>> state environmental regulators testified about the relationship between the epa and theiother states in implementine clean air act and other initiatives. west virginia senator shelley moore capito chairs this hearing. >> i apologize for getting started a couple minutes late. this hearing on the subcommittee is called to order. i will begin by recognizing my soul for a brief opening

statement. then we will hear from the panel of expert witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes. the concept of cooperative federalism is enshrined in all of the major environmental statutes and the clean air act is no exception. the congress realizes environmental preservation and it's important to the economy and the publics enjoyment of the country's national heritage is the responsibility of government at every level. predecessors also recognize different levels of government should have different responsibilities. not every aspect of the policy can or should be dictated from in washington. we lack expertise and capacity for oversight on the industrially diverse country. it must be to implement environmental law as it is crafted by congress and then to collaborate and support the state with matters in the

jurisdiction. the system has worked even without the implementation of the power play in the u.s. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2005. since then we've seen a decrease since 12.4% in absolute terms and 19.9% on a per capita basis. these have been led by the private sector seeking greater efficiencies to lower the cost to their consumers and not by government mandates. since 2000 they've reduced their footprint more than any other country. according to the epa, the national concentrations of air pollutants have been reduced by 85% for lead and carbon monoxide, 67 for sulfur dioxide, 60% for nitrogen dioxide, 37% for particulate matter and 69%

for the course particular matter. these achievements have reduced mortality rates in healthcare expenditures and benefited by yield and help preserve habitat and threatened species. economic growth has continued even as the emissions have declined. setting achievable consensus-based standards is a in consultation with industry, state, local and tribal government have decoupled in the missions and for the first time in recent years energy consumption itself from economic growth. 1970 the gdp was 1.09 trillion today it is 1.97 trillion even with the reduction reductions ce model has worked and it's been under pressure. the obama administration upended the model for setting environmental regulations we have several hearings that flesh this out. the epa imposed standards across a host of industries and specialty goods that are

unachievable of commercially available technologies. the economic analysis routinely overstated the benefits and understated the economic costs associated in the regulations. i've heard from constituents in the public and private sector of my state and west virginia and comments were routinely ignored. finally underscored by the powerplant they routinely overstepped its jurisdiction for it part that attempted to regulate, quote them beyond the senses i'm directing "carbon taxes to achieve admissions targets that couldn't otherwise be met. this is why they never provided the model implementatio implemen foplansbecame the powerplant. it's to make its implementation by the states legal or imperfectlperfectlyfeasible. coming off of it over half the

states sued an sue and it's no r that they did. i hope we can work across the aisle at every level to the private industry to continue the good work set in place. if we follow the law and pursue the goals achievable in a controlled message and collaborate we may continue to grow the economy while reducing emissions. we must also never lose sight of the fact the dream of an economic prosperity is what provided our citizens with two centuries of continuous advancement in health and development and its salt enabled thitself enabledthe focus on enl improvement. far from the zero-sum, i look forward to hearing from across the country of their ideas on how to continue the cycle based on their experiences engaging with the epa. thank you very much. i welcome the witnesses that are here today to words that have

become something of a mantra for the epa administrator scott pruett. they are among his most trusted talking the planes right up there with another catchphrase back to basics. what does cooperative federalism really mean and in particular what does it mean to administrator prewitt? the states work together to produce pollution, reducing pollution involves scientific analysis, gathering data, writing rules, setting targets and enforcing the rules and targets. this can and should be done together by the epa and the states. it used to be with scott pruett means by cooperative federalism. the federalism means having the epa do less to produce pollution

and hand over more of the work to the states all while proposing fewer financial resources to the state. to do this work if some are less interested in reducing the pollution or don't have the resources to develop and enforce those so much the better because you see that as the goal, cooperative federalism is the code for the epa and some states walking away from their core mission of protecting human health and the environment. the proof is tha purpose that aa state takes strong action to reduce pollution, the epa opposes the initiative for slow walks with. this version of federalism is a one-way street to words more pollution. states are encouraged to take the lead in reducing pollution so long as they don't actually try to reduce pollution. the recent decision to water

down the economy standards and café standards is an example of how the cooperative federalism really works. the standards were negotiated in 2012 by the epa, california and the industry. all the great standards to save consumers $1.7 trillion an average of $8,000 over the life of a car purchased in 2025. why do they go back to the café standards. when you get beyond the rhetoric isn't really interested in cooperating with the states. the real interest is in cooperating with corporations which have bankrolled his entire political career.

you might actually call it cooperative corporatism. and now many of the other ten states and districts that follow california mission standards who objected the position to water down the standards committee suggested he may revoke the waiver granted the clean air a act. how is that for cooperation. and the desire to centralize the decision making in his own hands isn't just limited to the clean air act. all related to determining if a project has a significant environmental impact on the waterways will be made by him. so much for local control and cooperative federalism. there's a long coastline that is vulnerable to the sea level rise. the café standards represent an important part of the efforts to combat climate change which is responsible for the sea level rise. the clean power plant is powerpl to reduce the carbon emissions

driving climate change. do you think that he consulted with officials or those in any coastal state on repealing the powerplant? if you need any further proof that the cooperative federalism is a one-way street sham look at his proposed budget for fy 19. he proposes cutting the grants by over $160 million. some programs he eliminates entirely. the hell do they expect the states to lead on protecting clean air when he tries to cut the money they receive to do this work? the answer is it doesn't. it is cooperative corporatism to serve the interest of the industry that has always backed

