[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                               

 
      THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND CRITICAL MATERIALS

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 10, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-32
                           
                           
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                       
                           
                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                         ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 55-732 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024
                         
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials

                           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
                                 Chairman
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama                Ranking Member
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    Chair                            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               RAUL RUIZ, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa           officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Ohio, opening statement........................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18

                                Witness

Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   111

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record.......................    78
Statement of the Food and Drug Administration by Norman E. 
  ``Ned'' Sharpless, Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 
  October 25, 2019...............................................    79
Editorial of February 26, 2023, ``S.O.S. for the U.S. Electric 
  Grid,'' Wall Street Journal....................................    84
Report by PJM, ``Energy Transition in PJM: Resource Retirements, 
  Replacements & Risks,'' February 24, 2023\1\
Active Regulatory Proposals of the Environmental Protection 
  Agency, Unified Regulatory Agenda as of May 2, 2023, Office of 
  Management and Budget..........................................    87
Report of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, 
  ``State Air Trends & Successes: The StATS Report, 2023 
  Edition,''\1\
Policy brief, ``Ethylene Oxide: An Air Quality Professional's 
  Perspective,'' by Richard J. Trzupek, The Heartland Institute, 
  October 23, 2020...............................................    99
Statement of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, ``EtO 
  Sterilization of Medical Devices''.............................   102
Letters of March 21, 2023, and October 22, 2022, from Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al., to Michael S. Regan, Administrator, 
  Environmental Protection Agency................................   103
Letter of May 9, 2023, from Joseph Coffman, Principal Deputy 
  Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mrs. Rodgers   109

----------

\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in 
the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF18/20230510/115912/HHRG-118-IF18-20230510-SD055.pdf.


      THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 10, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
                                Critical Materials,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Bill Johnson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Johnson, Carter, Palmer, 
Crenshaw, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, Pfluger, 
Miller-Meeks, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio), Tonko 
(subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, 
Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Barragan, and Pallone (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Curtis, Pence, Harshbarger, 
Castor, Cardenas, Dingell, and Fletcher.
    Staff present: Sarah Alexander, Professional Staff Member, 
Energy and Environment; Kate Arey, Digital Director; Sarah 
Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel 
for Environment; Sydney Greene, Director of Operations; Jack 
Heretik, Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara 
Hupman, Chief Counsel; Sean Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter 
Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member Services Director; 
Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon 
Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Kaitlyn Peterson, Clerk, 
Energy and Environment; Karli Plucker, Director of Operations 
(shared staff); Emma Schultheis, Staff Assistant; Peter 
Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Michael 
Taggart, Policy Director; Dray Thorne, Director of Information 
Technology; Timia Crisp, Minority Professional Staff Member; 
Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General 
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Anthony 
Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin 
Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment, Manufacturing, 
and Critical Materials; Mackenzie Kuhl, Minority Digital 
Manager; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, 
Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member 
Services; and Rebecca Tomilchik, Minority Junior Professional 
Staff Member.
    Mr. Johnson. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 
now recognizes himself for an opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Well, good morning and welcome to the Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee hearing on 
the fiscal year 2024 budget for the EPA. Administrator Regan, 
thank you for being here, and more personally, thank you for 
showing up in our little Appalachian village of East Palestine 
multiple times.
    I've seen firsthand how you've treated my constituents with 
compassion, working to enforce accountability, bringing your 
Agency's technology tools and personnel to answer the questions 
and try and calm the fears of the residents while supervising 
the ongoing emergency testing cleanup and assistance to those 
displaced. So from my perspective, the EPA can be a force for 
good. I've seen it firsthand in my community.
    However, I am concerned that at the national level, 
striking a balance and protecting the health of the environment 
with the safety, security, and economic freedom of the American 
people is taking a backseat at the EPA. Now I understand you 
work at the pleasure of the President, but the statutory 
authority of your Agency, Administrator Regan, comes from the 
laws Congress passes. And that authority is being abused to 
effectuate a vast set of troubling actions to pursue 
ideological green goals apparently regardless, in many cases, 
of the consequences.
    Time and again, by its own admission, we've seen this 
administration first choose a policy goal, like forcing 
consumers to purchase all-electric cars, whether practical and 
affordable or not, shutting down oil and gas production, or 
shutting down reliable and dispatchable power generation, and 
then on the back end attempt to shoehorn an EPA regulation in 
to achieve these ends. This is not what the EPA is designed to 
do.
    Republicans are for energy innovation, but we simply cannot 
deindustrialize the United States in pursuit of the 100 percent 
use of wind and solar power generation, which seems to be this 
administration's current policy. The results would be 
disastrous. So we're not going to go along with this idea of 
the ESG-inspired so-called energy transition that's now 
synonymous with the fantasy that the world will totally shut 
down the use of oil, natural gas, and coal.
    Yes, Republicans do care about the climate and the 
environment. And perhaps rather than a premature energy 
transition, we could change the conversation to an energy 
journey, one with very real grid reliability, grid resilience, 
safety, security, and economic considerations to address along 
the way.
    Now, regarding the subjects we'll cover today, they're best 
described as an EPA regulatory onslaught. Over 150 new 
regulatory actions underway. The Agency is being used as the 
tip of the spear in the administration's premature pursuit of 
its green agenda. For example, EPA's electric-generating unit, 
or EGU strategy, undermines electric reliability by placing 
burdensome and economically unattainable requirements on coal-
fired and gas-fired power plants.
    Consequently, reliability of our Nation's electric grid is 
at risk, as many more of those plants will be prematurely shut 
down due to a litany of EPA regulations that take reliable 
energy off the grid with no plan for replacement. This will 
lead to more blackouts.
    Another problem is the EPA's proposal to dramatically lower 
the standard for fine particulate matter to a level that could 
bring nearly the entire country into noncompliance with the 
PM2.5 standard. We need to encourage more manufacturing in the 
United States, not create standards so low that many of our 
small businesses and family farms can't function.
    Another concern is the EPA's proposed methane rule. This on 
top of the new natural gas tax, oil and gas producers in my 
district would suffer immensely. Before you finalize the rule, 
Mr. Administrator, it's my hope that there will be cleared-
eyed, thoughtful consideration given to what the impact to our 
national security could be if American energy production is 
throttled right now with a devastating, potentially expanding 
war in Europe, and China becoming more belligerent in the 
Pacific. The world is becoming increasingly volatile, and in my 
view, choosing to curtail domestic fossil fuel production right 
now ignites--invites significant and unnecessary risks.
    Finally, President Biden's effort to force electric cars on 
an unwilling public is deeply troubling. This includes the set 
proposal that would perversely introduce electricity into the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Program, a final rule cracking down on 
heavy-duty trucks, and worst of all, proposed emission 
standards that would essentially eliminate gas-powered vehicles 
from the market.
    With all these actions and literally hundreds more, I'm 
concerned about the 19 percent increase for the EPA requested 
in the President's budget. On top of 60 billion from the IIJA 
and the 41.5 billion from the IRA, we're looking at a hundred 
billion in taxpayer dollars extra to pay for actions that will 
further intrude into American's lives and throttle our economy. 
Mr. Regan, this is the opposite of accountability, and it's not 
reflective of the kind of work that your Agency has done in my 
district.
    In closing, I want to highlight that Chair Rodgers and I 
have sent you letters on a range of topics: IIJA and the IRA, 
the EGU Strategy, the Clean School Bus Program, HFCs, and eRINS 
proposal. I appreciated the three responses we received 
yesterday and hope that you will commit to responding to the 
remaining letters promptly. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    Mr. Johnson. And with that I recognize the ranking member 
for 5 minutes.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Administer--Administrator Regan for joining us. It is great to 
see you back at the subcommittee for today's discussion, 
President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request.
    The Chair of the subcommittee indicated your support for 
his district in your visits. Let me do likewise. Thank you for 
your efforts made in New York 20 that I represent. You're 
always welcome. You're a great partner on some of the projects 
we've initiated, and I appreciate your ushering us into a new 
era of energy and environment policy and thinking.
    We know the EPA has awesome responsibilities to protect 
public health and the environment. And more and more Americans 
are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned by 
environmental threats, including the danger of unmitigated 
climate change, the damage that can be caused by lead and PFAS 
in drinking water, and the risk from industrial accidents and 
chemical spills.
    The $12 billion budget request before Congress will allow 
EPA to fulfill its mission and address these and other pressing 
environmental challenges related to climate change, clear air, 
clean water, chemical safety, land remediation, and 
environmental justice. This funding will also help ensure 
effective administration of the historic funding that has 
already been provided to the Agency over these past 2 years.
    I'm so proud of the legislative successes of the 117th 
Congress, and I am especially proud that many of the EPA 
policies and programs included in those laws were developed and 
championed by Democratic members of this given committee. The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included around $60 
billion for EPA, which will enable the Agency to make 
significant investments in our Nation's crumbling water 
infrastructure, replace those lead service lines, remediate 
Superfund and Brownfield sites, and deploy fleets of electric 
schoolbuses across our country.
    But that is not all we accomplished. The Inflation 
Reduction Act included over $41 billion for EPA, which will 
address climate pollution, including methane and HFCs, and 
enhance environmental justice. These funds have the potential 
to reduce pollution and create jobs in every community across 
our great country. I have no doubt that these laws will improve 
people's lives.
    But I also acknowledge that there is still more work to do, 
and that starts by investing in the EPA itself by growing its 
workforce to meet the scale of our Nation's environmental 
challenges, enabling the Agency to carry out effective 
regulatory and enforcement agendas while providing robust 
technical and financial assistance to our States, local, and 
Tribal governments, schools, and community-based organizations.
    I have the utmost respect for EPA's career employees, and I 
do hope the Agency's management will do everything in their 
power to support the recruitment, the retention, and 
professional development of these outstanding public servants. 
So I was very happy to see the President's budget request over 
1,900 new FTEs to ensure EPA is able to operate at full 
capacity.
    Finally, it is critical that EPA builds upon the historic 
IIJA and IRA funding by pursuing complementary and ambitious 
enforcement and regulatory agendas. EPA has significant 
existing legal authorities to tackle climate and traditional 
air pollution, pollution from power plants and vehicles, keep 
PFAS chemicals out of commerce, and get the lead out of our 
water systems more quickly.
    I will continue to strongly encourage EPA to develop and 
finalize a suite of ambitious public health protections over 
this next year. Of course, this regulatory agenda must be 
driven by sound science, and these scientific efforts must be 
built on robust implementation of EPA's scientific integrity 
policy, which ensures employees can conduct their research and 
their analysis free from interference by political and special 
interests. EPA is one of our great Federal science agencies, 
and its workforce must be confident that it can carry out its 
scientific mission without fear of being undermined.
    Administrator Regan, thank you again for joining us. Thank 
you for your outstanding work, and I look forward to working 
with you as EPA carries out its responsibilities, including 
implementing IIJA and IRA funding to indeed protect public 
health and our environment in developing a complementary 
regulatory agenda.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    Mr. Tonko. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 
Chair of the full committee, Chair Rodgers, for 5 minutes for 
an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, I appreciate you being here today. Our 
visions for the EPA should be aligned. America has the highest 
environmental labor standards in the world, and Energy and 
Commerce Republicans are committed to this legacy to ensure 
clean air, clean water, and continuing our leadership in 
reducing carbon emissions.
    Achieving this requires stewardship over how American hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are spent. Unfortunately, that is not 
what we're seeing today at the EPA as it seems that the focus 
is on President Biden's so-called climate agenda that is 
increasing prices on low- and middle-income families, seeking 
control of the cars we drive, and making America dependent on 
Chinese supply chains that are dirtier and use slave labor.
    Since President Biden took office, the EPA has been 
injected with more than a hundred billion dollars in taxpayer 
dollars. This is on top of the annual appropriations funding. 
This is a thousand percent increase in spending--it's truly 
staggering--while the American people are already paying for 
record-high inflation.
    And this increase is on top of the 60 billion in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 41 billion--over 
41 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA doesn't need 
more money. Its regulatory agenda is out of touch with the 
needs of the American people. Last week, the Office of 
Management and Budget, OMD--OMB Unified Agenda and Regulatory 
Plan listed 151 separate rulemakings pending from EPA. A 
hundred and fifty-one pending rulemakings.
    This list contains some of the most aggressive mandates, 
shortening public comment periods, introducing regulatory 
changes that lack the analysis to justify them. These actions 
place substantial financial burdens on Americans that lower 
their standard of living. From blackouts in California to 
seasonal energy shortages in New England and the Midwest, the 
pain is being felt by people across the country.
    These impractical, expensive standards will eliminate good-
paying jobs, destroy our manufacturing base and domestic supply 
chains, and threaten America's leadership in key industries 
that have historically been critical to our efforts to reduce 
emissions. For instance, a recent economic impact report by the 
National Association of Manufacturers found that EPA's proposed 
air quality regulations for particulate matter will jeopardize 
an estimated hundred--or 850,000 manufacturing jobs and over 
$160 billion in economic activity. And this is on top of other 
EPA-enacted policies that are out of step with the 
congressional-mandated authority to regulate.
    You know, just last year the Supreme Court ruled in West 
Virginia v. EPA that EPA is exceeding its statutory authority. 
As the elected representative of the people, I was encouraged 
that the Court ruled that EPA had exceeded their legislative 
authority. And they called upon Congress, they said that 
Congress needs to, on behalf of the people, hold the EPA 
accountable. I'm concerned when I consider 151 proposed 
rulemakings that there's additional abuses of power by the 
administration through all this rulemaking and the--and I want 
to assure you we're going to be watching very closely to ensure 
that the Agency is not exceeding the authority, and that's our 
constitutional responsibility.
    I also wanted to highlight EPA's rule in reviewing and 
approving human health water quality criteria. In December the 
EPA set an unattainable PCB standard for human health water 
quality criteria in Washington State, my home State. Not only 
is this standard unattainable with current technology, it's not 
even detectable using EPA's approved last test methods.
    Even more troubling, it appears that the Washington State 
Department of Ecology is using an unapproved test method to 
determine whether job creators in Washington are in compliance 
with this unattainable standard.
    I want clean and safe water in Washington State. It's 
vital, it's life. But I also want regulations to be based on 
sound science and have predictability for the job creators, for 
our farmers, and for our manufacturing companies, our recycling 
plants.
    I'll close by making this appeal to you. The concerns we 
raise today are directly from the people that we represent, and 
we're concerned by the EPA's regulatory agenda and their--that 
is encroaching on our way of life and our future. You're--you 
are accountable to the people through us, the elected 
representatives, and we--we're working to ensure that we can 
afford energy bills and drive the cars that we would like. 
That's freedom for a better life and to make the best decisions 
for ourselves.
    [The prepared statement Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    Mrs. Rodgers. So I look forward to this discussion, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full 
committee, Representative Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
Administrator Regan for joining us today to discuss the 
President's fiscal 2024 budget request for the EPA.
    Let me just start out, you know, I hear what the 
Republicans say and, you know, I respect them a great deal. 
But, look, the EPA doesn't regulate for the sake of regulating. 
When I go home, people are asking me what you're doing to 
protect their health and safety. And the fact of the matter is 
we have a lot of challenges out there that we didn't have 3 or 
4 years ago, climate change being one of them. You know, 
hurricanes and natural disasters are getting stronger, the sea 
level is rising, more problems with asthma and people's health.
    These are challenges that must be addressed, and I don't--
what I hear when I go home is, oh, I'm not--I--the--not that 
the EPA is overregulating but, ``What's the EPA doing, what is 
the Federal Government doing to protect my health and safety?'' 
That's the bottom line. And you have to do that, and that costs 
more money. I mean, that's the reality.
    So I just wanted to say that last Congress, Democrats 
delivered historic wins for the American people that are 
directing investments into communities around the Nation. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invested $1.2 trillion to 
modernize our Nation's aging and crumbling infrastructure.
    It included EPA funding to ensure American's have access to 
safe and clean water by making infrastructure upgrades and 
replacing lead pipes to reduce harmful exposure. The law is 
also revitalizing communities by cleaning up Superfund and 
Brownfield sites. People are concerned about contamination from 
these sites. People are concerned about their health and how 
lead pipes impact their health. You're trying to address those 
things.
    The Inflation Reduction Act will help us lead the world in 
the transition to a clean energy economy by producing home-
grown clean energy, combating the climate crisis, creating 
millions of good-paying jobs, lowering energy costs, and 
building a more healthier, sustainable future. This is what 
people are concerned about in my district.
    This law was enacted 9 months ago, and it's already 
producing major results. Projects valued at tens of billions of 
dollars are already underway. More than half of them are in 
Republican congressional districts, and more than 142,000 clean 
energy jobs have been created. And yet not one Republican on 
this committee supported either of these bills. Instead, my 
Republican colleagues have spent the first month of their 
majority fixated on undermining these investments and these 
environmental protections at every turn. And now they're 
threatening a default crisis with their Default on America Act 
that puts polluters over people.
    Republicans have made their agenda clear: Repeal the 
Inflation Reduction Act and provide broad carve-outs to bedrock 
environmental laws for polluters at the expense of the health 
and safety of workers and families. This is unpopular, short-
sighted, and it puts the economy at great risk.
    In sharp contrast, the President's budget request builds on 
the success of these unprecedented investments and reflects 
Democrats' commitment to the health, safety, and prosperity of 
all American families. To combat the climate crisis, the budget 
increases funding for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 
helping communities build resilience to the impacts of climate 
change. It also allocates 1.4 billion to improve air quality 
across the country.
    EPA will also drive down super pollutants with methane 
reduction programs and the implementation of the American 
Innovation and Manufacturing Act, a bipartisan law to curb the 
production and use of potent hydrofluorocarbons in our 
atmosphere. That one was done when Trump was President, and, 
you know, we did it on a bipartisan basis.
