay by compelling participation on a matter that is
still pending before the courts?
Ms. McCarthy. We're not compelling anything. There is no
implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
Mr. Hultgren. So the model trading rules are not moving
forward?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know whether we're going to move
forward with the model trading rule. The model trading rule is
a tool. It is not a requirement. Whether or not we move forward
with that tool is something we'll discuss with DOJ but we will
not risk anything that would show the court that we are doing
anything other than fully complying with the stay.
Mr. Hultgren. My time's expired. I yield back. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and the
gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock, is recognized for her
questions.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
convening this hearing, and it's been very interesting for me
to hear some of the highlights from my other colleagues.
I wanted to call attention to a decision by the EPA a few
years ago that would have had a detrimental impact on Fairfax
County, which is a significant part of my district. In 2011,
the EPA attempted to regulate water by considering the
stormwater runoff from a local creek as a pollutant, so the EPA
was--you're going to regulate the stormwater runoff, and when
this new regulation was first released, officials from Virginia
Department of Transportation estimated the cost of compliance
would have been $70 million for the commonwealth. It would have
had to do a lot of structural purchases and new management
structures. In addition, Fairfax County officials said they
would have to adopt costly and impractical new standards to
reduce stormwater runoff, which would have at least cost the
county $300 million and up to $500 million according to our
county officials. So I can imagine $500 million is a pretty
huge budget in a county budget. Just to give you an idea, our
school budget in 2012 around this time frame was $2.2 billion,
so that would have been almost a quarter of the school budget
that would have been required to divert to these regulations.
In this instance, and I would like to highlight, it was a
Democrat-controlled county. I think only a couple of
supervisors who are even Republican there. But they teamed up
with our then-Republican, an arch conservative attorney
general, and you know, at the time, the Democrat chairman said,
you know, a lot of people were scratching their heads over that
but she said we're willing to spend money to protect our
watersheds, our drinking water and the Chesapeake Bay but we
want to make sure the money is well spent. In this case, she
said the EPA's rule would've done nothing to help the
environment because they were already doing things that were
going to work better than the rules that were going to cost us
up to $500 million.
Fortunately in that lawsuit, we did prevail. Fairfax County
prevailed, the state prevailed, and I appreciate that the EPA
did not decide to appeal that case. But, you know, in sitting
and listening here today, we're hearing so many times where
this is costing our local communities. I mean, while I
appreciate my county didn't have to spend $300 to $500 million
and cut into budget and muscle and firefighters and police and
all those other things, they certainly did have to cut into
their budgets to take those lawsuits as did the state,
certainly a lot less than $300 to $500 million.
But when you have things like this, and fortunately, it was
Fairfax County who did this, who had the resources to bring
that lawsuit. You know, another county might not have those
kind of resources. I mean, do you look at that kind of impact
and the economic impact when you're doing this, and what would
you tell a county when it was going to cost them $500 million
but didn't have the resources to sue the EPA and prevail the
way they did?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Congresswoman, I don't know the exact
rules that you're talking about or a decision that was in
dispute. You know, we do our best to make sure that we are
considering the individual circumstances of states and
communities. We actually have policies in place which guide us
in doing that when we're dealing with----
Mrs. Comstock. Well, in this case, the judge said you are
overreaching your authority, and I think the fact that EPA did
not appeal probably was a recognition of that, but
unfortunately, not everyone can take those actions. So this
kind of overreaching, you know, what does the county that can't
afford to deal with your overreaching to do?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't know the circumstances. I
apologize for that, but I'm not aware of the circumstances that
you're talking about so I can't really speak to it directly.
Mrs. Comstock. Well, I certainly think these kind of costs,
and I think all of my colleagues have highlighted these very
well, have a dramatic impact on local budgets and oftentimes
local budgets--and we're talking schools. When you're talking a
county and you come in and do that, you're talking about
cutting our schools, unless you have any ideas. I mean, when
half of a county's budget, sometimes more--you know, in Loudoun
County, it's higher than half. So if you'd gone in and done the
same in that county, it would have cut even more.
So I'd like you to, when you're looking at these things,
understand the limited budgets you're dealing with. It's asking
our firefighters, our teachers, our local officials to say
we're going to cut you for something that our local Democrat
chairman of the board of supervisors said did nothing to help
the environment. Nothing. That's a big cost to do nothing to
help the environment when we already had some very good
practices in place.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock.
And I believe that is all the members who are present and
they have asked their questions, so that takes us to the end of
our hearing today.
And Administrator McCarthy, you have reassured several
members today that you will produce the documents and data that
we have requested. I hope you meant that because we have a lot
of requests that are still outstanding. So I look forward to
your responsiveness in that regard.
Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your taking
the time to testify, and we will be following up with some of
our questions as well.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman from Texas has request
that some items be made a part of the record.
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Smith. And she is recognized for that purpose.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent to make the NAACP letter a part of
the record, and simply want to thank the Administrator for
being here today and being questioned for two and a half hours.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, those letters will be
made a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix]
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Gina McCarthy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mo Brooks
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Lee Abraham
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letters submitted by Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johsnon
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letters submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]