him. the state input is ignored and you see this in the industry cronies installed. scott pruett has the doctrine of the federalism dressed as a disregard for the mission has to leave the agency and his actions stand to the environment. they are working so hard to protect the environment and we are an effective partner in the epa. it's time for the epa to get serious about protecting the environment and public health. and after al all is its true mission. thank you madam chair. >> thank you, senator. to begin the introductions i would like to ask if he would introduce the witness. >> thank you madam chair. i am so pleased to introduce the air quality administrator for the department of air quality. the administrator has led the

efforts to improve the quality and implement the clean air act since 2015. before serving the air quality administrator she worked at the wyoming attorney general's office and in that office served as the assistant attorney the ay general and represented the division of air quality and have broad experience where she handled a wide variety of civil and environmental matters. they served the state very well for which we are grateful. due to the unique location, geography and resources, wyoming eight flexibility to implement the act and i look forward to during your testimony today and listen as you explain the challenges faced by the state of wyoming and implementing the clean air act and how the epa can better partner with the states specifically wyoming to solve the challenges. so, welcome and thank you for being here and for your willingness to testify. >> i would like to recognize

senator carper for an introduction. >> we are welcoming back sean to the environmental public works committee. we are happy that you could join us. we spent some time trying to get here this morning. [inaudible] >> how long? would you say the happiest two years of your life? >> you work for joe biden kept him out of trouble and ended up

doing three for eight years? and after that you ended up the secretary of the department of control. is anybody in a position holding the position previously? >> we have great affection for him and his family and happy that you would be with us today. not just for the people of delaware that the people of the country. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, senator and i would introduce the rest of the panel and then begin. in addition, we hav have the director of the vision for air quality in the kentucky energy and environmental cabinets department of environmental protection. that is a long title. he previously served as the president of the association of

air pollution control agencies and continues to play a leadership role in the organization. welcome. we have toby baker the commissioner of the texas commission of environmental quality first nominated by then governor rick perry in 2012. ..

our department is an active member on the environmental county with several of the presenters also serving on that. our division is a member of the association of air pollution control agency where he served as vice president in the western state air resources counsel where he served as vice president. while my testimony may reference those organizations i'm not here to testify on their behalf. in order to put my remarks in context i would like to share a few facts about wyoming to help you get to know who we are. wyoming has been blessed with amazing and abundant natural resources. we are home to yellowstone and grand teton national park and other specials and scenic laces up some of you may have visited their resources provide the nation-state and citizens with revenue. our leading industries are

industry tourism and agriculture. tonight largest state, roughly 93 times the side--size of rhode island. about half the land in wyoming has been managed by the federal government. we are also the least populous state not quite 600,000 of us in small rural communities. only nine communities in wyoming have more than 10,000 people each. wyoming is working towards improved relationships and interactions with the epa. it is wyoming it is wyoming's experience the epa shares this desire and is doing the same. why are improvements to "corporations so important? he want better outcomes and air improvement. my testimony recalibrate state and federal rules which leads to more effective air quality environmental management at lower cost.

my written testimony highlights some of these examples. my remarks today--with respect to corporate federalism epa passed the standard state develop plans with implementation strategies to meet those deadlines and standards. when that process works the result is improved air quality at lower cost. wyoming treasures her magnificent resources. in the 1977 clean air act amendments congress established a goal to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions. some 20 years later epa adopted the regional haze rule. the rule mandates states reduce regional haze emissions. however in the midst of the regional haze plan submittal the corporate federalism process failed. instead of approving innovative state plans to improve air quality epa oftentimes fail to

act or impose a one-size-fits-all federal plan on a state. wyoming is one of those states in which he epa imposed a regional haze federal plan that came with a much higher price tag and no added visibility benefits compared to the state's plan. the work involved to develop and submit a state plan is time-consuming and costly. for regional haze the process in his first-round tip more than a decade and cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars on the technical work alone. wyoming's plan achieved significant emission reductions including almost 10,000 tons of nitrogen oxides by installing $100 million worth of pollution control. wyoming's plan demonstrated that wyoming would be on track to make--to meet the progress goals. instead of approving wyoming's

plan epa imposed its own federal plan. epa had a price tag of $600 million but did not meaningfully improved visibility. these issues are now tied up in litigation. the challenges that the second round of regional haze lands are due in a few years. federal and state collaboration is underway in that process. wyoming remains hopeful that those collaborative efforts will continue and be fully implemented. if so the result will be continued improvement and progress toward meeting the clean air act visibility goals at a cost and resource savings to wyoming citizens. thank you to the committee for inviting wyoming and listening to the department's perspective on corporate federalism under the clean air act. thank you. >> good merriment--good morning cheer capito ranking member and members of the subcommittee.

my name is sean alteri. i'm honored to testify today and i thank you for the opportunity to share the state's perspective related to corporate federalism on the clean air act. i also serve as a past president of the association of air pollution control. our cessation in is a national nonpartisan consensus driven organization focused on improving air quality. the association represents more than 45 state and local air agencies. as senator inhofe remark during the 2016 hearing cooperative federalism is the core principle of the environmental statutes including the clean air act. for epa and states work together to meet goals for doubtlessly mutual respect is essential and necessary for a strong working relationship between epa and state regulators. working together cooperative law allows to achieve our bar mitzvah goals and objectives are specific to the clean air act cooperative federalism is more than just a catchphrase.