    The budget request supplements the reinstatement of the 
Superfund tax to fund more cleanup activities. I fought for 
decades to reinstate this tax, and thanks to these two bills, 
it is once again a reality. Over 20 percent of Americans live 
within 3 miles of a Superfund site, and remediating and 
revitalizing contaminated properties will create jobs, mitigate 
threats to human health, and directly benefit the communities 
affected by these sites.
    The budget also bolsters EPA's work to advance 
environmental justice by using the new Office of Environmental 
Justice and External Civil Rights to help deliver on its 
commitments to the communities who have struggled with legacy 
pollution for far too long. I'm also pleased to see that the 
budget devotes 170 million to combating PFAS and increases 
funding to effectively implement the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, again bipartisan, allowing the Agency to evaluate and 
manage risks from toxic chemicals, protecting workers and 
families.
    So this is a budget request that will ensure EPA can 
fulfill its mission to protect human health and the 
environment. To be successful, EPA must have adequate funding 
and staff to meet the statutory obligations as set by Congress, 
and I think the President recognizes.
    So once again, I just have to say I listen to my Republican 
colleagues, I--when I go home, this is what people care about. 
They're worried--they want to clean up these sites. They don't 
want pollution. They don't want asthma to get worse. I--that's 
what we were trying to do, and that's your job, and I commend 
you for doing it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Pallone. And I yield that--I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    Our witness today is the Honorable Michael Regan, 
Administrator of the EPA. Administrator Regan, as I mentioned, 
you have demonstrated to me personally and to our State you can 
be a force for good. I've seen it firsthand.
    I'm hopeful that at the end of this hearing and as we move 
forward working together that we'll be able to come to that 
commonsense balance of protecting the environment at that same 
time that we consider and protect the safety, the energy 
security, the national security, and the economic freedom for 
the American people, that we attain that balance. I think 
you're capable of doing that, but we'll see.
    You're recognized for your opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL 
                       PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Chairwoman McMorris 
Rodgers, Ranking Member Tonko and Ranking Member Pallone, and 
members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
appear before you today to discuss the necessary vision laid 
out in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 
proposed fiscal year 2024 budget.
    Chairman Johnson, I'd also like to take a moment to thank 
you for your leadership. I'd like to thank you for your 
partnership. We would not be where we are or have accomplished 
what we have without your leadership. You are an incredible 
advocate for your community. I'm grateful for that.
    In this budget request, we lay out an ambitious and 
transformative plan for EPA with a goal of building a 
healthier, more prosperous nation while ensuring global 
competitiveness, energy independence, and energy security. 
President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2024 budget request for 
EPA provides $12.1 billion to advance key priorities, including 
protecting air quality, upgrading our Nation's aging water 
infrastructure, tackling the climate crisis, and rebuilding 
some core functions at the Agency.
    Over the last year, EPA has made significant progress 
towards many of these goals. We've taken action to cut smog and 
hazardous air pollution from power plants, which will reduce 
the risk of cancer in some nearby communities by 96 percent. 
We've taken strides to ensure that all people have clean water 
by proposing the first-ever legal limits for PFAS and investing 
billions to remove 100 percent of lead pipes across our 
country.
    And we've accelerated our transition to a clean 
transportation future by proposing the strongest-ever standards 
for cars and trucks while awarding 2,400 clean schoolbuses to 
school districts all across the country. I'm proud of the 
foundation we've laid and the partnerships that have 
underpinned our successes.
    But there's still so much more work to do to ensure that 
all of our children have safe, healthy places to live, learn, 
and play. To build a stronger, more sustainable economy, and to 
advance American innovation and ingenuity. Simply put, 
investing in EPA is investing in America. Across the country, 
poor air quality still affects millions of people, perpetuating 
harmful health and economic impacts.
    In fiscal year 2024, the Agency will protect our air 
quality by cutting emissions of ozone forming pollutants, 
particulate matter, and air toxins. The President's budget 
includes 1.4 billion to improve air quality and to set 
standards that reduce pollution from mobile and stationary 
sources. EPA's work to set these standards provides certainty 
to industry, builds on advances in technology, reinforces 
market movement towards a clean energy system that provides 
affordable, reliable energy.
    A thriving economy must--also requires clean and safe water 
for everyone. Although progress has been made, many still lack 
access to healthy water, face inadequate wastewater 
infrastructure, and suffer from the effects of lead pipes. 
America's water systems are also facing new challenges 
including cybersecurity threats, climate change, emerging 
contaminants such as PFAS.
    The budget proposes more than 4 billion to upgrade drinking 
water and wastewater infrastructure nationwide with a focus on 
underserved communities. Over the last year, I've had the 
privilege of traveling across the country from Jackson, 
Mississippi to visiting East Palestine with you, Mr. Chairman. 
I've seen firsthand the environmental and public health 
challenges many of our constituents continue to experience.
    I've spoken to families who have been sickened by the air 
they breathe. I've met with people who live with toxic waste in 
their backyards. I've seen conditions that are simply 
unacceptable in the United States of America. From investing in 
our Nation's climate resilience to cleaning up contaminated 
land and water, there is no shortage of important work to be 
done.
    Members of the committee, EPA is up to the task and we're 
eager to work with all of you to deliver for our fellow 
Americans and to secure our Nation's global competitiveness. 
But we need your support. Both the urgency and economic 
opportunity presented by climate change require that we leave 
no stone unturned.
    I'd also like to take a moment to remind folks that we must 
keep moving forward. 2024 will undoubtedly present a unique set 
of challenges and moving backwards certainly is not an option. 
Reverting back to the fiscal year 2022 budget would force the 
Agency to make very difficult tradeoffs.
    EPA would have to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from 
programs that protect communities all across America, impacting 
our ability to hire critical staff, including toxicologists, 
engineers, scientists, and others who play a crucial role in 
protecting this country and the people on the planet. Cuts 
would make it harder to address dangerous contaminants like 
PFAS and would slow our progress to replace lead pipes.
    President Biden's budget positions EPA to create durable 
environmental policy, invest in America, and sets our Nation on 
a path to win the 21st century. It will also allow us to 
address the environmental concerns of millions of Americans and 
fundamentally improve people's lives for the better.
    Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today and 
submit this testimony for the record, and I look forward to our 
continued partnership to achieve these yet--these ambitious yet 
necessary goals, and welcome all questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back, and I will begin 
the questioning, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Administrator Regan, EPA's actions have been forcing 
premature closures of important coal-fired generating sources, 
which has undermined electric reliability. A new regulation is 
promised to drive even more premature closures as part of your 
EGU strategy. After Congress and electric system operators 
raised concerns about reliability, you issued a memorandum of 
understanding with DOE on reliability this past March. I have a 
copy of it right here.
    The MOU states that EPA ``gives careful consideration to 
electric reliability implications as it develops and implements 
regulations for electric-generating facilities.'' It states 
further that EPA engages with stakeholders, including 
independent system operators and RTOs, in developing 
regulations that are consistent with maintaining reliability.
    So I want to dig into this MOU a little bit. Administrator, 
reports from the ISOs and RTOs tell a different story. Did you 
consult the operators of the Nation's electric grids about your 
EGU strategy?
    Mr. Regan. [Nonverbal response.]
    Mr. Johnson. You have? OK.
    Well, you might want to consults with them again. I'm 
entering into the record a report from PJM Interconnection and 
a Wall Street Journal article on this topic entitled, ``S.O.S. 
for the Electric Grid.''
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. This report's findings are simple: We are 
shutting down too much reliable power on the grid, accelerated 
by EPA regulations, with no plans to replace it.
    So, Mr. Administrator, I want to get it on record today. 
The State of Ohio, my constituents and over 60 million 
Americans in total, get their power on the PGAM--or PGM grid. 
Can I go back to my district and tell them that they will enjoy 
equal to or better electric reliability in 2030 as they do 
today?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I'll say that----
    Mr. Johnson. That's great. And I got a lot of questions to 
ask you, so that's an important question and an answer.
    Are you confident the regulatory impacts of your rules 
would pass an independent reliability review by the North 
American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC?
    Mr. Regan. I am.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Reports indicate EPA's new clean power 
plan rulemaking, replacing the one rejected by the Supreme 
Court as part of West Virginia v. EPA, will conveniently be 
announced tomorrow after this hearing. Will you provide a broad 
and diverse array of stakeholders, including RTOs, and ISOs and 
affected States, more than 60 days to review and comment on 
those proposals?
    Mr. Regan. We can consider that.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Would you commit to returning to this 
committee to discuss this proposal?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I am committed to transparency, 
whether that be in front of this committee or provide it to all 
of your staffs----
    Mr. Johnson. I'll give you an opportunity. I'll call you 
back. Thank you very much.
    Administrator Regan, I'd like to ask about EPA's plans to 
impose new regulations for methane on top of the IRA's new 
methane fee, the natural gas tax. I'm concerned that new taxes 
and regulations will, as CBO reported, increase compliance 
costs, reduce energy production, and increase energy prices. I 
don't believe EPA has statutory authority to regulate methane 
as proposed, and because there are significant questions about 
how the methane fee and the methane regulations will interact 
with each other.
    So, Mr. Administrator, will EPA's new taxes and regulations 
on natural gas increase prices for the American people?
    Mr. Regan. I can't speak to the taxes pieces. I'm not quite 
sure if I understand that.
    Mr. Johnson. Can you get back to me on that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. Can you ask your team? OK. Will you agree to 
not finalizing any rule that increases consumer prices or 
produces--or reduces energy production?
    Mr. Regan. We do a very careful cost benefit analysis for 
all of our rules that are proposed.
    Mr. Johnson. But that's not what I asked you. I said will 
you agree to not finalizing any rule that increases consumer 
prices or reduces energy production?
    Mr. Regan. It will be hard to tell whether it's solely our 
rule that increases prices. I think that we can walk you 
through the cost benefit analysis that we use to propose all of 
our rules.
    Mr. Johnson. Do you believe EPA has authority to expand the 
natural gas tax to other sources or sectors beyond oil and gas 
producers like agriculture, for example?
    Mr. Regan. We're not expanding the tax. So I'd like to talk 
to you in detail about the----
    Mr. Johnson. Do you have--do you think you have the 
authority to do that?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Rule that we propose--we don't have 
authority----
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Or have not proposed any tax.
    Mr. Johnson. What is the status and timeline for EPA to 
finalize the rulemaking for collecting the new methane fee?
    Mr. Regan. Hopefully before the end of this year. We've 
received over 500,000 comments the first time, close to half a 
million the second time as well, so we're carefully going 
through those comments.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. With that I yield back.
    I now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Mr. 
Administrator.
    As I stated earlier, the EPA's workforce has so many 
talented and dedicated public servants that are working hard to 
fulfill the Agency's mission. I appreciate EPA is making a 
concerted effort to recruit a more diverse and inclusive 
workforce as it seeks to provide the next generation of 
environmental experts with career opportunities.
    From 1992 through 2012, EPA consistently had around 17,000 
employees. Since 2013, that number has hovered around 14 to 
15,000 when there was this antiscience message coming through 
the Agency of late, prior to your administration. We know that 
some left demoralized and some rushed their retirement plans.
    We know EPA is being asked to address more numerous and 
more complex challenges and administer historic levels of 
funding. For years, we've been asking these employees to do 
more with less.
    So, Mr. Administrator, I know the budget request would get 
EPA back to that 17,000 level. How important is that part of 
the request, and can you please update us on EPA's efforts to 
hire qualified people to support implementation of the very 
important IIJA and IRA policies?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And it's 
absolutely important. I think when we look at the decline of 
our staff--qualified staff, the areas that have been hit the 
hardest are those areas where we want to give farmers more 
tools. So when we look at our pesticides and our herbicides and 
looking at putting new markets--new products on the market, we 
need to get those things through review.
    When we look at the implementation of TSCA and look at how 
we evaluate and assess all of these chemical compounds that are 
very dangerous to our society, we need those staff members. 
Yes, we receive resources from bill to address lead and 
drinking water, but a recent study we did found that 9.2 
million people in this country are exposed to lead. We only 
received $15 billion. We estimate that there's 43 billion in 
need. So as we look at hiring our staff, we want to keep pace 
with all of these environmental challenges.
    And the last thing I'll say is 85 percent of this budget 
we're requesting goes through EPA to our States and our 
regional partners. So this is building capacity at our State 
levels so our States have the ability to continue to have 
autonomy and comply with these Federal laws.
    Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that. The infrastructure law 
funding will reduce the risks of lead, PFAS, and other 
contaminants in American's drinking water, but we know funding 
is only part of the solution. EPA has also been working on 
standards that will further protect our communities.
    Mr. Administrator, I know EPA is updating the Trump 
administration's lead and copper rule revision. I believe this 
is a critical complementary action to the $15 billion provided 
by the infrastructure law to replace said lines. Can you 
provide an update on the lead and copper rule, and how can this 
rule enable us to get every lead pipe out of our water systems?
    Mr. Regan. It's a very important piece of the work, and 
we've been working hard. We anticipate proposing the lead and 
copper rule in 2023 and finalizing in 2024. It is a priority 
for the Agency, and we want to be able to have this rule that 
will complement the resources that Congress gave us through the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And similarly, EPA is working to 
address the traditional air and climate pollution, building 
upon funding and tax incentives included in the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    Mr. Administrator, I know we are expecting a proposed Clean 
Air Act standard for power plants in the near future. I'm 
guessing you cannot comment on the specifics rules, but can you 
provide us with the background on the process that has led to 
its development?
    Mr. Regan. We've been engaged in the power sector for 
almost 2 years now, grid operators, State agencies as well. We 
have been also focused on staying well within the confines of 
the Supreme Court and the decision on West Virginia.
    And what we're going to do is propose a rule that sets an 
emission limit but gives the power sector maximum flexibility 
in terms of their technology choices to reach that, whether 
it's best management practices, whether it's CCUS, whether it's 
battery storage or renewables, there's a range of options that 
the Inflation Reduction Act, along with this rule, gives our 
power sector for this opportunity.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And why is reducing emissions from 
polluting power plants an important complement to the IRA 
incentives for clean energy in our comprehensive national 
climate action plan?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we know that whether it's SOx, or NOx, or 
mercury, or climate pollutants, they're disproportionately 
impacting a number of people in this country. And all of our 
technology standards are just that, they're technology 
standards, meaning they use technologies or these practices 
exist and can be put in place from a cost benefit perspective. 
And so we believe in engaging with the power sector and moving 
forward. This is complement to where the market has been going 
for the past 10 years.
    I know people continue to reference the West Virginia case. 
That was a rule proposed two administrations ago. That's not 
the Biden administration's rule. And so as we look at our rule 
moving forward, ours will be in line with West Virginia, it 
will be in line with our statutory authority, and it will be in 
line with the conversations we've been having with the power 
sector for almost 2 years now.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I appreciate 
building up of quality staff and the morale enhancement that 
has also followed. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. John Joyce, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Administrator Regan, 
for appearing here today.
    I am very concerned about the EPA's proposed EtO emissions 
and draft regulation decision. While the EPA acknowledges that 
your actions could lead to sterilizer facility closures and 
cause shortages in sterile medical devices, the EPA does not 
identify the magnitude, size, impact, or location of these 
shortages.
    In college, I spent a summer in the central supply and 
sterilization unit of a community hospital. I can say with 
firsthand knowledge how critical adequate sterilizing 
procedures are for surgery and for medical procedures, and 
ultimately for patient's safety. That is why I'm particularly 
concerned when I hear the FDA's Director of Partnership and 
Technology Innovation, Dr. Suzanne Schwartz's warning on this 
matter. And I quote her, ``We would be concerned if even one 
additional facility shut down, we will start to see spot 
shortages. There is no question about that. In terms of more 
catastrophic national impact with two facility shutdowns, it is 
almost a certainty.''
    At an event on April 28th, FDA Commissioner Califf was 
asked about the EtO rulemaking and stated, ``This issue is very 
much on the forefront for us. We are highly aware of it, and we 
are engaged in discussions. I'm very worried.'' FDA submitted 
extensive comments to the EPA as part of the interagency 
review, and it appears that none of them were addressed by the 
EPA. So now I'm very worried.''
    Question for you, Administrator Regan. Do you commit that 
the EPA will not publish a final rule until it has developed 
plans that the FDA has approved to ensure that a sufficient 
supply of all sterilized medical devices, and can we make a 
commitment that these rules will not impact patients' access to 
safe, sterile medical devices or put any lives at risk?
    Mr. Regan. We absolutely will make the commitment to 
continue to work with the FDA and ensure that our rules do not 
have any kind of worry for the FDA, along with these 
facilities. And let me just say that our path to this has been 
with the backdrop of the EPA Inspector General citing us for 
not acting and complying with the law.
    Mr. Joyce. I think that dialogue is so important. I thank 
you for that commitment. And while I appreciate your efforts, 
my concern as a doctor is to ensure that my patients, my 
constituents receive the care and the safety that they need 
with that care. Can you commit to providing our committee with 
a briefing alongside the FDA by May 24th so we can be assured 
that the EPA's actions do not impact patient access to 
critical, sterile medical devices?
    Mr. Regan. We can commit to that.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, I greatly appreciate that. And now 
figuratively and literally switching gears, I'm also concerned 
about a potential waiver granted by the EPA for California's 
Advanced Clean Cars II regulations. These regulations will 
mandate 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2035. Since 17 
States representing over 40 percent of the automotive market 
have already adopted some aspect of California's regulations, 
this mandate has a potential to spread rapidly.
    Administrator Regan, do you think that it is appropriate 
that granting one State a waiver will dramatically disrupt the 
entire American automobile market?
    Mr. Regan. We have not received the waiver that you're 
referencing.
    Mr. Joyce. We will make sure that you receive that. And I 
want to just have a clarification.
    Mr. Regan. It would have to come from the State of 
California. The State of California hasn't submitted a waiver 
for Clean Cars II to the EPA.