once epa establishes a standard under title i have the act states are primarily responsible for implementations enforcement of those standards and requirements. these standards include air quality standards standards of performance the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants and waste incineration rules. to ensure states are provided with the ability to carry out its obligations under the clean air act and administer its delegated authorities epa must establish uniform emission standards based on--additionally epa must formulate implementation requirements of state travel and local air pollution control agencies. importantly epa must allocate adequate resources and funds to air pollution control agencies. epa must provide technical support and finally the epa must meet all of its nondiscretionary statutory duties by the

prescribed deadlines. epa strategic plan for fiscal year 18 through 2022 underscores each of these necessities. in a strategic plan ep establishes a goal of corporate federalism and sets forth its objective to enhance shared count ability and increase transparency and public participation. epa school and objectives are consistent with those of their pollution control agents. in kentucky we take the responsibility seriously. and we worked diligently to bill are provisions under the act. we are proud of the significant improvement in air quality in we understand there is more work to conduct. in the spirit of cooperative federalism and like to provide a status report on air quality in kentucky and a detailed activity by her cabinet to fill--fulfill our obligation. in the last 10 years emissions of sulfur dioxide from air-conditioning units is decreased by 83% in emissions from nitrous oxide have

decreased by more than 70% or bust ambient air marketing network measures these positive results. currently all of the monitors in the commonwealth except for one measured in compliance with with standards including the 2015 ozone standards. these reductions in our success in air quality improvement or achieve the significant investments to install and upgrade air pollution. in the last 10 years or utilities invested more than eight early in dollars with a b dollars for air pollution controls and these expenditures are shared by the all of the ratepayers in the commonwealth per despite these efforts epa during the last administration disapproves several plan revisions initiate federal and plantation plans as a result of epa's negative action for a federal implementation plan resulted from federal decisions. including the commonwealth of kentucky is leaked meeting at

statutory applications and the clean air act by reducing our emissions and providing aggressive--with the manufacturing goods or products necessary to improve the quality of life for all. to accommodate cooperative federalism and the strong working relationships we request epa apply state implementation approach rather than an aggressive outreach. again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to any questions or comments you may have regarding my testimony. >> thank you. commissioner baker. >> thank you members of the environment and public works committee. my name is toby baker and i'm the commissioner of the texas environmental quality. we are the third largest realtor agency in the united states behind the epa and california. we have close to 3000 employees across 16 regional offices with our largest office.

we regulate water quality air quality and waste in texas would like to highlight a few facts that i believe are made possible through the tradition of cooperative federalism that as you know is built into the federal clean air act in a number of federal regulatory statutes. starting with the amendment to the clean air act of the early 90s texas is one of the largest coastal states to turn the corner on environmental regulations and has become one of leading states in environmental success relative to our environmental challenges we currently produce one third of the nation's crude oil and 30% of all refining capacity is located within our borders and a quarter of all u.s. natural gas production comes from texas. balancing this we also are one of the largest states in the u.s. with over 20,000 megawatts of capacity by solar energy production is ramping up in considering the projects we have in the queue we should have close to 3500 megawatts of utility scale constructed a bill

by 2193 to sum up we produce and consume more energy than any other state. in addition the population of texas is increasing rapidly. since 2000 it's estimated our population has grown by over eight l. yen. it's no secret that texas is no doubt discovering the benefits of their condition which requires a significant amount of power. one could assume an increase in population coupled with a robust manufacturing sector would lead to increased emissions but in reality the office--since the late 90s they seen a dramatic drop in ozone emissions. with other criteria pollutants the ozone is pressing. since 2041 the top states reducing ozone emissions and the

latest ranking of the dirtiest cities by the american lung association texas does not have a city in the top 10 all having. the top 10 largest cities in the u.s.. given the fact that a good portion of the u.s. and prime ozone making whether it's frankly astounding. it our emissions in our metropolitan areas are driven more by multiple sources than any point source. co2 is working as well throughout texas produces more co2 than any other state per-capita production according to the cia and ranking the states. i would argue the models for efficiencies. a tradition of cooperative federalism has allowed texas to tailor its own unique solutions to our own unique problems in a market that has led to maximizing efficiency in the refining sector as cleaner burning vehicles and incentives. i would like to address

cooperative federalism more specifically. first and foremost the benefits of corporate federalism done correctly were on full display during a response of the worst natural disaster in the state of texas hurricane harvey. before and after harvey made landfall the epa headquarters coordinate with state agencies to ensure all necessary fuel waiver requests are processed as expeditiously as possible producers all of this cooperation a press was granted in a matter of hours. compare that to previous hurricanes where was processed over several days. similarly epa staff processed request for assurance letters concerning control of gasoline terminals transport trucks and gasoline storage tanks. the epa's rapid response and close court nation and of proving the fuel waivers and in a letters assured gas flow

through texas and an nsa spaghetti for the previous demonstration work well with us in transitioning the greenhouse gas permitting under the tailoring rules. recognizing the ability of a particular state to handle the application load under certain rule is another great example of how poor operative. i notice i'm running out of time so i will skip forward recently. the same family of cooperative federalism where it works it sometimes doesn't work. take for example the power plan that impose significant electric reliability strains of the state of texas to obtain benchmarks in the short timeframe that would be mad anyway and are assisting market conditions for specifically texas is on pace to nearly hit the emissions reduction benchmark of other clean power plan several years ahead of schedule.

finally i'm pleased to see under this administration a return to the historical mormon of the clean air act enforcement and implementation by converting the epa is been able to implement and enforce federal standards in a manner allowing her greater flexibility and efficiency. this in turn leads to greater diversity and problem solving methods tailored to each state's natural environment as well as the more predictability consistency in enforcement. at examples of that but i will leave those for later and that concludes my testimony. thank you for having me here today. >> thank you chair capito ranking member white house and other subcommittee members for inviting me to testify. i am matt rodriguez secretary of the california environmental protection agency. i would describe how the partnership created by the clean air act has provided an extraordinarily successful

answers rate since the clean air act was amended in 1970 emissions of the most common air pollutants have fallen by an average of 70% even as their economy grew. the economic benefits will total $2 trillion. newer finer refiner cookman reduces waste and improves worker safety and also improves the health of people in nearby neighborhoods. electric vehicle technology for cars trucks and school buses has cut greenhouse gases and smog emissions. federal and state efforts provides minimum standards and resources and states tailor solutions for their individual communities. unfortunately today this relationship has been put in jeopardy. through a series of recent redaction's is attempting to weaken the safeguards.

statesmen forced to sell resources. i will provide several examples and i have are guided more in my written remarks. in adopting the clean air act gives california the option to develop its own emission standards. california has technical expertise and experience that drives innovation. using this framework 13 states including california automakers and the federal government have operated a coordinated national program that set rigorous standards for greenhouse gases in fuel economy for cars and trucks. usda findings last year show the collaboration has been successful. it's estimated will save roughly 1.2 million barrels and a half a billion metric tons and save the average consumer thousands of dollars over the vehicle's life. u.s. automakers stay competitive in the global market. it's disappointing the

administration recently announced its intention without immediately consulting its partner states to weaken and potentially dismantle the program. the result is huge uncertainty for industry and a huge rest of the public. we are prepared to take action if necessary including legal action to protect the program and to restore the balance to the cooperative relationship. similarly the clean air act gives epa the authority to fight global warning and greenhouse gases. using his authority the agency developed the clean power plan through transparent process to meet targets by 2030. the plan offers an array of planning auction--options in with a plan in place. the trump administration threatens to curtail this progress under the act. many states including california are stepping in with their own

programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. without federal leadership we lack the national position to respond to climate change. federal and state cooperation is at the core of our national program to make sure air meets the basic standards for public health. in early u.s. epa assigns maximum levels for air pollution. the states about plans plans to meet and maintain these specials. the standards are critical because smog can worsen heart conditions in damage agricultural production. the epa frustration is refused to designate areas of compliance instead announcing an extended delay before starting the process. in 15 states in and the district of columbia filed suit over the suitable step the epa withdrew the form of delay but still do not do anything. we had to go to court again to require the epa to do its job. states rely on our federal partners to ensure backers and power plants have strong pollution controls however a few months ago u.s. epa revokes a

policy that ensures a major source of toxic air pollution are the subject of controls. these air pollutants include lead and mercury ants--which can cause cancer and damage the nervous system. given a policy these pollution sources can drop out of the program and increase our emissions again. states will have to do their best to develop programs to clean the air and protect it but it means diverting resources that could oppress other public health threats. achieving the goal of clean air will protect their community we achieve partnerships of the public with the federal administration. the key to success is a strong interest in the epa. this is why we appreciate congress resistance or proposed budget cuts to the agency's core program including its grant program. it's why we appreciate the better workers program that is period of uncertainty but this will not be enough as epa walks

away from its responsibilities. states will do what they need to do to protect their economy to use our available tools to make sure that the epa works with us and not against us. thank you very much. spin thank you mr. rodriguez. chairman garvin. >> members of the subcommittee my name is shawn garvin and i served on the department of the natural resource and environmental control the bad luck and thank you control the bed like to think you could ever get to testify on the cooperative federalism under the clean air act state perspective. in may of 2017 i had the opportunity to testify in front of this committee on the importance and effectiveness of the clean air act preventing premature deaths. i am pleased to be here today to once again address you on myspace about above the clean air act and some of the serious challenges downwind states they in meeting standards

for air quality. pollutants are well controlled in delaware to the states requiring controls on a wide ranges sources including refineries manufacturing plants on road vehicles consumer products paints and coatings gas station he activities to name a few. despite these efforts de continues to be challenged in ensuring healthy air to our citizens because we are a downwind state and subject air pollution transport from facilities in other parts of the country. in fact over 90% of the pollution that contributes to ozone in delaware is transported from out-of-state sources. the answer to solving our ozone problem lies outside of reporter we need the federal government to recognize the inequity that exists between upwind and downwind states that the apta ngp maintain cooperative federalism maintains clean-air.