    Mr. Joyce. We will make sure that you see what that waiver 
is. Do you feel that your administration and the Biden 
administration supports the ban of selling new vehicles with 
internal combustion engines starting in 2035?
    Mr. Regan. No, not at all.
    Mr. Joyce. You do not support a ban of internal combustion 
automobiles or any vehicles by 2035?
    Mr. Regan. No, I don't support that and neither do our 
regulations. By the way, our regulations don't ban anything. 
They're technology standards that guide the future and 
especially complement the market----
    Mr. Joyce. Do you support that the consumer should have the 
choice of what type of vehicle they drive? That the trucking 
industry, that the automobile industry has that right to 
purchase individual vehicles that have internal combustion 
engines?
    Mr. Regan. I absolutely do. That's why I'm such a strong 
proponent of E15 biofuels--advanced biofuels. I don't see a 
near-term future where we don't have a fuel supply that 
complements electric vehicles and provides customers choice.
    Mr. Joyce. I think it is so important that those individual 
choice by my constituents, by the American public are so 
important. Thank you for making that commitment to us today. 
Thank you again for presenting yourself to us today.
    And, Chairman Johnson, I yield the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Regan, 
thank you so much for coming to spend the morning with us. We 
appreciate it. We appreciate the job you and your Agency are 
doing and also trying to rebuild the personnel and the morale 
over there. It's really important.
    In a recent hearing, some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle made the--what I thought was a stunning 
statement that we all breathe the same air and we drink the 
same water. People like me who represent underserved 
communities know that these communities frequently have--
they're low-income, disadvantaged, minority communities. They 
frequently have multiple sources of pollution that compound on 
one another, which has a negative impact on the community's 
health and leads to increased rates of asthma and cancer, among 
other diseases.
    And in my own congressional district--you've heard me talk 
about this before--we see--we have an area called Globeville 
Elyria-Swansea. It's a neighborhood that's just downwind of an 
industrial area. And so I want to ask you what actions does EPA 
plan to take during this Congress to alleviate the 
environmental and health risks of the cumulative impacts for 
these communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And there are 
two things that we've done. The first is we've established a 
new national program that's laser-focused on environment 
justice and external civil rights to be sure that all Americans 
are receiving the equal protection under the law.
    The second is that we've committed to take a number of 
steps to address cumulative impact, in particular from multiple 
sources of pollution, especially those experienced by 
overburdened communities. The Office of Research and 
Development has developed--or issued a report on cumulative 
impact, and our Office of General Counsel has published the 
Cumulative Impacts Addendum to our legal tools which lays our 
authorities and our ability to address cumulative impact.
    I've traveled all across this country. In the State of 
California, West Virginia, and North Carolina, we know that 
communities are being disproportionately impacted because of 
income or because of race. We have to address this issue.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, how does this budget this 
year, in tandem with the investments that we made in the 
Inflation Reduction Act, help you to achieve these goals with 
the Agency?
    Mr. Regan. Well, it continues to help us to build on the 
staff. A lot of the resources that came from the Inflation 
Reduction Act were for grants or programs. And so, number one, 
we need to have the technical expertise at headquarters in our 
regions to work with our communities to ensure that everything 
we do is viewed through that environmental justice lens.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, Administrator, the President's 
budget includes $757 million, and 3,350 for FTE to strengthen 
environmental enforcement, which is really important because 
these communities I talked about are frequently the targets of 
repeated violations. So how does the EPA intend--plan to follow 
up through its enforcement requirements that will help 
eliminate violations from repeat offenders?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that question because that is 
definitely something that the EPA Inspector General highlighted 
for us and indicated that our lack of enforcement and capacity 
jeopardizes our ability to meet our statutory obligations. And 
so we've lost more than 900 FTE since 2011--or actually 2022.
    And so we are looking for this budget to not, you know, 
replace all 900 but help us get back on that trajectory so we 
can protect our communities, especially our most vulnerable 
communities.
    Ms. DeGette. Yes, you can't--I mean, if you don't have the 
personnel to do the enforcement, then you can't just get that 
out of thin air.
    Mr. Regan. We're forced to prioritize the worst offenders. 
And you're right, we cannot adequately complete our mission.
    Ms. DeGette. Yes. I was really heartened in your opening 
statement to hear you talking about the--replacing the lead 
service lines across the United States. My community of Denver 
was one of the communities, and we're still working through our 
problem, but because of the lead variance issued by the EPA 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Denver Water has been able 
to put together a comprehensive approach for reducing lead in 
drinking water.
    So I want to ask you briefly, how is EPA using successful 
programs like the one in Denver to work with other cities and 
towns to make sure that everybody has access to clean, lead-
free drinking water?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that, and thank you for 
Colorado and Denver's leadership on this issue. You know, 
Denver has a variance program that allows for accelerated 
progress, and so there's some flexibility and innovation built 
into Denver because of the city's unique experiences. We're 
studying that. We're studying those local experiences, whether 
it be Denver or Newark or Chicago. We know that one size 
doesn't fit all, and we want to match our resources with the 
local innovation.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, and I renew my invitation 
for you to come out and look at Globeville Elyria-Swansea with 
me. Thanks.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, sir.
    Administrator Regan, the summer is almost officially here. 
I'm sure you noticed my ice cream suit by now. And I understand 
that the chairman has invited you back, and hopefully if you 
come in May you'll get to wear a Colonel Sanders suit as well. 
So just a little fun there.
    Mr. Regan. [Laughs.]
    Mr. Weber. I want to ask you about the American Innovation 
and Manufacturing Act, or AIM Act. Before I was elected to 
Congress, I owned and operated an HVAC company in Texas, and I 
know that keeping systems cooling folks in the summer literally 
is a matter of life or death. That is--this is why Congress 
took great care in AIM to ensure an adequate supply of 
hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that would be available for the 
lower-cost HVAC system refrigerant.
    Let me put that in perspective from personal experience. We 
can talk about underserved communities or we can talk about low 
social-economic. I forget exactly what Representative DeGette, 
the terms you all used. But because of the rules that were put 
in place by the Federal Government, if you went into somebody's 
house and if they needed a new evaporator coil that was leaking 
up in the attic or in the closet, it might be a thousand-dollar 
job.
    But because they increase efficiency, SEER ratings on units 
that used a different form of refrigerant, now the outside unit 
had to be changed, a lot of the duct work, the plenum work had 
to be changed to match the larger system, and now it becomes an 
8-or-9-thousand-dollar job. Well, just imagine a family who is 
struggling who wasn't sitting around waiting thinking, I mean, 
I hope my coil goes out, I got a thousand dollars set aside.
    Now all of the sudden they've got to come up with $9,000. 
And so those rules are really hurting American families, 
especially in my district. That was my experience.
    And so I feel like--it feels like the EPA don't have a way 
to help AIM supporters with implementation. But what--has the 
EPA done it or have they--have you deprioritized implementing 
this proconsumer portion of the law until the very end? In 
other words, low-cost refrigerant needs to be available to 
those people. What say you?
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for that. I'm--I would remark I'm from 
North Carolina, I'm not afraid of a seersucker suit, so I got 
one ready for you.
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Mr. Regan. And, you know, I think we have worked really 
hard with the manufacturers on the implementation. I will 
double back with my staff to see if we are at this point here, 
but I think we reconstructed the allocations. We've worked very 
hard with the manufacturers on the execution of this rule, and 
if there's something outstanding on that last leg of it, I'd 
like to talk to you about it.
    Mr. Weber. Well, please do, because it really impacts the 
lower-income people a lot more than maybe professionals, for 
example. It doesn't matter what their race, color, or creed is 
if the professional people have two salaries and they're able 
to set aside some money, they're able to maybe manage that 
shock, because it's a shock to your budget. I've seen too many 
times standing in somebody's house where they just can't 
believe it's happening to them. And so please check into that 
and get back to us.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Weber. Based on the EPA's timing, Americans are going 
to have no choice to pay for more air conditioning, higher 
prices this summer. When is the earlier time you think you can 
be back and wear that suit for us?
    Mr. Regan. [Laughs.] I'll circle with my staff and see what 
we can do.
    Mr. Weber. OK. Secondly, Administrator Regan, sound 
chemical management policies are critical to American 
innovation and competitive. EPA's approach to chemical 
management can have a direct impact on American's ability to be 
an innovation leader, whether building in construction 
materials, to semiconductors, healthcare and energy solutions, 
like EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels.
    Last week, EPA issued a proposed TSCA rule, Toxic Substance 
Control Act rule, where they announced it was missing 
information about economic impacts and workplace exposures and 
practices, and asked the affected industry, those industries to 
submit this information to the EPA. I'm also told that the EPA 
proposal did not take into account supply-chain disruptions and 
whether risk management action could adversely affect critical 
infrastructure, IRA investments, and national security 
objectives, something I think--would hope this administration 
would care about.
    Public comment rule period has been set for 60 days. EPA 
has said it will apply--use its applied similar regulatory 
practices for this chemical analysis despite critical data 
missing and sloppy scientific and regulatory impact analysis in 
future TSCA, or Toxic Substance Control Act, cases. Will you 
commit now to extending the comment period past this 60 days so 
that those same stakeholders are capable of collecting and 
providing EPA's request for information and to enable the 
Agency to conduct the necessary comprehensive review of supply 
chain and infrastructure impacts?
    Mr. Regan. Well, let me say that I don't think that we have 
proposed a rule that is incomplete. There may have been a 
request for additional information during the comment period, 
but I don't believe we proposed an insufficient rule. I will 
tell you, though, that because of the historic investments that 
we've seen, whether it be CHIPS and Science Act or IRA, we're 
taking all of this stuff into consideration. It absolutely is 
on my mind that we would propose something that would disrupt 
our pursuit of semiconductor or domestic manufactures.
    Mr. Weber. So you can get back to us on that?
    Mr. Regan. Sure, I will. Absolutely.
    Mr. Weber. My time's up. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you so 
much, Administrator Regan. I appreciate the work that you've 
done. I also wanted to give a little shout out to our Regional 
Administrator, Deb Shore, who I think has done a great job for 
the whole region. I'm from the City of Chicago, but the work 
that she did with the railroad crisis I think has been really 
exemplary.
    So I want to--I have a particular thank you for you. 
Illinois is number two in the country when it comes to lead 
service lines, and I really appreciate the fact that you have 
done--completed the review of the drinking water infrastructure 
needs survey. And as a consequence of that, Illinois is getting 
more money than we had originally been allocated, and that 
means so much. Chicago alone has over 400,000 lines that need 
to be replaced. So I want to thank you for that.
    I also just wanted to note that the International Panel on 
Climate Change put out such a dramatic warning to all of us, 
and I think all of our colleagues have to acknowledge that we 
are on the verge if we don't take urgent action, immediate 
action right now that we'll be unable to avoid some of the 
worst effects of climate change right now.
    So I am concerned right now that what we are seeing is that 
Republican colleagues of mine have decided that there ought to 
be the repeal of the infrastructure reduction--the--I'm sorry, 
the--what is it--anyway. We're talking about problems of the 
reversal of bills that we have passed, and I am very concerned. 
I wanted to ask you about that.
    Yes, the infrastructure reduction--the Inflation Reduction 
Act, would, if they had their way, include taking away the 
inclusion of the Methane Emissions Reduction Act and also the 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act. And I want to ask you what is the 
consequence to not only the EPA but to our constituents, and 
their healthcare, and their jobs if those bills were repealed?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think there--we're working extremely 
hard on developing the framework for the $1.5 billion for the 
methane program. I think the industry has indicated that they 
want those resources to help with mitigation, to help with 
technical assistance. And so we're working very hard. That $1.5 
billion is very important to the industry.
    I think when you look at the greenhouse gas reduction fund, 
$27 billion that we are working with independent organizations 
to partner with the private sector to leverage those resources 
to invest in advanced technologies, especially those that will 
grow jobs, create an economy, but also grow jobs locally. 
There's a tremendous opportunity there.
    So these are economic and technology opportunities just as 
importantly as they are human health opportunities as well. It 
would be a major setback, and I think that industry and many of 
our stakeholders fought aggressively to get those provisions 
into the IRA, and it would be a shame to see that taken out.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Do you have an estimate of how many jobs 
actually could be lost if these programs didn't move forward?
    Mr. Regan. I'll circle back and have my team give you sort 
of a breakdown of what we estimate the job impact potential 
could be. We know that there--it's significant, especially when 
we think about being competitive in the 21st century. It's 
really significant.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just also say how concerned I am if 
there actually were a great reduction back to a couple years 
ago of funding for the EPA, what it would mean for our ability 
to save these programs and additionally, to save our planet. So 
thank you very much for the work that you do, I appreciate you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Chair of the full committee, Ms. Rodgers, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The EPA's vehicle 
emissions proposal is really seeking to transform the domestic 
auto market so that two-thirds of the new vehicle sales of--
will be battery electric vehicles in less than 10 years, by 
2032--two-thirds, without regard to what people want, whether 
the infrastructure charging exists, and still being dependent 
upon continued subsidies.
    Now, Mr. Administrator, you may argue that these rules 
don't set any kind of--don't ban any kind of cars, they only 
set a technology standard. But the way that they are written, 
it is a de facto ban on vehicles that aren't battery electric 
vehicles. Hybrids won't quality. Plug-in hybrids won't quality. 
Hydrogen, propane, and certainly the internal combustion engine 
won't qualify, regardless of what people want.
    Now, on affordability, the average price of an EV, a 
battery electric vehicle, is $65,291, which is more than 17,000 
than the average price of current cars. Mr. Administrator, the 
raw materials required to build one battery electric vehicle 
could instead be used to build 90 hybrids. The overall carbon 
reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetime is 37 times 
as much as one battery electric vehicle.
    So my question is why did EPA propose a tailpipe emission 
standard that phases out the environmental improvements and 
practical benefits offered by hybrids?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And I just 
don't believe that that's the case. I think the proposed rule, 
which is out for discussion, has a range of 53 to 67 percent of 
vehicles sold by the year 2032. We're talking about way out to 
2032. And so I just don't believe that there is a dire choice 
here.
    We are also promoting advanced biofuels, biofuels, and 
biofuel infrastructure as well, so I just don't quite see it--
--
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. I'll just say 
I would--I guess you'll hear during the comment period, but 
there are grave concerns about the way this rule is written and 
the impact that it's going to have, decisions that will have to 
be made today in order to, you know, get us to this mandate by 
the Biden administration of two-thirds of new car sales being 
battery electric-only by 2023.
    So the proposed tailpipe emissions standard is driving us 
further towards China dependence. China controls 50 to 70 
percent of the global lithium and cobalt. Can you tell me how 
much new lithium and other mineral processings will be required 
in the United States to meet this new requirement under the 
tailpipe emissions proposal?
    Mr. Regan. And I think you mentioned 2023, but actually 
we're looking at 2032.
    Mrs. Rodgers. 2030--I'm sorry, yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. OK. Yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. 2032. I got my numbers flipped. Yes.
    Mr. Regan. I think that's important----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Because we--in this proposal, we're 
soliciting comments because we have a----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. A buildout time.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So how much lithium and other material 
processing will we need by 2032?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think we need more, right? And I think--
--
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. How much--how many lithium mines do we 
have today in the United States?
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure.
    Mrs. Rodgers. How many lithium processing?
    Mr. Regan. I'm not quite sure.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, my understanding is zero. It all has to 
go to China, and then it comes back to us. We have one lithium 
mine. And as you know, the permitting is such in America that 
it's going to be at least 10 years to get any new mines 
permitted. It is a dangerous--it is a dangerously dependent 
policy that's going to put us dangerously dependent upon China.
    OK, I'm running out of time here. I wanted to get to the 
new human health water quality criteria for Washington State, 
and I wrote you a letter, EPA's standards for PCBs at 7 parts 
per quadrillion, 7 PPQs, for the State of Washington. It's 
unattainable with the current technologies, it's undetectable 
with current EPA-approved test methods. Is EPA's human health 
water quality criteria that is unmeasurable, unattainable with 
current technology consistent, that it be based on sound 
science?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, absolutely based on sound science. And 
thank you for the meeting yesterday.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Regan. I still believe and maintain that that permit is 
not in jeopardy. I think there may be some discrepancies 
between the State of Washington and the EPA on those 
requirements.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So the--so--OK, thank you. So does EPA 
support States, like the State of Washington right now, using a 
non-EPA-approved method for detecting PCBs to determine whether 
permit holders are compliant with Federal standards?
    Mr. Regan. I can tell you as a former State regulator that 
States have certain autonomy under the law, that they can go 
further than the Federal Government.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So they're using a nonapproved EPA 
technology. Anyway, I'm also very concerned about 151 separate 
rulemakings. Have you done any work on whether or not this 
agenda is actually focused on--can you track how the Nation's 
environmental quality has improved over the last 10 years?
    OK. Maybe I'm going to have to follow up with a letter. Ran 
out of time. I guess my point is I hope that we're looking at 
actually the impact, the results of these regulations not just 
issuing 151 new regulations for lord knows what purpose. OK.
    Mr. Regan. And if I might, all 151 aren't new, and many of 
them are court-ordered. As you know, from various 
administrations, these things carry over, so I would like to 
continue that conversation.
    Mr. Johnson. As you've heard yet again, Mr. Administrator, 
we're looking for a balance. Protect the environment but ensure 
the safety security, the energy security, the economic freedom 
of the American people. That's what we're looking for.
    The gentlelady, her time is expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to ask the Administrator about the Superfund 
program, which is so important to my home State of New Jersey. 
But again, by way of background, because I hear what the 
Republicans are saying, look, nobody likes regulation, nobody 
likes taxes. But part of the reason why we have a Superfund is 
because there wasn't proper regulation years ago and companies 
did whatever they wanted and threw Agent Orange and all kinds 
of pollutants on the ground and in the water, and so we've got 
to clean it up.
    And that takes money, and that's one of the reasons that I 
was in favor of reinstating the Superfund tax, which lapsed in 
1995, and worked to reinstate this what I call polluter-pays 
tax ever since, because I don't think taxpayers should have to 
foot the bill to clean up these toxic waste sites. That 
responsibility should fall to the polluters who created the 
problem in the first place.
    And so, thankfully, we reinstated the tax--the Superfund 
tax last Congress through a combination of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. So I wanted 
to ask you, how has the dedicated funding stream created by the 
Superfund tax reinstatement helped to speed up or increase the 
number of clean ups started by the EPA?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you so much, Congressman Pallone, 
for your support of Superfund and the Superfund tax. We've seen 
an exponential increase in speed. In some communities, we've 
seen calendars move forward by a year. In 2022, we obligated 
about $1 billion in bill funding at 116 Superfund sites. And, 
you know, we're using that bill funding to clear the backlog of 
49 sites that were previously unfunded and did not have any 
construction occurring, so this is a significant shot in the 
arm in communities all across the country who are living in 
these blighted areas.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks. Now the funds provided by the 
tax obviously have--are helpful, but they do not cover every 
need of the Superfund program, so to that end, the budget 
requested an additional $355 million. So could you talk about 
those additional funds and why they are critical for the 
Superfund program?
    Mr. Regan. They're very critical. You know, we're grateful 
for the leadership, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 
billions of dollars from bill, but there's a gap. There's a 
deficit for a lot of communities, and you and I have been to 
some of these communities, and you understand that the impact 
on these communities is not only a health impact but there's an 
economic impact, there's a psychological impact from living 
close to these blighted sites. And so this $355 million is 
really going to help communities all across the country.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks. Now the administration has also 
put a spotlight on environmental justice through its Justice40 
Initiative, and that was championed by my late friend and 
colleague from this committee, Representative McEachin. So can 
you tell us--share how the Superfund and Brownfields programs 
factor into Justice40 and how the budget furthers the 
administration's Justice40 Initiative more broadly?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, fortunately--or unfortunately--
the majority of these Brownfield sites and Superfund sites are 
in low-income communities and communities of color, and your 
Tribal communities. And so, as we've allocated this funding 
towards those who need it the most, we have met and exceeded 
the Justice40 Initiative, which is at least 40 percent of these 
Federal dollars be invested in communities, and you see the 
benefits in those communities.
    We're very proud. In the first year of the Superfund 
program, I believe we were in the high 60 percent of those 
resources were going to underserved communities. And again, 
that's low-income and communities of color. This is very 
important. It's very important that we have that Justice40 
floor, but in many instances, our programs far exceed that.
    Mr. Pallone. And I appreciate, you know--I think it's 
important that we talk about not just Superfund but 
Brownfields, right, because there are so many more Brownfield 
sites than there are Superfund sites, and although they may not 
be as dangerous because they're not on the national priority 
list, they're not as toxic per se, there are many of them. And 
so I do think that we need funding to help clean those up, it 
can't just all be borne by the State, otherwise it's not going 
to happen.
    But again, I'll just conclude by this, Mr. Chairman, which 
is, you know, the budget cuts and rollbacks that are included 
in the Default on America Act, you know, the one that the 
Republicans passed just before the last break, you know, to 
address in their minds the deficit, is--it's really going to 
hurt a lot of this cleanup, and the funding cuts will really 
make it much harder for you to meet your health and safety 
goals.
    So I understand that they're--they've expressed concern 
about how you're going about things, but the bottom line is if 
you have a lot of cuts from their Default Act, you're not going 
to be able to do a lot of the things that are important for 
people's public health and safety. So thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Administrator Regan, thank you for being here, 
I appreciate your presence here. I appreciate your presence in 
my district at the Georgia Ports last week. I'm sorry that I 
wasn't invited, but my staff found about it the night before, 
and they were able to get there, so I appreciate them being 
there. But thank you for being there. You saw what an economic 
engine the Georgia Ports are to--not to only our area in the 
southeast part of Georgia and to our State but the entire 
Southeast United States, and the impact reaches all the way up 
into the Ohio Valley.
    So that's one of the reasons that I'm so concerned, because 
we've had a lot of growth and prosperity that's come to our 
district, and I'm concerned about some of these new rules 
that--and regulations that are being pushed by the 
administration. I don't want to see that deterred. I don't want 
to see that growth and prosperity deterred. No one cares more 
about clean air than I do, and I say that sincerely.
    Where you were at is about 2 miles from where I grew up. I 
grew up right down the river from where you were at last week 
and, you know, I would have people when I was in college come 
home and visit with me, and they'd--we had so many paper mills 
they'd say, ``What's that smell?,'' and I said, ``That smell's 
money, that's what it is.'' And that's what it was to us. The 
smell of a paper mill was money, and it put bread--milk and 
bread on our tables.
    I worked in the paper mill. My dad worked in it for 33\1/2\ 
years. And it was important, just as these things that you saw 
this past week are important to our economy.
    And that's why I'm just concerned about the impact this is 
going to have, particularly the particulate matter rule where 
the new air quality standards are--that you're proposing for 
PM2.5 for particulate matter particles that measure 2\1/2\ 
micrometers or less in diameter. Even the EPA says that the 
United States has some of the cleanest air in the world, that 
we have done a good job. I believe there's a chart on your 
website that shows alongside the dramatic economic growth and 
even vehicle miles traveled, even through that, we've been able 
to accomplish some of the cleanest air in the world.
    And that's why, again, I'm just concerned about these 
proposed standards and proposed changes. You know, there have 
been some questions about the rulemaking process, and I'm 
concerned about the rulemaking process too. But I want to 
mention that in 2001 President Obama withdrew an EPA proposal 
to reconsider ozone standards, citing, and I quote in his 
words, ``the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and 
regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues 
to recover.''
    Looking at the proposals and--do you recognize, as 
President Obama did, that the President--that EPA can consider 
regulatory costs and burdens when deciding whether to move 
forward with the discretionary air quality control 
reconsideration?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think that we absolutely do a cost 
benefit analysis for all of these rules, and PM2.5 and ozone 
are obviously different regulations here. But this one that 
we've proposed--and we're still having a conversation, we 
proposed it, we're taking comment--would avoid about 4,300 
premature deaths and get a lot of lost work days. And we 
believe the technology exists to do this. So there is a cost--
--
    Mr. Carter. But aren't you concerned, I mean, you know, we 
got inflation, we've got--and you--again, you were there last 
week, you saw our economy is buzzing down there. We're doing 
great. And I don't want that to be deterred at all, and I'm 
concerned that this is going to do it.
    Mr. Regan. Well, and that's--I was there at the Port of 
Georgia for a reason, which is that port is demonstrating that 
they are well-positioned for a significant chunk of that $4 
billion that we announced from the Inflation Reduction Act. 
Those types of announcements that we're making to use those 
resources will help ports and communities all across the 
country comply with these regulations.
    The goal is to have our regulations be complementary of the 
resources that we're getting with these technologies.
    Mr. Carter. Well, and I admire that goal, but let's please 
make sure that we don't inadvertently or unwittingly do just 
the opposite and deter growth.
    I want to get real quickly to Brownfields, because I've got 
quite a few brownfields in my district, particularly in the 
southernmost part of my district in Glynn County. You mentioned 
the Justice40 requirements. Can you tell me about those? How 
are the conditioning grants based on Justice40 requirements?
    Mr. Regan. Well, and based on the money from bill, 40 
percent of the benefits that result from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law must go into communities that have been 
described as disadvantaged or disproportionately impacted or 
low income, and 40 percent of the resources that come from the 
Federal Government will prioritize those disadvantaged 
communities.
    Mr. Carter. We've got a real concern with brownfields. We--
and this has been going on so long, I get so frustrated. These 
brownfields that I'm talking about in my district have been on 
the books for over 20 years--two decades.
    I'm going to follow up with some questions. I'm out of 
time, but thank you very much again for being here, and thank 
you again for visiting the district.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Right now we have the opportunity to protect our 
environment, safeguard our public health, and strengthen our 
national security with clean energy from critical minerals 
found right here in the United States, like in the Lithium 
Valley and the Imperial Valley at the Salton Sea region in my 
district. By filtering out critical minerals from closed-loop 
geothermal brine such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, we can 
reduce the need for mining.
    Mitigating our use of mining can help preserve our natural 
ecosystems because it would lessen land degradation and water 
and air pollution. And as we know, lithium is important for 
battery manufacturing. We will need batteries for our clean 
energy future.
    But while we increase production of batteries for clean 
energy technologies in our consumer products, we also need to 
make sure that we are properly and responsibly disposing of 
them and not creating pollution down the road, especially in--
and creating frontline environmental injustice communities, OK.
    As the demand for lithium-mined batteries continue to grow, 
we must implement policies that promote circularity to ensure 
that we are getting the most of our natural resources and are 
protecting public health and the environment in the process. In 
addition to optimizing recovery of critical minerals like 
lithium, the proper disposal of batteries can decrease the 
chances of them potentially releasing hazardous substances into 
the environment or bursting into flames when mixed with other 
toxic chemicals at landfills.
    By reducing these environmental and safety impacts, we can 
also keep the public healthier. Improperly disposed-of 
batteries can end up in landfills that have the potential to 
release toxic chemicals into the environment. These toxic 
chemicals don't just affect our soil and water but also affect 
the air quality of communities nearby. We often see this in 
lower economic communities where batteries and other toxic 
materials are more likely to be dumped improperly.
    Communities like my own in California's 25th District, 
improving how we manage our discarded batteries is an important 
component of strengthening our circular or the reduce, reuse, 
and recycle economy. We need to ensure that we are focusing on 
solutions that maximize the value of recovered materials while 
protecting public health, worker safety, and the environment.
    Last Congress, my colleagues and I took action on this 
important issue through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act which allocated $50 million for EPA to develop a voluntary 
battery-labeling guidelines and $10 million to develop best 
practices for battery collection. I'm glad to see that the EPA 
has made progress on these guidelines and best practices and 
look forward to the positive outcomes that will result from 
these efforts.
    So, Administrator Regan, can you please speak to the public 
health and environmental benefits of investing in this circular 
economy for batteries?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question, and I do want 
to thank you--before I answer, thank you for your leadership on 
the Oasis Mobile Home Park. We really appreciate your 
leadership on that very important topic.
    Absolutely. When I travel the country and travel the world, 
the issue that young people talk about the most is recycling, 
and a lot of it is focused on battery recycling. I'll also tell 
you that the private sector is laser-focused on battery 
recycling. Thank you for the resources in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure law to focus specifically on battery recycling.
    Mr. Ruiz. So how do you think the voluntary labeling 
guidelines will help promote a circular and sustainable battery 
supply?
    Mr. Regan. Well, it just makes the process easier. If you 
have the labeling done, and if you have a priority on these 
products, then it's easier to gain access to, you can 
understand and quantify the amount, and then you can build a 
market around it. And that's what so many of our private-sector 
friends want to do. They don't want to use the energy to really 
go mine again if they can recycle, preserve, and use that solar 
panel again or use that battery again.
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
    Mr. Regan. We're seeing that interest from the private 
sector.
    Mr. Ruiz. So thank you for answering my call to have EPA 
coordinate and focus with the different agencies in my district 
around the Oasis Mobile Home Park. I believe with our 
leadership, we can really make the significant difference as 
needed to improve clean drinking water so that our farm workers 
don't have to drink arsenic at toxic levels in their 
dilapidated water systems.
    But I also am putting a call out for the EPA to be forward 
thinking and helping us mitigate or prevent creating new 
environmental justice frontline communities with these 
batteries that we're planning to manufacture in the district as 
well as around the country. So I'd like to work with you on 
helping to develop guidelines to--in the recycling and disposal 
of batteries to prevent another environmental injustice.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is a very 
important hearing this morning. I want to thank Administrator 
Regan for coming before our subcommittee.
    You know, we talked about what folks are asking us or what 
folks are concerned about back home. You know, obviously our 
folks are concerned about inflation, the ability to, you know, 
meet the family budget, and obviously our future economic 
prosperity. They just don't see--I mean, it looks pretty grim 
out there, to be honest with you.
    And then, of course, from a national defense standpoint, 
our adversaries are there as well, and then we compete in a 
world economic--it's a competition, and we have to--and, you 
know, we have to stay on top to maintain our status in the 
world.
    Unfortunately, your budget is filled with a lot of 
burdensome regulations that will harm manufacturers and will 
increase energy prices for Americans, and that's something 
that, like I said, is a real problem right now in this country.
    I have a lot I want to cover, but I'd first like to mention 
that you could put me and my constituents on the list of those 
folks that are very unhappy with your WOTUS rule, and I know 
we're not alone.
    I next want to discuss an issue that has greatly impacted 
my district, and that is the chlorpyrifos. I represent a 
district where the number one industry is agriculture. I want 
to take you back to a conversation you had at a prior hearing 
for chlorpyrifos.
    Were you aware that your Agency on June 24th was exchanging 
offers and closing in on an agreement with the industry on 11 
uses for this agrichemical, but then within 1 week EPA faced 
lobbying from ENGOs cozy with this administration and New 
York's attorney general resulting in EPA going a different 
direction?
    Mr. Regan. I'm not----
    Mr. Allen. You're not aware of that?
    Mr. Regan. No, I don't--I'm not familiar.
    Mr. Allen. You testified that you did not appeal the 
court's decision on the 11 uses. Was this because United States 
Government uniformly believed these uses were unsafe?
    Mr. Regan. I think the Ninth Circuit had spoken up and had 
indicated they were frustrated with the pace of the Agency. We 
took a look at the law and what the Ninth Circuit had required, 
and I think that is the result of the proposal that we put out.
    Mr. Allen. You also testified that the court was clear with 
you that it was frustrated. However, an appeal would be before 
a new slate of judges. Did you have information that those 
judges were also frustrated with this issue?
    Mr. Regan. I don't have any information on judges.
    Mr. Allen. If a future judicial action remains this 
decision to EPA, can we expect a different outcome?
    Mr. Regan. You know, if it is remanded back to the Agency, 
we'll look at the direction that the court has given us, and 
we'll try to govern ourselves accordingly.
    Mr. Allen. Let's move on to another topic of concern, as 
you're aware, that manufacturers, utilities, and other pay--
others pay attention to potential future regulatory costs and 
compliance costs when making long-term decisions to maintain or 
expand operations. And the more EPA signals and outlines what 
its plans for regulations, owners of facilities take that into 
account. Would you agree?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. So this coming Thursday, it's been reported, you 
will be proposing new emissions regulations on electric 
generation, and this follows a number of costly EPA regulatory 
actions on the electric sector. We know from experience that 
some of these rules will never be implemented, but that's not 
the problem. The problem is EPA appears to be pursuing a 
strategy to send as many signals as possible that future costs 
are going to increase, and so owners and investors will decide 
to shut generation permanently.
    Administrator Regan, is that an appropriate strategy for 
the EPA to pursue?
    Mr. Regan. It's the not strategy at all. I think I've been 
engaging with the utility CEOs and the power sector for close 
to 2 years now. They've asked us for some regulatory certainty. 
They asked us to be responsible in terms of looking at that 
regulation and how it coincides with the West Virginia case----
    Mr. Allen. Well, you said you all do cost benefit studies 
so----
    Mr. Regan. We do cost benefit analysis with every rule.
    Mr. Allen. OK. So if the cost goes up, then you--I mean, 
you say--what's the benefit?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we look at the benefits not only to the 
economy but to public health. We look at the benefits to lost 
work days, lost school days, premature deaths, loss of life. So 
there's a complicated scenario that we put this cost benefit 
analysis together. And we'd be happy to brief your team on how 
we arrived at that.
    Mr. Allen. Well, the last thing we need is to have more 
burdensome regulations that will add to rising energy prices. 
And I thank you for being here today, and I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Chair Johnson and Ranking Member 
Tonko, for holding today's hearing. And I'd also like to thank 
Administer--Administrator Regan for being here to testify this 
morning.
    I commend your leadership in ensuring environmental 
justice, combating climate change, and protecting public 
health, which are clearly top priorities for the EPA. As you 
are well aware, air pollution from diesel-fueled trucks places 
an equal burden on communities of color. Exposure to air 
pollution like particulate matter and nitrogen oxide is linked 
to a whole laundry list of health problems, including asthma, 
heart disease, and stroke.
    The failure of our Government to secure clean air for our 
communities leads to thousands of preventable premature deaths 
each year. The last time you were before this committee, I 
asked about administration's clean trucks plan which set 
emissions standards by heavy-duty vehicles starting in model 
year 2027. Now that the clean trucks rule has been finalized, 
do you have any estimate of how many deaths will be prevented 
because of the new emissions standard?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I--we definitely have that number. I will 
be sure to have my staff get that number to you for those 
years, 2027 and beyond for those heavy-duty vehicles.
    Ms. Clarke. Wonderful. Multiple programs like DERA and 
newly created Clean School Bus Program focus on removing dirty 
diesel vehicles from our roads but don't specifically 
prioritize electrification of other sources of emissions in the 
transportation sector like refrigeration units on trucks or 
port equipment. I was glad to see the EPA recently released 
RFIs for the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Clean Ports programs 
created under the Inflation Reduction Act, which will help 
speed emissions reductions in this space.
    However, I wanted to ask about another provision in the IRA 
related to reducing diesel emissions. I work with my colleagues 
on this committee to ensure the law included $60 million for 
reducing diesel emissions for good movement in low-income and 
disadvantaged communities. This provision was drafted with the 
express intent to ensure the eligible uses included the 
electrification of equipment outside of the vehicle's engine 
itself, like the electrification of trucks refrigeration units, 
or eTRUs.