i would agree cooperative federalism is invaluable when it works well but by empowering states to act under the federal law to allow communities to enjoy the benefits of state innovation to positive outcomes can occur when the federal government works alongside the state to determine the best method to continue progress towards clean-air provides the resources the state needs to enforce regulations and steps in when the state fails to meet its applications. progress and downwind states such as delaware require the federal government continues to provide the state with the tools and resources needed to enforce the clean air act. there have been massive cuts in the past two epa budgets. progress requires epa maintains oversight and step in to ensure upwind states continue to comply with the good neighbor provision aware of the epa seems to be pulling back and turning decisions over to the states. we are seeing the attempt to reduce regulations at the federal level such as repeal and

replace of the clean power plan weakening of the fuel efficiency standards revocation of the california waiver and the rollback of the glider chuck rule. in addition epa has failed to act on section 126 which is one of the ways a state can address problems that lie outside of its corridor and seek reduction in emissions contributing. all of these actions or non-actions will have serious consequences for downwind states such as delaware. the inequities compounded by the fact that we are a downwind and the lowest lying coastal state we are disproportionately and economically affected by the health care costs due to the health effects of poor air quality and by industry rotating elsewhere due to lack of controls and regulations. we will be further impacted by us pollution the states contributing to sea level rise and the increased frequency of

storms and coastal erosion. my concern with the way epa's approaching federalism under the clean air act only focus on providing flexibility in the decisions we make inside of our stay. the department--and i have no authority to ensure other states are addressing pollution that impacts my citizens but i count on the epa to use their authority to hold all of the accountable to the law regulation and ensure we are all being good neighbors. thank you for the opportunity to testify and am happy to answer questions. spin thank you all and i will begin with my five minutes of questions. mr. alteri recently served as the president of the association of air pollution control agency representing the state clean air regulators from around the country. in fact in a a capacity sent a letter to me and ranking member whitehouse outlining the aap ca's priorities for improving the clean air act to improve coordination between the epa and regulators so thank you for the

letter and i would like to seek unanimous consent to submit that letter to the record. a year into the administration what do you perceive as change with regard to the epa coordination with the state, the states and has an in more collaborative in your opinion? >> thank you chair. revise have a strong working relationship with the epa that this administration has been coming to the states for technical information as opposed to imposing its will through federal implementation plan so we have a day more technical thorough discussion directly with our state. >> ms. vehr to have you seen a difference working with the different administration working in court nation with the federal and state? >> guess we have. again echoing mr. alteri we had a working relationship with the epa prior but since--under this

new administration we have found that working relationship has improved. epa is listening to the states concerns and is interested in developing flexible solutions that fit wyoming's unique characteristics. i would like to say in the totally in my state and the previous administration for eight years we asked the epa to come to our state to have a session which we were never able to get at that the epa did come in several months ago and had a vigorous listening session in charleston west virginia mostly around coal and we had all sides of the argument heard and it was very much welcome. part of what i see is the ability to listen. commissioner baker you are from an interstate that he mentioned that the clean power, the clean air act obviously mentioned the

clean power plan that was mentioned in the other testimony without the clean power plan we can't move forward with the desired capturing of carbon and cleaning the environment. could you comment on that again. texas is obviously one of the biggest producers of carbon. >> if you look at the inside clean power plan the state had to meet to comply with the plan itself i believe our first year was early in the 2020s. we would be within 5% of that number by 2019 and that's without any grand plan in place. >> would the which should be bad to? >> honestly chairman a number of things. it is since he with our industrial or. also i would say honestly natural gas has had a direct impact. we have had 12 btus they will be

were tiring of have retired or are retiring soon. the market itself and think is driving us do with the clean power plan set out to do. massive wind saturation into our power supply. >> i would like to ask a very simple question of everybody. actually senator whitehouse got me thinking about this in his opening statement. he mentioned the states would want to walk away from the core mission of the clean air act. >> absolutely not. >> mr. alteri. >> no. >> mr. baker. mr. garvin. >> the downwind i hope not.

thank you mr. garvin for adding a few extra words there. on the sioux and subtle issue mr. alteri mentioned that. could you explain to me how that works in terms of the ozone provisions? >> i think they have outcomes that are not consistent with the clean air act. currently our facilities are enforcing additional controls whereas those areas that maintain the standard on the east coast they don't have the provide additional controls. it's a negative outcome for our state and really unnecessary. spin anybody else have a comment >> i would like to make one comment. one of the more egregious complaints that i think we would have goes back to 2011 that came

out of the case over timing reviews for nsps and do that consent decree in that decision the epa decided these were now going to be applicable to all oil and gas whereas we had years and years of legal interpretation that said nsps did not apply. without one decision potentially overnight we had to regulate essentially hundreds of thousands of news sources. the problem with that is obviously the cost to the do that balls on my agency in trying to figure out how to go and do that through simple reinterpretation of the way the clean air act interpreted it. >> senator whitehouse. spin thank you madam chairman yankees will the witness source

for being here but i like to open my questions winning a quotation from freddie mac the u.s. mortgage backer. and i quote them here. this is related to harm to coastal housing and property markets. quote the economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually but they are likely to be greater in total than those experiencing the housing crisis and great recession. those of us who are from coastal states make warnings like that from our federal mortgage providers. seriously as i think you would expect that we should. could you tell me this vehr what is the relationship between carbon emissions and sealevel rise?

>> in terms. >> cause and effect. spin cause-and-effect? i know there are changes that are occurring in our environment currently that people are studying and i am not an expert in that area so i would have to defer to the studies that others are doing in that area. >> mr. alteri can you do any better than that? >> i'm not sure of that direct relationship between co2 and sealevel rise. spin commissioner baker maybe you can do better. spin in certain areas i think there's a direct correlation. >> would the mean in certain areas? >> example--for example in texas they sealevel rise we are experiencing comes from man-made things like man-made structures that extend into the gulf of mexico.