    What is the status of implementation of the Section 60104 
Good Movement program, and how is the EPA considering eTRUs 
with regard to reducing diesel emissions in communities that 
are disproportionately impacted by these types of emissions?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you 
for your leadership on this topic. Because of the conversations 
we've had, we've made it a priority. Just last fall, we issued 
a tool that specifically tracks emissions from these 
transportation refrigeration units. We're building a repository 
so that we can understand where they are, what the impact is. 
And we're actually trying to marriage--marry that tool to these 
TCTAC grants or these EJ grants so that communities can apply 
for those grants and address some of these issues quicker than 
probably the Federal Government can.
    Ms. Clarke. As a matter of fact, I'm pleased to see the 
Agency's recent announcement of the Environmental Justice TCTAC 
Program, which will build capacity and remove barriers for 
environmental justice communities to navigate Federal grant 
programs. How does the Agency's budget request support the 
critical work of these centers and connect the Agency's broader 
goals of prioritizing environmental justice?
    Mr. Regan. You know, it's a significant priority for us, 
and we don't pretend that the Federal Government has all the 
answers. So whether you're in New York or McDowell County, West 
Virginia, these TCTACs will work with local groups--local 
grassroots organizations who know their communities best, and 
we will provide technical assistance to these communities so 
that they are prepared and armed with grant writers and the 
understanding of the accountability for these Federal grants, 
and be positioned for the over $3 billion in Environmental 
Justice and Climate Justice grants provided by the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, Administrator Regan, I want to thank you 
for your diligence and your hard work, your commitment to clean 
air, to cleaning up our environment.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Palmer [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
    Administrator Regan, there appears to be a trend where the 
EPA is denying an increasing number of small refinery 
exemptions to the Renewable Fuel Standard. The GAO put out a 
report that found that the EPA has not analyzed the accuracy of 
its assumptions that small refineries do not experience 
disproportionate economic hardship from the renewable fuel 
standards. And GAO's analysis found that small refineries have 
paid on average for compliance credits that are higher than the 
large refineries.
    And what I want to know is why has the EPA not analyzed the 
accuracy of the assumptions used to deny the small refinery 
exemptions?
    Mr. Regan. We have. We have analyzed those and, you know, 
most of our--or all of those recent denials are in response to 
the ruling that the Tenth Circuit gave. We had to prove the 
SREs as an Agency in previous years. The courts ruled against 
that understanding.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, are you saying that you're basing your 
rulings on the Tenth Circuit Court or based on your analysis 
that--are you saying that they're not paying more?
    Mr. Regan. We've updated our analysis based on the losses 
that we've faced in court to be sure that we are on the right 
side of the law.
    Mr. Palmer. But are they paying more--are the small 
refineries having to pay more?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I think the question is how we define the 
economic benefit.
    Mr. Palmer. No, I'm asking the question. The question is 
pretty simple: Are the refineries being forced to pay more?
    Mr. Regan. As the EPA Administrator, I'm only allowed to 
consider the economic disproportionate impact, not just to the 
refiner but to the State and to a number of entities, so that's 
outside of our jurisdiction just to make a decision----
    Mr. Palmer. So what you're telling me is, is that you're 
admitting that the small refineries are being 
disproportionately impacted by your decisions on the renewable 
fuel span--standards----
    Mr. Regan. I don't have the authority just to consider--I 
guess what I'm saying is I don't have the authority just to 
consider the question you're asking, which is are the 
refineries being disproportionately impacted solely. That's not 
the way the SRE program works.
    Mr. Palmer. Well--but you do have the authority to report 
accurately to Congress, whether or not that is the case, so 
that Congress, if need be, can take appropriate action. The GAO 
also found the EPA's inconsistency in granting exemptions makes 
the Agency's decisions to appear ad hoc, resulting in market 
uncertainty that can harm small refineries and renewable fuel 
producers.
    Under this current administration, gas prices have 
skyrocketed and Americans are definitely feeling the pain. What 
has--why has the EPA contributed to high prices with its attack 
on small refineries?
    Mr. Regan. I think the EPA's response is in response to the 
SREs that were given in previous years, and the courts denied 
those and said that the EPA acted outside of its legal 
authority. And so our decisions moving forward are based on 
what we believe our legal authority is in concert with the way 
and the advice that the courts have given us.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, you know, this is another example of this 
administration, you know, giving favorability to certain 
players in the marketplace, and it ultimately harms the 
American consumer. And I don't know why your Agency wants to 
create this market uncertainty for the small refineries when 
everything gets passed down to the consumer, and it shows up 
in--you know, I've made this point time and time again, that 
energy is the most inflationary component in the entire economy 
because everything has an energy cost, whether it's the gas at 
the pump or shows up on the utility bill or it shows up at the 
grocery shelf.
    I want to ask you something else. During COVID we sent a 
massive amount of money to the Small Business Administration in 
the form of the Payroll Protection Plan, far exceeding their 
budget, and tasked them in a very short amount of time to 
distribute these funds to applicants, and it resulted in 
massive fraud. I mean, unprecedented in the history of the 
United States.
    Your EPA has about an $11 billion budget, but you're being 
tasked with distributing $27 billion from a green bank slush 
fund, that's my analysis of it. I want to know--and you have to 
do it by September of next year. Does the EPA--what have you 
done to ensure that there will be no fraud and no mismanagement 
of this money, which is more than double, it's 2\1/2\ times 
your budget?
    Mr. Regan. Well, the first thing that I've done and 
continue to do is meet with my Inspector General, and as we 
design the programs that Congress has delegated to us to be 
sure that we have all of the backstops and protections in place 
to avoid any kind of wasteful spending. I feel really good that 
we've done a good job on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 
We'll do a great job on the Inflation Reduction Act.
    And I am very well aware that there is a lot of oversight 
that is watching everything the Agency is doing. So we're being 
very careful with these resources.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I appreciate that answer. We will be 
observing very closely what happens with this money. We cannot 
allow ourselves to go through another situation like we did in 
COVID where billions and billions of dollars were fraudulently 
taken.
    I yield back and recognize the--Mr. Sarbanes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks, Administrator Regan, for being here. We appreciate 
you. It's a very, very tough job. You're doing a lot, you're 
juggling a lot of things, making real progress, though, for the 
American people.
    As a lifelong Marylander, I'm sure you understand that I've 
been a supporter of restoring the Chesapeake Bay, which is the 
largest estuary in the United States. It's a national 
environmental treasure. It's a regional economic engine. It's 
been one of my top priorities since I've come to Congress.
    And over time, as the Bay's health has been negatively 
impacted by locally produced nutrient runoff, rising sea levels 
due to climate change, the loss of coastal marine habitat, and 
other factors, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has been absolutely 
critical to facilitating the complex cross-state effort that is 
imperative to restoring the Bay. Only EPA can, in a sense, 
bring the regional impact to this effort.
    And the Bay Program is a unique partnership, as you know, 
that brings together the six Chesapeake Bay watershed States--
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, New 
York--the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
and the Federal Government. So it's really all hands on deck.
    Each Bay Program partner uses its own resources to 
implement Bay restoration and protection activities, while 
Federal Bay Program funds are used to coordinate the complex 
multistate science, research, modeling, monitoring, data 
collection, and other activities that are essential to support 
partners' collaboration.
    This year, you've requested--the EPA has requested $92.094 
million, a little over $92 million, through its geographic 
programs for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an amount equal to 
last year's enacted levels, and I'm pleased to say that, you 
know, we saw that as a historic investment last year in the 
program's critical work. With these funds, the Bay Program has 
been able to make significant strides in meeting the goal of 
restoring the bay by 2025. We're not there yet. But those goals 
are set forth in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.
    As we rapidly approach that 2025 deadline, can you share 
the progress that the record level of funding which has been 
brought to bear has allowed EPA to make on this goal?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And thank you for your leadership 
and support of that funding. We have almost reversed the 
decline of oysters, freshwater mussels, and some aquatic 
vegetation. You know, wastewater treatment facilities have been 
upgraded. And an increasing number of counties and 
municipalities have stronger stormwater programs that are 
reducing that combined water/sewer spillover into the bay.
    I am very proud to chair the Chesapeake Bay Executive 
Council and have spent some time with the Governors of Virginia 
and Maryland and Pennsylvania. And I think that those resources 
give my staff the capacity to have very serious conversations 
about how we meet these goals while understanding the tough 
road that the agriculture community has to follow in order to 
help us to meet these goals.
    And so I think everybody's rowing in the same direction, 
and we know that we're protecting the ecosystem and an economy 
and a way of life. And so those resources are very precious to 
us.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. As I'm sure you're aware, 
Republicans have proposed some limits on discretionary spending 
that would likely impact the Chesapeake Bay Program and its 
ability to support States in their coordinated effort to meet 
the 2025 deadline. What challenges to meeting the shared goal 
we have of restoring by 2025 still remain, and how would cuts 
to the program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, at this critical 
juncture threaten our ability to sustain the progress that 
we've already made?
    Mr. Regan. I think--well, I don't think, I know the 
Governors of Virginia and Maryland and Pennsylvania and in some 
of the other borderline States would say that this is an all-
hands-on-deck approach right now. And, yes, we are not going to 
meet our 2025 deadline as some had hoped a couple of years ago, 
but we're redefining what it--what success looks like. If we 
don't get these resources, we won't be able to have the 
innovative programs on the ground to meet these restoration 
goals, and it will have an impact on the economy.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I agree with you a hundred percent. Without 
the strong and continued investment the EPA has requested for 
the Chesapeake Bay Program in fiscal year 2024, the risk is we 
could jeopardize decades of work in collaboration towards the 
Bay's restoration. This is absolutely not the moment to pull 
back, it's got to be full steam ahead, all hands on deck, as 
you said. This is the moment to act. We have to provide the 
resources that are necessary to achieve the full measure of the 
bay's restoration. So I appreciate very much your testimony 
here today.
    And I'll just pick up on something you mentioned a moment 
ago, which is the agricultural runoff. Dimension of this 
continues to be a huge challenge. We're in a year also where 
we're looking at reauthorizing the farm bill, and I think that 
conversation across agency is going to be very important to the 
success of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
    Thank you, Administrator. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, my colleague from 
Zanesville, Mr. Balderson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Regan, Administrator, for being here today.
    We've dabbled a little bit around it with the automobile 
piece, but, Administrator Regan, in the EPA's proposed rule for 
emissions standards for model years 2027 and later on light- 
and medium-duty vehicles, the EPA claims the proposal is 
estimated to increase electric power in use by EVs by between 
0.1 percent in 2028 and 4.2 percent in 2055. The EPA also notes 
that because U.S. electric power utilities generally have more 
capacity to produce electricity than is consumed, expected 
increase in electric power demand attributed to vehicle 
electrification is not expected to adversely affect grid 
reliability.
    However, NERC's most recent long-term assessment noted 
government policies for the adaption of EVs and other energy 
transition programs have the potential to significantly 
influence future demand and energy needs. Further, NERC's 
assessment provided an example from California where the 
California Energy Commission estimates a 25 percent increase or 
5,500 megawatts in demand at midnight and a 20 percent increase 
or 4,600 megawatts of demand at 10 a.m. on a typical weekday by 
2030. This added electric load is solely from plug-in EV 
charging under the State's zero-emission vehicle targets.
    Administrator, do you still believe this rule, which will 
require two-thirds of new light-duty vehicle sales by 2032 to 
be fully electric, will have no impact on our grid reliability?
    Mr. Regan. No, I don't think it will. I think that in 
concert with proposing the vehicle rule we're also preparing to 
announce a power plant rule. We're looking at both of these in 
concert, having a lot of conversations with our grid operators, 
a lot of conversations with the power sector--who by the way 
are really looking forward to these customers being on the 
market--and we're looking at the investments that DOE and 
others are making to our grid. So there's a lot of technology 
that's coming to bear.
    And by the way, I think when you look at our proposed power 
plant rule, we're not sacrificing the role that natural gas 
plays. There are technologies in there like CCUS and others to 
keep that base low. So we feel like there's a really good, 
solid picture that we're painting as a regulatory agency.
    Obviously, both of these rules would be out for proposal, 
and we look forward to an active engagement and conversation on 
this.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. Just, you know, look forward 
to continue working with your staff and following up and--on 
some of this information and estimates with this, so we'll look 
forward to working with you and your staff.
    My next question, Administrator, is this tailpipe emissions 
proposal references the joint memorandum of understanding 
between the EPA and the Department of Energy to provide a 
framework for interagency cooperation and consultation on 
electric-sector resource, adequacy, and operational 
reliability. As Chairman Johnson discussed earlier, this 
memorandum notes that the EPA and Department of Energy will 
engage with stakeholders that include power companies, relevant 
trade associations, State public utility commissions, regional 
transmission organizations, and independent system operators, 
NERC, and more.
    When drafting this proposed rule, did EPA engage with any 
of these stakeholders, and did any of these stakeholders raise 
concerns that this rule would negatively impact the reliability 
of the electrical grid?
    Mr. Regan. We absolutely engaged with all of those 
stakeholders. I think the chairman raised a letter that one, a 
particular regional planning organization raised. We talked 
with them. We believe that in our proposal we will have 
addressed many of those concerns. But again, I want to stress 
these are proposals. We want to actively engage with all of our 
stakeholders.
    And I do want to say, that MOU between the Secretary of DOE 
and I is because I take reliability and affordability very 
seriously, wanting to be sure that here are no stones unturned 
and that our two agencies are working hand in hand to ensure 
that as we put these rules out.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. My last question, 
40 seconds. Administrator, gave--5 years ago, Congress gave EPA 
funding to come up with rules for the RCRA, the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, coal ash permit program, when 
EPA issued its proposal in 2020. It has yet to finalize these 
rules.
    Given the administration's concerns about potential 
noncompliance at coal-fired utilities and the general consensus 
that implementing a coal ash permit program is the quickest and 
most efficient way of addressing compliance, why has the EPA 
delayed finalizing the rules for this permit program?
    Mr. Regan. We're working very diligently on that rule. 
We're having interagency conversations. Obviously, the disposal 
of coal ash will have an impact on cost and reliability and all 
of those good things, so we want to be sure that we're 
incorporating how you deal with that waste with the other 
programs that we have in place.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. I look forward to following up with you 
on that process too.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Fulcher from Idaho for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, thank you for being here today. I appreciate 
your input. And I'm from the great State of Idaho, and before 
having this conversation we reached out to some of our 
constituents to try to get some feedback on what would be 
important to them, and so my questions reflect some of that 
feedback.
    One thing the EPA is good at, at least according to the 
people that I serve, is adhering to deadlines when it tends to 
benefit them organizationally but not so good when the deadline 
compliance helps industry. For instance, many of your Agency's 
significant rules impacting most aspects of the Agency, 
including precedent-setting ones, overlap each--they overlap 
each other and only provide the public 60 days to comment. Yet 
these same proposals ask for reems of detailed technical items 
from regulated stakeholders, and as Administrator you've 
refused requests to use your authority to extend those comment 
periods.
    So my first question is, why don't you grant extra time for 
industry to meaningly address technical questions that get 
asked during rulemaking?
    Mr. Regan. I think typically we have a pretty standard 
recipe for extensions. If there are certain criteria met, then 
my Assistant Administrators who manage those programs typically 
do. I'm not quite sure which one you're referring to but----
    Mr. Fulcher. And I will get you some specifics.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. But the bottom line is, is that at least my 
constituents disagree with you on that. Why does the EPA, 
alternately, routinely miss deadlines and many other programs 
such as permitting? The permitting process, that seems to be a 
process that get missed on a frequent basis.
    Mr. Regan. Which permits are you referring to?
    Mr. Fulcher. The--in general, Mr. Regan, the permits seem 
to fall to the wayside and the regulatory aspects seem to rise 
to the top. Are--do you disagree with that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Yes, I'd have to know which specific--I 
think we're meeting our permitting deadlines for the most part. 
There may be permits or rules that fall outside of that but----
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. We will be happy to follow up on that.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. I want to also just talk about the greenhouse 
gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles, phase 3. 
There's a proposed rule that the EPA has come out with that 
would set standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles starting at 
model year 2028 through model year 2032 and revise the 
greenhouse gas standards for that model year 2027. The EPA's 
updated emissions standards of heavy-duty commercial vehicles 
for the model year 2027 tightens the tailpipe NOx limits to a 
level 80-plus percent below the current standard. That's 80, 
not 8.
    At the end of April, the Senate passed the Congressional 
Review Act Resolution disapproving of the EPA rulemaking on the 
heavy-duty trucks. So the end result of this action, according 
to the heavy-duty truck industry, is that these regulations 
would increase equipment costs to manufacturers, fleet owners, 
operators, and would have a detrimental effect on pretty much 
the entire industry.
    Mr. Regan, how is this not an attempt to push out the 
internal combustion engine in the industry?
    Mr. Regan. Oh, it is absolutely not an intention to push 
out----
    Mr. Fulcher. Eighty percent, not 8. Eight zero below 
current standards by 2027.
    Mr. Regan. The trucking industry, which we've had a lot of 
really good conversations, would say that the technologies 
exist to meet those NOx levels. They recognize that there's a 
disproportionate impact in our urban areas and many communities 
in terms of respiratory distress. But I will say that it's a 
proposal. We're in active conversations with the trucking 
industry. I would love to be in conversation with you and your 
staff. It's a proposal.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Regan, I just have to say, 80 percent by 
2027 is going to have a devastating impact, and that is a 
direct link to our food security, the cost to our families and 
farms, the supply chain.
    Mr. Regan. The NOx control technologies exist. That's not 
even speaking about electric vehicles or anything of that 
nature.
    Mr. Fulcher. Let's say that it does. What about the 
existing vehicles on the road? I mean, trying to hit the 
accelerator button so quickly, especially at a time when the--
everyone wants to follow the science. It simply doesn't support 
it.
    Mr. Regan. Well, and I would say very quickly is, right, 
we--we're not doing this overnight. There's a phase-in period 
and there's a grandfathering period as well. So I would hate to 
leave you all with the impression that in 2027, 2028 these 
emissions standards just kick in and everybody has to start 
over. That's just not the way the programs work.
    Mr. Fulcher. I do have more, but I do need to also be 
mindful of the time, so I'm not going to go to the next one. 
I'll just close by saying this has got to be looked at further.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Chairman.
    Administrator, thank you for being here. I speak for 
750,000 constituents that are extremely worried about the 
overreach and the attack and assault on American energy. When 
you talk about loss of life, the single greatest prevention of 
loss of life over the past decade has been from the Permian 
Basin, which has helped a billion people worldwide extend their 
lives and lift them out of poverty.
    Last summer the EPA released a regulatory agenda which 
included the consideration of a redesignation of ozone 
attainment in the Permian Basin. If this is finalized, it would 
impose serious regulatory burdens. In fact, the White House 
today just released their priorities, I'm sure you've seen 
them, for infrastructure and energy, and one of them says 
``prioritizing community engagement.''
    Administrator, I've sent six letters asking for a meeting 
with the Region 6 Director, Ms. Nance, and do you know how many 
of those request have come back answered to me? Six of them. 
Zero. Unacceptable. That's not community engagement.
    Is the EPA actively pursuing a discretionary consideration 
of redesignation of ozone attainment in the Permian Basin?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you should absolutely be involved in those 
conversations.
    Mr. Pfluger. Sir, we're not. And I expect after this 
hearing today that we will get a call from Ms. Nance.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Is the EPA considering a redesignation 
regarding ozone of the Permian Basin?
    Mr. Regan. I'd have to look into that. Obviously, that's a 
Region 6 issue so----
    Mr. Pfluger. But you're the EPA Administrator.
    Mr. Regan. I have Reginal Administrators for a reason who 
oversee thousands of programs.
    Mr. Pfluger. This is the most prolific area of energy 
production in the entire world. If it were not for the Permian 
Basin, this country and the world would have serious problems. 
That's very disheartening to not know the answer to that.
    Let's go to the next one on the natural gas issue, the 
natural gas tax. You know, look, my constituents are extremely 
worried about the overreach. Congress sets laws. Congress 
passes new laws. The unelected bureaucrats, to my knowledge, 
have not been to my district in at least 5 years. We've gone 
back, haven't seen an EPA Administrator or Director do the 
community engagement.
    Given Congress' clear intent to exempt marginal wells 
defined by less than 15 barrels a day and small producers, how 
does the EPA plan to communicate, if at all, to operators that 
were not reporting on the date of enactment of the IRA that 
they do not have to comply?
    Mr. Regan. The IRA is a law that was passed by Congress 
that was delegated to the EPA. The EPA hasn't voluntarily 
established any taxes, so I'm not quite sure I understand the 
question. We do have natural gas proposed in a supplemental 
rule that the industry actually asked us for at the beginning 
of the administration because they wanted some regulatory 
certainty. I think in the IRA, there was $1.5 billion proposed 
and delegated to the----
    Mr. Pfluger. And how will the EPA communicate on how to 
follow those?
    Mr. Regan. Community engagement. Number one, we've been 
communicating, and as a matter of fact we've gotten a lot of 
feedback from the natural gas industry on how they want that 
1.5 billion spent. We know they want it spent on mitigation, we 
know they want it spent on technology. We're designing that 
program right now with their input.
    Mr. Pfluger. There are many trade organizations that would 
disagree with that characterization that have not been 
contacted, that do not support this and support my legislation 
to repeal the natural gas tax so that they can produce. Because 
here's the important thing: 80 percent of our production comes 
from independent producers. Those marginal wells, 80 percent in 
this country--over 80 percent of the wells we have in this 
country are marginal. And so----
    Mr. Regan. You would have to overturn that law before I 
could not abide by the law.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, we want to know how you're going to 
inform them. And, you know, I got two more questions.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Pfluger. It's a very worrisome thing. It's overreach. 
And my constituents who are actually lowering the cost of 
energy and doing the work are at risk. The entire country is at 
risk. But they have not been engaged in this. They have not 
been consulted, and that's very troublesome.
    Representative Veasey and I, along with a bipartisan group 
of Texas Members, recently sent you a letter urging efficient 
and fair review of the railroad--Texas Railroad Commission's 
application for primacy on class VI wells. Can you please give 
me a timeline for when that's going to be responded to?
    Mr. Regan. That would be in the Regional Administrator's 
office, and I will get back to you.
    Mr. Pfluger. The six letters I've sent to meet with the 
regional director, these were questions I had for her, and 
we've received no response.
    Mr. Regan. I will be sure that you get a response.
    Mr. Pfluger. Administrator, we are extremely concerned. 
Energy security is national security. The Permian Basin 
deserves to have a fair shake when it comes to producing 
energy. We know how to do it better than anywhere else, and 
it's critical that the EPA not overreach, not do things that 
you--you know, again, as the chairman said at the outset, 
there's a lot of potential for good here.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Pfluger. But when you don't communicate with us and you 
don't engage with us, we can't work together.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa, Ms. Miller-Meeks--Dr. 
Miller-Meeks, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Administrator Regan, for appearing before us today.
    Representing Iowa, a lot of the work I do naturally focuses 
on ensuring biofuels, including ethanol, remain in the national 
energy mix. With CO2 capture during the ethanol 
production process, ethanol serves as a tool to reduce 
emissions associated with liquid fuels for on-road vehicles. 
With ethanol available as a viable fuel source, one that drives 
emission reductions, I have concerns about recent actions EPA 
has taken to prop up electric vehicles at the expense of 
ethanol and biofuels.
    This includes EPA's recent vehicle standards proposal and 
the set proposal. Instead of focusing on only one solution, 
EVs, EPA should focus on a level playing field for all types of 
fuels and vehicles that can reduce emissions. The solutions 
from my bill, the Next Gen Fuels Act, are a great example of a 
pathway to reduce admissions and cost with cleaner fuels and 
vehicles.
    Administrator Regan, the set proposal creates an entirely 
new eRINS program where electric vehicle manufacturers generate 
RINS. Under the Clean Air Act, the authority to generate RINS 
is given to any person that refines, blends, or imports 
gasoline. Now I will also say in quoting you earlier from this 
hearing, you said--hopefully I'm quoting accurately--you're a 
strong supporter of E15 and biofuels. And personally, I 
appreciate the EPA's recent action on E15 for this year and 
look forward to a permanent solution.
    However, it seems punitive, since Congress specifically 
designed the RFS program to encourage the use of domestically 
produced biofuel blends. Under what statutory authority did EPA 
use to allow electric vehicle manufacturers to generate eRINS 
and participate in the RFS program?
    Mr. Regan. We don't have----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. You have no statutory authority?
    Mr. Regan. We don't--no, no, no. We don't have----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. A eRINS program.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. EPA's set proposal also establishes 
volumes for advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel that are 
below current blending levels and significantly lower than the 
expected growth of the biofuels industry. Last year alone, 
companies announced 6 billion in investments for 21 projects 
that would deliver billions of gallons of biofuels as soon as 
this year. Why did the EPA set volumes at such a low rate?
    Mr. Regan. We don't have a final eRINS program. It doesn't 
exist, for the record. Number two, this administration has set 
the highest RBOs ever in EPA history from 2020, 2021, and 2022. 
As we look at the several----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. For biodiesel?
    Mr. Regan. As we look at the set rule for 2023 and beyond, 
we have proposed--and let me just be clear. I have engaged 
mightily with the biodiesel industry since we proposed that 
rule, and we haven't finalized those numbers yet. So I think 
it's premature----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The biofuels industry has engaged 
mightily with me as well----
    Mr. Regan. I think it's premature----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks [continuing]. And they were disappointed 
at the volumes. So--and I was also interested, you talked--I 
think it was Representative Fulcher asking you about the energy 
needed for electric vehicles, and you--I think you indicated 
that you think that there's enough energy production sources at 
this point in time to meet the EPA's emission standards, which 
would--I won't say mandate, would veer us towards 67 percent of 
vehicles on the road being electric. Are you aware of how many 
vehicles--passenger vehicles are on the road today?
    Mr. Regan. I think you--your premise is at this day and 
time. These rules propose for years modeled out. And so I 
didn't on the record say that you could get a 67 percent EV 
penetration rate today with this infrastructure and this 
environment. That's----
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. You're saying you're bringing online 
over the course of the next years enough energy production to 
meet a 67 percent change in vehicles to EVs.
    Mr. Regan. I say that that the rule proposes a range from 
53 to 67, and we're taking comments from power plants, from 
grid operators, from a lot of people.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I just want to make sure I understand 
that--you know, we are currently at 13 percent renewables with 
wind and solar, 35 percent natural gas for our energy. The 
biggest saving to life is in heating our homes and preventing 
deaths from cold, and that has been largely responsible to the 
Permian Basin.
    I think the most environmentally injustice thing that we 
can do, which was pointed out to us in one of our previous 
hearings, was to have energy production that does not keep up 
with demand, that forces people to lower their standard of 
living and not provide for them the energy to heat their homes, 
to put fuel in their gas tanks, and to buy groceries at an 
affordable level, hurting and dis--and putting at a 
disadvantage our most vulnerable.
    Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte, from--
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan, thank you very much for testifying before us 
today. You answered some questions for Congressman Joyce 
regarding some of California's new regulations and their 
requests for waivers with your Agency to enforce their rules. 
I'd like to talk about a different one, which is one that was 
passed recently by California requiring that all outdoor power 
equipment be electric by model year 2024.
    Let me tell you why that's a particular problem for me. I 
represent a district that, ironically for California, gets a 
lot of snow. In fact my hometown got a little over 11 feet this 
year. And a lot of people think that that sounds like fun, but 
I can assure you from personal experience that it was not. We 
actually had it better than some of my constituents. Some of my 
constituents were literally trapped in their homes for several 
weeks by the amount of snow that we received in the mountains 
of Southern California.
    So really the only savior for those residents is that if 
you live in the mountains, most people have gasoline-powered 
snowblowers. With those pieces of equipment, even though the 
county could not plow the roads to get out to them, they were 
able to plow enough to be able to get out to the grocery store. 
We resupplied the grocery stores by helicopters, if you can 
imagine, to try and get medications and foods to those 
residents that needed it.
    Here's the problem. I have--there are electric snowblowers 
that are available. I have used those electric snowblowers, and 
I assure you that they're adequate for a couple of inches of 
snow but not 5 feet of snow. They absolutely do not work. And 
so I'm fearful that this new regulation is going to be 
completely unworkable for a lot of the people that I represent.
    So the State of California has applied with your Agency for 
the waiver that will be required to enforce this rule, and I'm 
wondering if you could tell us what the status of that waiver 
application is.
    Mr. Regan. I don't know the status of that waiver 
application, but I can tell you I'll prioritize it, and we will 
get back to you.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Do you share my concerns with the 
implementability of some of the provisions of that rule?
    Mr. Regan. At face value, it sounds very challenging.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. Let me put something else on your radar 
before we leave this topic. Another problem that I have with 
this proposed rule is that the vast majority of the 
manufacturers of equipment that's compliant with the rule are 
foreign manufacturers, and there are hardly any, if any, 
domestic manufacturers that have equipment that is compliant 
with the rule.
    So implementation of the rule will have the effect of 
shifting the provision of this equipment completely to foreign 
manufacturers at the expense of our domestic industries, which 
I think would be a very dangerous thing to do. So I appreciate 
if you could get me an update on that when you know.
    I'd like to ask a little bit about the EPA's budget request 
since that's the topic of this hearing. You have proposed a 19 
percent expansion in the EPA's budget, and I find that a little 
puzzling given the fact that under the IRA and the IIJA the EPA 
has received over a thousand percent increase in total funding. 
So I'm wondering, with all of this extra money coming into the 
EPA, why is it necessary to increase the base budget of the EPA 
by 19 percent?
    Mr. Regan. Well, there--obviously, there are some 
restrictions on the bill dollars and IRA dollars as it relates 
to being able to hire staff in our enforcement--on our 
enforcement side, which the Inspector General has indicated 
that that is a must-do for us. As we think about approving 
these new herbicides and pesticides for our agriculture 
community, we have a deficit of staff there to get those new 
products on the market. We've got a lot of these products that 
are tied up in court, like chlorpyrifos and others, and so the 
courts have gotten a little bit of a jump on us, and we need to 
fight those fights, but we need to get new products on the 
market.
    And then we have to comply with TSCA, we have to look at 
some of these deadly chemicals, asbestos and others that we 
need to begin to regulate and rein in. So many times, the IRA 
and the bill dollars do not correspond with some of the core 
programs that EPA is required to manage by statute.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. You mentioned in that response the 
Office of the Inspector General within the EPA. The Inspector 
General recently testified at a hearing with the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee, and when--and in his testimony 
he said that the EPA is--has a high risk of waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the EPA's allocation of IIJA and IRA funds.
    So I found that very concerning. How will you ensure that 
that waste, fraud, and abuse that the IG is concerned about 
does not occur?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I just met with the IG a couple of weeks 
ago, and he did not convey that to me, but I'll put that on the 
list of things to chat with him. He's meeting with either 
myself or my Deputy Administrator on the execution, 
implementation, and design of the Inflation Reduction Act bill, 
our EJ dollars, and the like. I've tried to develop a very 
strong relationship with our IG because it's important to me 
that we maintain our integrity and the responsibility of, you 
know, shepherding these dollars, and so I'm interested in the 
partnership with the IG.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, I think we're on the same team 
with respect to that. I thank you very much for your testimony.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 
here.
    One of my first questions since this is a budget hearing is 
requesting a 20 percent increase, $2 billion extra. What is 
that primarily for, is that for hiring extra people to 
administer the countless new rules that we're implementing? 
What is it for?
    Mr. Regan. Eighty-five percent of that requested amount 
goes to our States and our regional programs for the delegated 
execution and implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water 
Act. A significant amount of that we hope will be used also 
for, as I was explaining earlier, to focus on getting our 
herbicides and our pesticides and new market interest out 
there. Then we have resources that we're asking for on the 
enforcement side, which the Inspector General said we needed to 
beef up. And then we have TSCA and some other programs as well.
    So it is sort of a base budget, but it's also 85 percent of 
that--I want to stress that 85 percent of that goes to our 
State partners.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK. But to do what? Like what do you need 
more money for, is it to hire more people to implement these 
projects? Is it a hiring thing or is it--it's still not clear 
what the money----
    Mr. Regan. It's a mixture. We do want to hire people, we do 
need additional capacity. But we also need resources for grants 
and other programs that, again, pass through to our Tribal 
programs, to our State programs. So it's a mixture.
    Mr. Crenshaw. But how is that possible that the EPA got $60 
billion in funding for projects and grants from the 
Infrastructure and Jobs Act, another 41 billion because of the 
IRA, how could you possibly need more money on that front? I 
assume that this 2 billion was to hire more people, but of 
course that doesn't makes sense because your budget in 2010 was 
more than it was in 2023 and you had 2,000 more employees. So 
it seems like you can hire within your current budget.
    Mr. Regan. I think that we all know that with congressional 
spending comes strings. We can't use bill dollars and IRA 
dollars to focus on pesticides, herbicides. We can't use those 
dollars to focus on TSCA. So those programs have specific 
spending requirements, and in order to stay within the letter 
of law----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. We wouldn't dream of using those 
resources for things that are outside of those categories.
    Mr. Crenshaw. All right. Well, then let's talk about things 
like pesticides and herbicides and the--you know, the 151 
regulatory proposals being considered right now. I don't have 
faith that the EPA is considering the cost to the American 
consumer, to the American worker, your middle-class Americans 
that would be--that we are claiming to protect with these 
regulations. I don't have faith that the EPA takes that into 
account.
    You know, there's things like this new rule proposing--it's 
a proposal for tailpipe emissions for light, medium passenger 
vehicles. It makes it harder for our most economically 
disadvantaged people to afford a car. I mean, is that taken 
into account? What kind of economic considerations are taken 
into account? What kind of cost benefit analysis is taken into 
account with regulations like that? Whether it's that or the 
plastics regulations or additional regulations on herbicides 
and pesticides that hurt our farmers and make our food more 
expensive, more expensive than it already has been made by the 
massive amounts of inflation. Is that being considered by the 
EPA?
    Mr. Regan. It is. And I think that----
    Mr. Crenshaw. How?
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. You know, for those who are 
following, I think there's been 40 to 50 years of the 
Environmental Protection Agency not following the Endangered 
Species Act. Now we have the courts determining whether it's 
dicamba, chlorpyrifos, or all these pesticides or herbicides 
that have to come off the shelves.
    Again, I said earlier we're going to fight and we're going 
to litigate against that. But at the same time, the agriculture 
community has already said that there are a number of new 
market entrants that needs scientific approval so that farmers 
have more tools. We need the people and the ability to get 
those tools out to our farmers. I spent a lot of time with our 
ag community, so I know that that's a real priority for them.
    Mr. Crenshaw. I have a question, because there's a lot of 
additional regulations and rules being put forth on the oil and 
gas industry. But you do acknowledge that natural gas is the 
primary driver down of emissions in the United States over the 
past 20 years.
    Mr. Regan. Yes, natural gas plays a significant role in 
driving down emissions and energy security.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Sure. And so, you know, when 50 percent of 
our global emissions for power production come from foreign 
coal, you got to agree with the math here, that we benefit--if 
the goal is lowering global emissions, we'd benefit greatly 
from exporting more of our natural gas, which we do cleaner 
than anyone else, to other countries in displacing their coal 
production.
    Mr. Regan. I don't get into the export or import of natural 
gas, but what I can tell you is our technology standards and 
the Inflation Reduction Act specifically focuses on carbon 
capture and sequestration for a reason.