>> my question is what is the role of carbon dioxide emissions contributing? would assure understanding of that? >> in texas i don't know what the science says specifically about the. >> how about generally if not specifically? what is the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and sealevel rise? >> i think i answered that it's correlated. >> okay, there we go. mr. rodriguez california's coastal? >> it's sometimes hard to get them to agree on certain--on anything but in this particular area of the overwhelming consensus and i have no doubt that there's a direct correlation between co2 emissions, changes in the weather including sealevel rise. >> you have coastal communities that are having to plan for that >> a set of guidelines along our

coast protection counsel we are preparing for sealevel rise do we are seeing along their coasts. >> mr. garvin you are like me, you are coastal and you are downwind. your friend mr. rodriguez's downwind of china. we are downwind of the coal plants in west virginia ohio kentucky and so forth and for a long time we have been on the receiving end of their pollution and don't much appreciate the dash to make sure the pollution comes out of their state and lance on ours. what does sealevel rise mean for delaware and how it connects to car emissions from these plants? >> i want to touch on two things and i completely agree with my colleague from california. when we look at this issue in delaware are two largest economic generators are tourism and agriculture.

when we talk about climate change part of it is sealevel rise issues and part of it is creating more frequency of storms and more severe storms, higher droughts and more flooding across-the-board. they have direct impacts on two of our largest economic engines in delaware. we are seeing the impacts particularly along the coastline >> what does delaware have to start doing now for the sealevel rise as anticipated as a result of a change in carbon emissions? >> we continue to work on free endorsement of our coastlines to try to protect our coastlines their coastlines as much as possible to their local communities are looking at decisions and existing structures on how they need to address any new construction.

>> treatment plants and harbors and all those things are they considered? >> as we speak our department of transportation is raising route 1 which connects their coastline along the atlantic coast by several inches to try not to address the big storms but just to address the regular storms and the impact it's having on transportation which becomes a public safety issue for our communities along the coast. spin thank you chairman. my time has expired. >> senator markey. >> thank you very much. mr. rodriguez, welcome. scott pruitt is now attacking the fuel economy standards which is in agreement with california and all the waiver states along with the epa and nhtsa in 2010

and 2011. that would reduce our imports of oil by 3.5 million barrels of oil a day which is roughly these quibble and of opec. it seems like a pretty important thing to do. it also is still the largest single production and a country is ever put on the books to reduce greenhouse gases. it is huge. i was a house author of that legislation in the same i senator feinstein and stephens were on that bill. it was the bill reformed by d.o.t.. what do you think about scott pruitt statement that the standards are too hard to reach that in there's an unfair and

position on the auto industry? do you agree with that? >> no. it's a very thorough technical assessment of the standards and the progress that the auto industry has made and complying with those standards and 2016 and 2017. our air resisters board found there's no reason to deviate from those standards in progress was being made and our experience has been if you set the right target you'll find a way to get there and that is the case here. we see no reason to deviate from those standards that we agreed to previously. >> what you think about toyota and the other companies that are now saying you cannot meet the standards. what would your message to them the? >> we continue to work with them and talk to them about how we maintain those standards.

we are interested in hearing from industry and frank he they are not quite as dramatic as that. what we hear is they are interested in talking about some points of the system but i'm not hearing anybody say they want to see a wholesale revision of the standards. as i said i think we are making very good progress meeting those standards. >> i appreciate you saying that the american automotive association are not out there just talking as though they have a few. that association is geppetto above the ceo companies that want to change these decisions without kind of instruction coming down to them. ford motor companies made it quite clear that he doesn't agree with it but the others not so much from my perspective. i think that's at the core of the problem we have right now. what would this represent as an

attack on the clean air standards of california and the other 13 states who would see their standards compromised? >> transportation obviously is a very significant part of the air pollution puzzle. we have made tremendous progress over the years but we need to continue to clean up the air and frankly are role is to move to electric and fuel vehicles because that's the only way we can meet their greenhouse gas emissions standards. we are fully committed to continuing to work to enforce the standards and continue to work with the auto industry to bring about change and technology. >> scott pruitt talks about cooperative--and the way in which you want to operate. in your opinion would this be a

direct attack on cooperative federalism given the agreement that was reached six years ago to increase the standards? >> with that forward to a dialogue with the epa. we haven't had a it yet on the technology. we worked with previous administrations on technology and agree with their assessments of the standards. in answer to your question we haven't seen that corporative federal. >> you have not had a conversation with them. >> we have had general conversations and certainly nothing on the technical level. >> do you think it makes sense that scott processes going to recommend revocation of those rules without having had conversations with the other party whether or not technical standards can be met? do you think that's cooperative federalism?