    Mr. Crenshaw. I like that part of it. But the methane--
things like the methane tax, you know, they hurt all natural 
gas producers. It's not a well-written rule that actually just 
targets methane, it's all natural gas producers. So, you know, 
you at least acknowledge that if we're not doing it, if we're 
not producing that kind of product, somebody else will, 
especially when by 2050 the demand for global energy will 
increase by 50 percent.
    Mr. Regan. What you're referring to as the methane tax was 
written by Congress, not by us. I think our proposed regulation 
of methane is something that the industry asked us for on day 1 
in this administration, and we're working with the industry. I 
think there's a lot of gas--or lost product that's going to be 
captured. I think there's some technologies that we're looking 
forward to, and so we're having that conversation.
    Mr. Crenshaw. All right. Well, I'm out of town. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Ranking Member 
Tonko, and thank you, sir, for being here today.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Pence. Since joining the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
I have been raising alarms on the impacts of this 
administration's rush to the electrification of our 
transportation industry before we're ready or before we've 
considered a lot of the elements in the distribution chain. 
Having spent my career distributing energy, this administration 
is completely disregarding the logistical challenges of 
ensuring the right amount of energy is where it needs to be, 
when it needs to be, and in the quantity that is needed.
    Two and a half years later, we're seeing potentially 
catastrophic impacts play out in real time. Grid operators, 
sir, are raising red flags to me all over the State of Indiana. 
Power plants are prematurely retiring and taking baseload power 
off the grid. Local utilities are waiting 12 to 18 months to 
get electrical transformers for neighborhoods to handle 
increased demand.
    I met with a large, 2-million-square-foot-building 
developer that says, ``I don't have the power coming into the 
area, there's not enough out there in the marketplace.'' Even 
EV companies are tempering expectations for investors because, 
simply put, people aren't buying EVs as projected.
    And now the EPA is charging forward with brand-new rules to 
prop up the EV industry and force consumers to ditch their--the 
ICE vehicles. Ultimately, this administration's one-size-fits-
all approach will leave consumers in my district holding the 
bag.
    The EPA's proposed rule to create eRINS--and that will be 
my concentration, sir--for electrical vehicles is a troubling 
proposal that extends far beyond the intent of the Renewable 
Fuel Standard. I'm concerned that this proposal is just another 
funding screen for EV manufacturers to recover investments and 
stay afloat despite over--underwhelming sales. Instead of 
generating RINS at the point of blending, as I have done in my 
career for many, many years, this proposal creates a convoluted 
process, which is unspecified at this point, to award credits 
to the car manufacturers.
    The proposed rule even suggests an opportunity for a host 
of different stakeholders to generate eRINS, including public 
charging stations and renewable energy developers. By inviting 
an entirely new group of stakeholders into the RIN generation 
through eRINS, you could be setting up a program that is rife 
with fraud and abuse like the original RIN was. Even major oil 
companies had trouble, and fraud was committed against them.
    Mr. Administrator, in my estimation, this proposal could 
set the stage for higher compliance obligations for refiners to 
buy eRINS and ultimately subsidize the OEMs, and in some cases 
the OEMs will have the buy eRINS. According to the rule, EPA 
estimates 600 million eRINS could be generated in 2024 and 1.2 
billion in 2025. I have seen firsthand instances of fraud and 
abuse in the traditional RINS market.
    My question, sir: How will the EPA prevent fraud and abuse 
in an even more complex eRINS market as being discussed? And I 
know it's not finalized.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And I would say that a 
lot of what you said, I share some of those concerns up until 
the fraud, waste, and abuse, because I think we can put 
programs in place to avoid that. But you've raised a lot of 
valid concerns that we've received during the comment period, 
which is why we're taking a very strong look at those concerns, 
and that will dictate how we move forward and whether or not we 
finalize the eRINS portion of this program.
    Mr. Pence. So, you know, I'm a little--one of the elements 
of this, I'm concerned about kind of double creation of the 
same RIN--of an eRIN. When I hear that the car manufacturer who 
actually--I understand the proposed creation of it, but then 
all the way down to the charging station's going to generate an 
eRIN, that seems like double dipping. So I would caution the 
EPA on that.
    Second question: Has the EPA carefully studied how this 
influx of credits will impact the market for traditional RINS 
and liquid transportation fuels, which is how many folks can 
comply with your existing regulations?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we're studying all of those things. Excuse 
me. And it's really important that you're raising these issues 
because I want to let you know we're taking them very seriously 
and we're studying these issues during the comment period.
    Mr. Pence. So--and again, a person that did this all--
pretty much all my life, I would close with please be careful 
of simply creating a financial market here that creates a great 
deal of additional costs to the end consumer.
    I thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Administrator Regan, thank you for being here to testify. 
We all appreciate your continued leadership at EPA. I think I 
wish I worked a little less with you some days.
    Mr. Regan. [Laughs.]
    Mrs. Dingell. And I want to commend, as Jan Schakowsky did, 
your Region 5 Administrator. I think our chairman's had more of 
your attention lately, but we've had too many chemical spills, 
and I've got a lot of other issues I'm worried about.
    Let me begin. As you know, I'm a car girl. The future of 
the automotive industry and its workforce is an intense 
priority for me, which you know. We have to accelerate domestic 
electric vehicle development. We're competing in global 
marketplace. If we don't do it, it's happening in China now. 
And we've got to deploy them to meet our climate goals and 
compete with China. But in doing so, we cannot leave behind the 
working men and women who've built their lives and careers in 
the auto industry.
    Administrator Regan, as we make the transition to clean 
vehicles, there's a real fear that the workforce needed to help 
us make the transition is going to be left behind. As it 
relates to the EPA's overall work and the most recent proposed 
multipollutant emissions standards rule for model years 2027 
through 2034, how is the EPA working to address these long-term 
workforce concerns?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question and thank you 
for being such a champion on these issues. As we've been 
developing these rules, we've stayed in contact with our labor 
unions, we've stayed in contact with anyone that's focused on 
sort of job creation, education, and the like as we designed 
and proposed this rule. Thanks to your leadership and the 
connectivity, we've also been able to at least establish early 
conversations with new leadership at the UAW.
    So I have to say that it's a priority. It's a priority not 
just for me, it's the priority for the President, as you well 
know. And as we continue to move forward with this proposal, I 
can assure you that the labor component, supply chain 
component, the infrastructure component, all of these 
components are at the top of mind for how this rule could be 
executed.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. It must continue to be there.
    Water affordability continues to be a major issue for me, 
and for all of us as well. It's a basic human right. In 2020 
and 2021, Congress authorized and appropriated 1.1 billion to 
HHS to create the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program 
as a temporary program to provide water and wastewater bill 
assistance to low-income households burdened by the economic 
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    I'm a strong supporter of this program, but it's going to 
expire at the end of this year. Families are struggling, and 
it's clear there needs to be a longer-term solution. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorized the EPA to conduct a 
study for establishing a similar pilot program to the LIHWAP 
program to help families who are struggling to pay their water 
bills.
    Can you provide this committee with an update on that 
study, and when can Congress expect to receive that report?
    Mr. Regan. Well, we'll give you a completion date on that 
soon. I can tell you that we've been working hand in glove with 
HHS on this affordability assessment, and we're scoping this 
study out. I think it's going to be on time and on budget, but 
I'll have to get you that date at a later time.
    Mrs. Dingell. I suspect you're going to need additional 
resources, but I've got a PFAS question before I run out of 
time. Forever chemicals are everywhere in our modern society 
and are harmful to human health and environment. The EPA has 
proposed to designate the two most toxic forever chemicals as 
hazardous substances under CERCLA, for which I thank you 
because I've asked every EPA Administrator when we're going to 
do that.
    But after EPA proposed to designate the PFOA and PFOS as 
hazardous substances, the National Association of Water 
Companies and others have written to Congress to request 
protection from liability for cleaning up PFAS contamination. 
My office has also heard from a number of water utilities from 
the State of Michigan with these concerns.
    Administrator Regan, how does EPA plan to address the 
concerns of water and wastewater utilities and other entities 
that have these liability concerns and claims that exemptions 
are required since they're not the original source of the PFAS 
pollution.
    Mr. Regan. Well, and that's very much at the top of my 
mind, and I think EPA was only successful because of the 
partnership with DoD and USDA. I've worked with both 
Secretaries hand in hand.
    The bottom line is we have enforcement discretion. We 
believe that CERCLA gives us that enforcement discretion. I 
want to be clear that the water utilities and our farmers and 
agriculture are not the target, but the target is those who are 
putting this pollution into our air and our water.
    Mrs. Dingell. So how are we going to make polluters pay?
    Mr. Regan. Well, number one, we're asking for resources to 
beef up our enforcement. Number two, we're already taking 
action against many of these PFAS polluters. It's very simple. 
Many of these discharges are illegal and have an adverse impact 
on public health, and we're going to hold these polluters 
accountable. We can do that with our enforcement arm because we 
have the authority already to do it.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And it's good to see you again, Administrator. Thank you so 
much for being here.
    And before I ask my questions, I just want to thank you for 
your leadership on the water pollution challenges at the U.S./
Mexico border in San Diego. We are continuing to make progress 
to reduce transboundary water pollution flows into our 
communities, and in last year's funding bill we included 
language to ensure funds from the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Trade Agreement can support water pollution reduction projects 
in the Tijuana River Valley.
    We also secured $36 million for the Border Water 
Infrastructure Program. And on that note, last week EPA and the 
U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission 
joined with Mexican officials to announce joint funding for two 
wastewater infrastructure projects. Those projects will reduce 
the risk of spilling up to 60 million gallons per day of 
untreated wastewater in the Tijuana River Watershed.
    So thank you again for visiting San Diego to see these--
this environmental catastrophe for yourself and for taking 
action to build these projects and stem the sewage flows.
    Today I want to talk to you about two of my other top 
priorities. One is catastrophic wildfires, and then again we've 
spoken about reducing super-polluting methane pollution in the 
past, and I want to follow-up on that. But first on wildfires, 
poor land management and climate change are funding extreme 
wildfires in California. Those fires are now the largest source 
of particulate matter air pollution in the West, and they 
endangered our communities, our wildlife, and our ecosystems.
    To address the rise of catastrophic megafire, we have to 
bring healthy, low-intensity fire back into western landscapes 
by increasing the implementation of prescribed fire and 
cultural burning. Now I support strong standards to reduce 
particulate matter air pollution from power plants, factories, 
and other traditional pollution--polluting sources. I'm 
concerned that the current draft rule and its accompanying 
regulatory impact assessment would likely result in a 
significant reduction in burn days at a time when our Agency 
experts are recognizing the need to significantly increase our 
use of beneficial fire.
    I also understand that the Forest Service has raised 
serious concerns about the proposed rule given that it may 
compromise the ability of the Forest Service to deliver on its 
wildfire crisis strategy. If the proposed rule is finalized, 
what steps will you take at EPA to ensure that beneficial fire 
remains a powerful tool in the toolbox to reduce the likelihood 
and effect of catastrophic wildfire?
    Mr. Regan. Well, as I've committed to the Secretary of 
USDA--we have a great relationship, we talk about a whole host 
of issues. This is one that's on that list. Anything that we 
finalize will not degradate the beneficial use of control 
burns, prescribed burns, and would be able to deal with 
wildfires. We have the flexibility to do that. We have an 
exceptional events clause and we have other authorities under 
the Clean Air Act that gives some flexibility to these 
opportunities and operations.
    And so I'll continue to talk with USDA. My team will 
continue to talk with the Forest Service. And we'll be sure 
that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can protect 
public health and preserve this tool.
    Mr. Peters. That's great. I think that's really important 
to have the big picture because sometimes the regulations 
intended for something like a power plant are just going to--
are going to apply the same way to some other setting, 
particularly here with the burning that we do need.
    Mr. Regan. Sure.
    Mr. Peters. On methane, last year Congress created a 
methane emissions reduction program which will--which includes 
a methane fee and $1.5 billion to reduce methane emissions from 
oil and gas operations in the United States. Mr. Administrator, 
how does EPA plan to spend this money to maximize methane 
emissions reductions, especially to help smaller producers and 
to support new advanced continuous monitoring technologies?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, IRA directs us to revise our 
greenhouse gas reporting program regulations, especially on 
methane that's used--that is based on empirical date, and so 
we're going to meet that obligation. We're also--we have an 
extensive outreach going on right now with the industry. It 
started with our proposed rule and our supplemental rule, and 
it's blending right in with the $1.5 billion because those two 
programs go hand in hand.
    So we'll continue to gather the data, develop that process 
that IRA dictates, and continue with our outreach to the 
industry.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you. And some of my Republican colleagues 
have raised concern about the implementation of the methane 
fee. Think--I think they've raised good questions in good 
faith. I'd like to give you an opportunity to address it. Can 
you update us how on E--how EPA plans to implement the program 
in a science-based and effective manner?
    Mr. Regan. Well, you know, science drives everything that 
we do. And, again, it goes back to the answer I just gave. We 
have a greenhouse gas reporting program, regulations to ensure 
that the reporting is based on data, so data and science will 
drive this opportunity.
    And listen, I think the industry advocated for these 
resources for a reason, and we understand what that reason is. 
That's to help with technology and mitigation. So we're going 
to be sure that we do that. We want to honor the full intent of 
that $1.5 billion in IRA.
    Mr. Peters. I appreciate that. I'm sure my colleagues who 
have--who represent the industry appreciate it as well.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Harshbarger, for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Thank you, Administrator, for being here today. And I 
understand you're from North Carolina?
    Mr. Regan. I am.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Good. There's one thing that your folks 
and my folks in Tennessee have in common, and that's auto 
racing and their love for that.
    It's my understanding that EPA's Clean Air Act enforcement 
policy is focused on letting legitimate auto racers be able to 
race their vehicles, is that correct, sir?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. That's good because, like I said, we love 
our racing. You've got Charlotte Motor Speedway; I've got 
Bristol Motor Speedway.
    Mr. Regan. That's right.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. And I'll tell you what concerns me, 
though, is you cannot convert your car over for competition if 
you cannot get the right parts.
    Mr. Regan. Mm-hmm.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. And auto parts makers won't stay in 
business long if they are being hit with fines for product 
misuse after expressly warning their consumers against illegal 
misuse of their products. And it would seem to me that if a 
company that manufactures racing parts clearly communicates to 
the purchaser that street use is illegal, then the manufacturer 
and the seller should not be held responsible for that misuse.
    Yet this hasn't stopped the EPA from hitting them with 
tremendously expensive violations. Do you understand the 
problem that this creates, sir?
    Mr. Regan. I do, I do.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. And the reason I'm asking is, I have 
a hard time understanding why the EPA insists on penalizing 
businesses, and I'll give you an example. A business like Borla 
Exhaust, it's in my district, they're good actors. They've made 
an honest effort to get their products into the right hands and 
had no history of ever breaking the law until the EPA suddenly 
changed the interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
    And some people think that the auto parts company should 
have to track every piece of equipment they sell, including 
manufacturers who don't sell their products directly to the end 
user. But I don't think it's reasonable to make the part 
manufacturer either an adjunct of the Government's enforcement 
efforts or liable for its customers' failure to heed the 
printed warnings.
    This no-win situation that part makers are being placed in 
forces companies to either dramatically increase their prices 
of the racing parts to afford the newfound cost of doing 
business or just exit the market--the racing market entirely, 
which is partly what Borla had to do because they got a 
million-dollar fine. This situation also hurts everyday car 
enthusiasts who've always desired to work on their own car, but 
they don't have unlimited capital to purchase a purpose-built 
racecar.
    Now here's what I'd like to do. I'd like for you to answer 
these. Would you commit to working with this committee to fix 
the statute or the rule so that racing parts manufacturers can 
afford to remain in the market without the significant price 
increases affiliated with forcing manufacturers to track usage 
of their products by the end consumer? Yes or no.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Great.
    Mr. Regan. And I have been working with----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Awesome.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. The congressional delegation and 
then two senators from North Carolina on this as well----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Fantastic.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. So we've been provided technical 
advice on this.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Fantastic. Would you commit to providing 
clear guidance--and I do mean clear guidance--to motorsports 
businesses regarding the production and sale of racing parts?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I would argue that the--we have enforcement 
discretion, and so we've sent that guidance out. It should be 
fairly straightforward, but if it's not, we'd love to engage in 
conversation.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Clarity and guidance is--they're very 
important. As a pharmacist, I have to abide by what the FDA 
says, and when that regulatory agency comes into my door, it's 
up to the interpretation, and a lot of times, there's no clear 
guidance. So that would be fantastic if you clarify that 
guidance.
    And the last thing is, would you also commit to ensuring 
that the EPA provides clear guidance to businesses producing 
and selling performance auto parts that outlines the parts that 
can be sold for street versus those that can only be sold for 
use on the racetrack?
    Mr. Regan. If we have not done that, I'll work with my 
staff to make that better.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. It sounds like yes, yes, yes. That's 
fantastic. Now I'll come to Charlotte next time if you'll come 
on up to Bristol, OK?
    Mr. Regan. That's a deal.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. All right. Thank you, sir.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, Administrator Regan. Thank you for all that 
you do to make sure that American families are benefiting from 
clean air, clean water, taking on--cleaning up toxic waste 
sites, and making sure we have a livable planet.
    We have invested a lot through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act in tackling so 
many of these issues, and so you have great responsibility now 
to follow through on all these, so I have a few questions for 
you.
    First, you know, back home in Florida, local communities 
are thrilled that they're going to be able to tackle 
modernization of their water and wastewater systems. The clean 
water revolving loan fund now will get investments that we just 
haven't had before. It will help us. In Florida, you know, 
clean water is really essential to our economy and our way of 
life.