>> no. >> i thank you and i thank think you meant and share. spin senator barrasso. >> your testimony demonstrates the importance of cooperative federalism. many of the issues we face in wyoming are unique to the state of wyoming due to our size location and topography all quite unique through what can the epa do to address these unique characteristics and how they affect issues such as ozone and exceptional events such as wildfires? >> for start listening to what wyoming has to say. second to act timely when wyoming makes a request. three to provide some of the technical tools that states like wyoming that consume a lot of resources such as modeling and the like. >> when you look at the fact that we have been so successful in balancing the economic

benefits from using our natural resources for energy production in wyoming while ensuring views in our national parks aren't impacted by issues like air pollution this is way striking the proper balance between states and decision-making and implementation of the regional haze program is critical. is the epa addressing your concerns about the role federal land managers play as it relates to regional haze? >> i think they are starting to. it's critically important that states work with the epa but it's equally critically important that all the federal land managers at the epa have a working relationship. wyoming does participate through some of these discussions that we have other federal land managers epa so that all of our

voices are heard and we can achieve improved air quality. >> direct or alteri one of the greatest--about the obama's epa is the agency is the texan known as sue and settle making a major impact on states without including states in the decision-making process. how would the directive on sue and sell the help of his state's? >> as a relates to our state implementation plan director pruitt mandates states have a voice at the table and they have a seat at the table and that will give us an opportunity to explain the technical limitations were the technical abilities to achieve the standards. >> the prior administration issued rules and burdensome requirements on states. does the epa chart states like ours--can you talk about your

perspectives on the air transport issue and should we think about international effects on our air quality? >> definitely the international effect. this is still an evolving area of science both on the ozone and the disability. the model that wyoming did and other western states the first round of regional haze show visibility in the west was impacted by international transport of pollutants. the ozone modeling that epa conducted for the air pollution rule update looked at pollution and as we delve into that modeling we realized there is still an area that needs to be examined with international transport. last week at their meeting we heard from a speaker that talked about reduction in international pollution may help solve the

ozone issues that other states are experiencing so yes the international transport is important. >> and director alteri act like to ask if you would like to weigh in and add to anything to what administrators vehr said. b ms. vehr mentioned models and models are limited. former administrator mccabe mentioned that epa is not fully implemented the resources so those limitations have imposed greater reductions for us in the maintenance areas in maryland and other places. there was a statement as well emissions from katechi were reduced in total it still would not affect and bring the areas in the northeast into compliance. if emissions went to zero.

>> he would still not bring the areas into compliance. >> thank you. senator carper. >> mr. alteri my mother has lived in kentucky the last two or three years of her life in this place called ashland. my sister lived in winchester night at chance to see her family. i love going to kentucky. to beautiful state and i applaud the reduction emissions that you talked about in your testimony. when our secretary sean alteri spoke he said, just repeat what you said. >> over 90% comes from outside of our borders. >> that sounds good. earlier in my life i served as governor of delaware.

i had a conversation with folks from maryland and these are folks who made a living harvesting the creatures of the chesapeake bay. they have big gap spots--dead spots and their ability to make a living was diminished. they said to us we needed to do something about it. we said why? they said because it flows into the chesapeake bay carrying a lot of nutrients. when they cleanout chicken houses, poultry houses in delaware and some cases they were spreading them across farm bills for the value of the nitrogen. we were doing it and the

nutrients would wash into the ditches, creeks and rivers of the chesapeake eroding the quality of the water. it was not just delaware was done in virginia and other places. the folks from maryland said how would you like to be making your living by harvesting god's creatures and the chesapeake bay how would you like to make your living when your neighbors are polluting. you make a good point. we treat other people the way we want to be treated. we put together initiative that ultimately worked with the marmot of groups with the environmental natural resources.

we came up with a way to dramatically reduce runoff emissions and the damage we are doing to our neighbors. we have been on both sides of this equation. we have been the neighbor who degraded the water quality of our neighbor maryland and we are the neighbor who's still receives emissions from west virginia from my state of pennsylvania from kentucky where my sister now lives. we now have tennessee and all kinds of states. my colleagues have heard me say this but when i was governor of delaware the secretary was talking about it. i could have shut every car off the road and we still would have been out of compliance. that's just not fair.

there is a need for the federal role and upwind states whether it's delaware or rhode island new jersey or maryland there is a need for the federal government help us out to make sure we do more. i'm going to ask secretary garvin to comment on this. >> i appreciate that but if you look the state of delaware and the things we are talking about here there's a transport they where receiving which is over 90% in the second pieces transportation. those are the two biggest pieces we have looking at emissions and both of those we need cooperation and partnership with both our fellow states as well as emissions from our federal government.

we have been the ones have taken an inch of all of what california has been. we could never done it on our own and when you look at the mid-atlantic and the northeast and the amount of vehicle traffic that we have for us to address their issues we are going to to continue to work on the transportation side and we are continuing to look inside the state on how we have a much better electric infrastructure for vehicles. we are going to rely on cooperative federalism in and cooperation with our fellow states on the transport issue in the transportation issue. >> madam chairman if i have the chance to ask another question i'd like to go back for maybe two minutes to ask for one more question. >> i will go to senator inhofe. is it okay with you? >> i would like to hear his

question. >> over a number of years we have made a little progress more recently since 2007 we have made real progress in reducing emissions. one of the things that senator inhofe and i worked on together were previous emission standards pioneered by our former colleague. we have the opportunity to continue to make progress and do so in a way where we provide automakers near term return for making clear what the out here targets could be and should be particularly for trucks and suvs and so forth. the islands need certainty.