    But when we had the Inspector General--the EPA Inspector 
General in front of the Investigations and Oversight Committee, 
he said he was concerned that States--do States have the 
capacity to this, because that's one of the initiatives where 
those monies stop at the State level. State capitols go through 
an analysis. They often have their rankings. And folks at the 
local level are concerned how--you know, are they going to be 
able to tap these monies, are there--those priority lists going 
to be fair?
    What do you say to that? How are you working with States 
and local communities to make sure that these very important 
dollars for clean water and water systems get to where they 
need to be?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you 
for your leadership in ensuring that we are focused on this 
issue.
    As a former State regulator, many of these State 
environmental secretaries across the country I've met or know. 
My team is staying in close contact with all 50 of these State 
regulators. We've worked to redo the definition of 
disadvantaged communities. We provided criteria for who these 
projects should benefit or prior--be prioritized for.
    And so far, with the spending that we've seen over the past 
year, the States are getting it right for the most part. They 
present us with these intended use plans, and we approve them 
or disapprove them. Sometimes we have to say, ``That list isn't 
quite right, we need for you to redo some of your homework.'' 
But for the most part, we're seeing States comply and we're 
feeling pretty good.
    I will say we've only gotten one year, one and a half years 
of multiple billions of dollars out, and so obviously we're 
going to improve this process as we go along.
    Ms. Castor. Are you hearing any troubles with just plain 
having the engineering firms that are ready, willing, and able? 
I mean, unemployment is at the lowest rate in 50 years, since 
the 1960s. Do we have the workforce necessary across the 
country to repair these water systems and modernize them?
    Mr. Regan. I believe workforce is a challenge. In many 
regards, we do have the workforce in terms of the repair. Where 
we see a lot of challenges are operators and those who have the 
certifications----
    Ms. Castor. Mm-hmm, right.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. To operate these water utilities 
that we want to be more sophisticated than those of the past. 
But I believe our Assistant Administrator, Radhika Fox, has her 
finger on the pulse and is really working with nonprofits, 
private sector, and our State secretaries to close that gap.
    Ms. Castor. This is important because we also now have 
invested in EPA to help invest in our communities back home, 
and I--in the Tampa Bay area, folks who are in what we term 
environmental justice communities, the neighborhoods that are--
have carried the burden of pollution for decades, I can think 
in Tampa in the Progress Village/Palm River area, we're talking 
at the local level now, about--these are neighbors who are not 
on septic.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Ms. Castor. I mean, they're not on wastewater, they're on 
septic. They still have drinking water wells. They're in the 
shadow of a huge phosphogypsum stack. And it looks like the EJ 
grant opportunities are going to unlock the ability to improve 
people's lives, maybe reduce their energy burden by doing 
solar.
    So now we have--how are you going to view, like, an EJ 
grant and greenhouse gas reduction fund and some other EPA 
grants? Can we stack these and combine them in an initiative, 
or once you get one, are you--you don't quite qualify for the 
next one?
    Mr. Regan. We have multiple streams of grant opportunities 
that can be leveraged. You know, there are many ways you can 
categorize these needs. And so if you have an EJ community--by 
the way, we've created these Technical Assistance Centers.
    Ms. Castor. Yes, mm-hmm.
    Mr. Regan. We took $177 million and we gave them to 17 
organizations that are helping grassroots organizations build 
capacity to apply for these resources. And so there's 
opportunity to apply for wastewater dollars, there are 
opportunities to apply for EJ grants that tackle air quality 
issues. There are multiple opportunities for an EJ community to 
deal with the disproportionate impact that they've seen for 
generation, and we're building that capacity for that.
    Ms. Castor. Good. Can you follow up on that point too?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Administrator, we've heard a lot, not just today in 
this room but often in this room, about reducing emissions and 
the importance of our global carbon footprint. And I'd like to 
discuss to you today--with you today my concerns with your new 
chemicals office slow rate of approval in approving our next 
generation of innovative American technologies.
    You recently told the Senate that as an Administrator that 
you respect the letter of the law. That implies to me 
everything the way it's supposed to be. Yet the GAO reported 
that EPA new chemicals reviews are getting increasingly worse 
at meeting statutory deadlines.
    I understand you don't meet any deadlines. Last year you 
literally had a success rate of zero on meeting deadlines. I 
find that statistically almost impossible. It would seem like 
you could stumble into a couple on time. And I'd like to know 
your response to that, and I'm certainly hoping you won't say 
funding. Under President Trump and President Obama, they had 
some of the same concerns, yet they made good progress on these 
issues. I understand user fees are up 600 percent, which is 25 
percent of the overall budget.
    So can you tell me what the problem is and how we're going 
to solve it and why it's not a priority? It's not even in your 
budget objectives to address this. So why is it not a priority?
    Mr. Regan. It is in our budget. We have asked for resources 
on the----
    Mr. Curtis. I'm talking budget objectives.
    Mr. Regan. Well, and so let me just say, you referenced 
that----
    Mr. Curtis. And don't tell me money.
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Under the Obama administration and 
Trump administration, they did a better job. The courts would 
disagree with you, and now we've having to deal with all of 
those----
    Mr. Curtis. OK. Can you explain how zero is better than 
what's been done previously? I'm talking zero.
    Mr. Regan. Number one, I'd have to look at that zero 
number. But number two, when you're having to do the homework--
--
    Mr. Curtis. Well, let me give you the benefit of the doubt 
and say it's 5 percent, right.
    Mr. Regan. When you have----
    Mr. Curtis. Let me give you the benefit that it's 10 
percent. How is that acceptable? These--remember these 
chemicals are critical for many things in the healthcare 
industry, reducing emissions, something we all care deeply 
about, and it doesn't seem like it's even on your radar. It 
almost feels like there's a purposeful ``Let's not approve 
these.''
    Mr. Regan. Oh----
    Mr. Curtis. Do you not like them? And then let me ask this.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Curtis. So you've also stated that you want to go back 
and review previous chemicals because they maybe should haven't 
been approved. How do you propose to do that when you're not 
even dealing with the current chemicals?
    Mr. Regan. That's a good question for the courts. It's not 
that I choose to go back and look at these chemicals. The 
courts have mandated that during prior administrations that 
they didn't follow the letter of the law or they didn't use the 
latest science to evaluate these.
    Mr. Curtis. So you're telling me they did not follow the 
letter of the law. Can you give me some specifics?
    Mr. Regan. The courts have remanded a number of decisions 
back to the Agency and said ``Redo this homework.''
    Mr. Curtis. OK. So how do you propose to redo that homework 
when you're not doing your current homework?
    Mr. Regan. [Laughs.] The way you do that is, number one, 
you follow the law. Number two, you learn from what----
    Mr. Curtis. The law says--let's follow--the law says get it 
done.
    Mr. Regan. It does.
    Mr. Curtis. Right? It gives you very clear deadlines. So 
we're not following the law.
    Mr. Regan. So you're suggesting, though, that I can dig out 
from past transgressions and do my current job without adequate 
resources. The math just doesn't add up.
    Mr. Curtis. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What are the--OK, tell me 
what adequate resources you're lacking. Fees are up 600 
percent. What resources--why is it always about money to get 
things--to do a better job?
    Mr. Regan. I think we should take a look at the personnel 
that exists in this office today, and you can go back to 1990, 
1980, 2000. We have significantly lost--over 200 employees 
are--we're down from, like, past offices. And so you're----
    Mr. Curtis. OK. So, Mr. Administrator, that's your job. 
That is your job. If you're down 200 employees, that is your 
job. Why are you losing employees?
    Mr. Regan. Because Congress cut the budget. Because you 
guys cut the budget.
    Mr. Curtis. Your fees are up 600 percent. Don't blame it on 
us, right? Why is this always----
    Mr. Regan. I think----
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. A money issue? You're telling me--
--
    Mr. Regan. I think this is a----
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. There's not a single thing in your 
organization that can be--can't be fixed without more money? 
Productivity is----
    Mr. Regan. Well, let me tell you.
    Mr. Curtis. Is it not--it's tied into--isn't it tied into 
productivity?
    Mr. Regan. We are working night and day to play catchup 
from what others didn't do correctly while trying to do our 
job.
    Mr. Curtis. Wow, do you know what that sounds like? Do you 
understand what that sounds like? It's like ``not my fault, 
it's those other guy's fault.'' That's not acceptable.
    Mr. Regan. I'm the Administrator. I'm accountable.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, and so----
    Mr. Regan. Which is why I'm asking you for the resources--
--
    Mr. Curtis. Mr. Administrator----
    Mr. Regan [continuing]. Because I'm 200 people less than 
other administrations.
    Mr. Curtis. How about a 600 percent increase in fees?
    Mr. Regan. I'd have to revisit that number. That sounds 
like a sleight of hand to me. I don't--the 6--I'd have to 
revisit that number.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. Here we are----
    Mr. Regan. But I can tell you, we don't have the people to 
do the job.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. You want to revisit the zero 
number, you want to revisit the 600 number. Let's just get 
these things done.
    Mr. Regan. I'd love to talk to you so we can revisit all of 
it----
    Mr. Curtis. OK.
    Mr. Regan. [continuing]. Because I want the personnel to 
get it done.
    Mr. Curtis. All right.
    Mr. Regan. It's the ag industry, it's the semiconductor 
industry.
    Mr. Curtis. Mr. Administrator, I'm out of time.
    Mr. Regan. All of these industries want me to do this, and 
I'm trying my best to do it.
    Mr. Curtis. All right.
    Mr. Johnson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Curtis. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. I think it's interesting, here we are talking 
about the lack of personnel and yet we're looking at over a 
hundred billion dollars of out-of-cycle funding that has gone 
to the EPA on top of regular appropriation funding, and we're 
talking about not enough money to pay for people. I think this 
is a--it's----
    Mr. Curtis. I would just like my last point to be it's not 
always about the money.
    Mr. Johnson. That's right.
    Mr. Curtis. There's so many other aspects of efficiency. 
And so I'm unfortunately out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank the gentleman for yielding. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to note for 
the record it was under the prior administration, the Trump 
administration, that the EPA budget was effectively slashed, it 
was gutted. Certain departments were shut down. So can you 
imagine when you inherit an EPA that has that, how you have to 
undo all that harm and then get back up and ready and then 
rehire people? I think that's what was missing from that last 
conversation.
    Anyhow, Mr. Administrator Regan, thank you so much for 
being here. Thank you for all the work that you do day in and 
day out, for your leadership to advance the Biden 
administration's climate and environmental justice priorities. 
EPA has been on a roll lately with proposals to reduce 
pollution from cars and trucks, reduce methane pollution, oil 
and gas wells, and mercury pollution from power plants. Thank 
you for all of that work.
    Last month, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus hosted an 
environmental justice town hall with Latino environmental 
justice advocates, climate groups, and EPA staff. We heard 
about the incredible potential for the $3 billion in 
environmental justice block grants in the Inflation Reduction 
Act to improve the quality of life in communities. We also 
heard about the challenges that we need to overcome to ensure 
that these grants reach the frontline organizations doing the 
work in our communities on the ground.
    What steps is EPA taking to ensure that these grants 
support locally led projects in communities that need them the 
most?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you 
for your leadership on this issue.
    There are two things I'd like to highlight. The first is 
we'll establish an EJ thriving communities grant makers network 
with over $500 million from IRA. That specifically will give 
the resources to funders in every region of EPA, specifically 
in the communities. That will ensure that the money is going to 
grassroots organizations that have the capacity, and we are 
working with grassroots organizations to identify those.
    For those grassroots organizations that don't have the 
capacity, we've created the Technical Assistance Centers. There 
are 17 of them across the United States. What we've done is 
we've chosen 17 organizations that have the ability to handle 
$10 million and begin to build capacity with grassroots 
organizations and community organizations. They will prepare 
them for the grant-writing processes and the capacity to apply 
for that 3 billion in Environmental Justice dollars.
    So we're not being paternalistic. We recognize that we 
don't exactly know who should have these opportunities, and 
we're working with our partners to identify them, fill capacity 
so that they can be competitive.
    Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you. There are dozens of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction loopholes in the Clean Air 
Act that allow refineries, power plants, and industrial 
facilities to release huge amounts of pollution into the air of 
neighboring communities without consequence. Now I commend 
EPA's work to close these loopholes in State plans all at once 
called a consolidated rulemaking.
    But the Agency's also removing loopholes one at a time from 
EPA regulations. At this pace, it will take decades to 
eliminate them. Will the EPA take action to remove all polluter 
loopholes from EPA rules through one rule?
    Mr. Regan. We've taken action. I'll say we reinstated the 
2015 SSM policy from the SIP call. And so moving forward, we 
are trying to work with the strategy as directed by the DC 
Circuit Court. I think what will be good is for me to have my 
staff work with yours to talk through how we're closing these 
loopholes under the letter of the law in a way that we can 
reduce pollution and protect communities.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. This is an urgent issue that 
myself and 24 colleagues recently wrote you on. These 
facilities are overwhelmingly in Latino and Black communities. 
A strong action would help fulfill the EPA's commitments to 
environmental justice.
    I want to thank you again for all your work, Administrator 
Regan, and I wish you luck in moving forward on IRA and making 
sure we're doing all we can.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
    I want to point out, Mr. Administrator, budget proposals 
are just that, they're budget proposals. It's Congress that 
appropriates the money. And under the previous administration, 
the EPA's actual funding went up each and every year under the 
previous administration. So I just want to make sure that 
record is clear.
    With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Cardenas.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having 
the opportunity to waive onto this committee to speak publicly 
with Administrator Regan over EPA matters.
    One of the things that I think you may want to do, 
Administrator Regan, is remind, whether it's in this committee 
or reporting back to this committee, that there's a convolution 
sometimes when people say, for example, a department such as 
the EPA has received more funding. There's a difference between 
funding sent to a department so that they can get their work 
done versus funding in order for programs to give grants out to 
communities outside of the workforce within that department.
    So I think there might be a little bit of confusion or 
convolution as to what true funding is actually delegated to 
the department so that you can actually hire people and get 
your work done versus money that passes through to go out to 
communities so that they can get the good work done in the 
communities. So I just wanted to clarify that. So if you have 
the opportunity to do that, please do so, whether it's in this 
committee hearing or getting back to us with that, please.
    Also, I'd like to focus today on EPA's Clean School Bus 
Program. As you know, last Congress we enacted a 
transformational infrastructure package known as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law which makes $5 billion available to schools 
to replace their diesel buses. The genesis of this effort is 
the Clean Community for Kids Act, which I proudly championed 
alongside Congresswoman Hayes and Senators Padilla and Warnock. 
We know all too well the health risks posed to children when 
riding dirty, outdated diesel schoolbuses, and it should 
surprise no one that interest and demand for electric 
schoolbuses abounds in communities in every State of our great 
Nation.
    Administer Regan, when you launched the Clean School Bus 
Program last year, $500 million was made available from the 5 
billion Congress authorized and appropriated. The volume of 
applications you received for the initial $500 million funding 
opportunity was overwhelming, with more than 2,000 applications 
received from every corner of the country.
    These applications represented more than $4 billion in 
requests, the vast majority of which were for electric 
schoolbuses. In fact, demand was so high that EPA increased the 
availability of funding to 1 billion for the first round. In 
short, the demand has far exceeded supply. More than 20 million 
students across the United States ride schoolbuses every day, 
which exposes them to significant air pollution.
    Administrator Regan, is the funding provided to EPA by the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act enough to clean up every 
schoolbus in America?
    Mr. Regan. It's not. It's a significant shot in the arm, 
but you've pointed out the demand for our program is just 
unbelievable. The majority of it is electric schoolbuses, but 
we're also getting applications in for propane and compressed 
natural gas. And so there are a lot of low-carbon solutions out 
there for low-income, rural communities all across this 
country, and they're excited about this program.
    Mr. Cardenas. So actually some cleaner fossil fuel methods 
are allowed under this program?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, about 90 percent of the--this is a 
voluntary program.
    Mr. Cardenas. Correct.
    Mr. Regan. Ninety percent of the applicants wanted an 
electric bus, and then about 10 percent wanted to look at 
propane and other fossil opportunities.
    Mr. Cardenas. Which they have the option to do.
    Mr. Regan. And we granted them.
    Mr. Cardenas. Can you point that out? And you've granted 
not only electric schoolbus applications but also other 
applications as well?
    Mr. Regan. We have, and I can get those specifics to you, 
but if I'm not mistaken, there are about 10 percent, if not a 
little bit more, of those applications that we granted that 
were nonelectric. And those that were requested and had a 
competitive bid in, we granted those.
    Mr. Cardenas. Well, the reason why I appreciate the fact 
that you just pointed that out is because far too often in this 
committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, some of my 
colleagues try to make it seem as though the Biden 
administration and the Democrats in Congress are only 
interested in electric vehicles and not looking at a broader 
solution to make sure that we transition away from our carbon 
footprint today and actually improve--clean up our act, 
literally, and get to the point where we can still have 
reliability, we can still have affordability, and we can still 
actually get it done while cleaning up our act. Is that the 
objective of EPA, is to make sure that we can transition 
effectively into a cleaner future?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely, in our numbers, in our efforts, and 
everything point to that and prove that. It's irrefutable data 
that exists.
    Mr. Cardenas. Mm-hmm. And also if you can get over to the 
committee--with the few--time that I have, if you can get over 
to the committee the number of vacancies that you have and some 
of the titles of those vacancies as well, because many of them 
are experts who, unfortunately, are finding themselves in the 
private sector getting a lot more for their efforts than, 
unfortunately, we've been able to pay them in the public 
sector.
    Thank you so much for your generosity.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired. I ask 
unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents 
included on the staff hearing documents lists.
    Without objection, that will be the order.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. I remind Members that they have 10 business 
days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the 
witnesses to respond to the questions promptly. Members should 
submit their questions by the close of business on May 24th.
    Mr. Administrator, thanks again for joining us today.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for having me.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, the subcommittee is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]