49 states or 40 states but i think there is a real opportunity to make clear the findings in the cleaner actor compatible with one another. is there a way to give flexibility in the near term 21 to 25 and gives him greater rigor to the standards after 2030 and in a way that is respectful of california's leadership role in this and for the rest of us? is a pipe dream? is that reality? can you give me a reality check on that idea? >> as i say we believe in standards that we agree to previously are attainable but certainly we are willing to sit down and talk to the auto industry and talk about the

technology and look out to 2030. we want to work towards a solution that will keep us moving forward and it's not a pipe dream. we will talk to the industry. we will work with others to come up with a solution. >> one of the things i try to do every january is to go to the detroit auto show. been doing it for years and i met with representatives from two different auto companies all who have basically said give us additional flexibility in terms of greater certainty and for greater rigor. i do think there's a potential win-win here and i hope people take advantage of it. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you madam chairman and i thank the ranking member for this hearing today. i have been chairing the senate armed services committee.

our states should be seen as a partner and i think that is what is going on that's different than it has been during the last administration. the current epa administrator scott pruitt has made that his mission and is building on that promise produces first year as administrator he is met with 34 governors in both parties, visited 30 states in the u.s. territory. under his leadership the epa has acted on 322 state implementation mandates and his average turning one federal-- each month. in comparison the obama administration imposed more than 50 on our state partners. and i understand some evil think it's a step back towards and

what are administrator has been doing that they are the ones who think somehow the federal government or other states shouldn't be dictating what he do in our states for the novak got the feeling of our administrator now. i've heard testimony that many states are seeing positive results in this administration. the question for mr. alteri senator barrasso brought up the problems we have had and i been chairing this committee for a number of years and i watch that happen. in oklahoma we were sued in northern california court and forced to comply with the settlement that we were not a party to regarding the regional haze plan a decision congress

specifically delegated to the state. the federal plan will cost ratepayers an estimated $282 million in gas and electric the epa's rule and this is" is"--quote the largest increase in history while the resulting impact on regional haze would be practically imperceptible. mr. alteri does this sound like a reasonable expectation from the result of a court case like this? are you familiar with this and are there other comparable problems? ..

the more liberal individuals think someone can set an example and in the case of the federal government is kind of rewar rewg actually when asked during the last administration h we have a partnership program take place with fish an fish and wildlife y found they pay to better jobs and i thought that was -- one of the misconceptions was that the epa was missing in action in response to the environmental concerns your testimony suggests this was not the case at all.

>> they were with us every step of the way. and they are part of a group we call the natural disaster operational work group. we table topped hurricanes coming in multiple times. they were already prepared. the big difference here as opposed to previous administrations is after the hurricane hit, they acted almost immediately. i went through katrina, ike and rita and this is the one they were the most reactive and moved with the most efficiency. so we couldn't have done the things we did without them being at the table with us.

we have people in the office with us and in the operation center on a daily basis. >> in texas you know more about that. in oklahoma it's tornado is not hurricanes, but same thing. we know how to react to it. and i think that needs to be talked about. last, in your testimony you highlight cooperative federalism isn't just implementing the decisions but it's been part of the decision-making process itself. you mentioned the fact that the administratoadministrator greg w policies for the epa board of scientific counselors including ensuring a diverse composition. why is it, do you think, that these imported boards are to be regionally diverse? >> so all of the state voices can be heard and the unique

circumstances are brought to the table to be considered in the decision-making so that there can be flexibility and appropriate decision-making to lead to better improve air quality at a lower cost. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to recognize the ranking member for a statement before we closed the hearing. >> i want to point out one dimension of the role of the epa has to do with assuring fairness between separate states. both senator carper and i as downwind states have lived in a world in which, from a state regulator's perspective, the solution, for instance to air pollution, was to build tall smokestacks so that the pollution went up higher into the atmosphere and was carried out of the polluting state, and then landed on our state. it's very hard to ask ohio or

pennsylvania or kentucky to crack down on pollution that is not landing in ohio or pennsylvania or kentucky. it's a tough expectation to have for them politically. we could regulate until we are blue in the face in rhode island, but it doesn't help if what's coming in is coming in and being deliberately set up to come in from out of state. and it's in that circumstance the epa plays an essential and vital role, and that goal cannot be subject to the control by the polluting state, because there's another state involved that is the downwind recipient of all of this, and it's that particular situation we have to be very careful about how cooperative federalism to if you're not dealing with the public good state as well. so i just want to be clear on that point.

>> i agree with you in this case. >> and it's true with water as well. >> it's not the case as we talked with commissioner baker. in that case it is quite clear that they had a lot more knowledge in handling their own problems than the federal government. obviously, the case is one where there has to be the interference. we understand that. >> to end on a happy note. >> and i would reinforce your in the land of final comments. at the open door policy at the epa and the willingness to talk and understand the implications of every state, whether it is a downwind state or heavy energy producing state, so it's the part of cooperative federalism that is going to work

collaborative and i am encouraged by what we see. in the land of final comments, you may say one last thing. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i would like to say again, senator whitehouse nailed it. ask you to put yourselves in our shoes, and we will try to do the same thing with respect to other state. but i would ask unanimous consent to submit to the record for states of delaware to the epa that asked the agency to request a friend to financial reinstall or upgrade already installed the pollution controls as they need to occur to help states like delaware. dealing with the glider trucks i would ask unanimous consent we

sense the concerns about the proposal to allow some of the heaviest heavy duty trucks to circumvent cleanups and it looked like the trucks on the outside would be equipped with diesel engines that could emit up to 450 times the particular amount of pollution and up to 43 times the amount of nitrous oxide in 2014 and 2015 trucks. so they could >> without objection. >> thanks to the witnesses and to the secretary for getting up early to be here with all of us. and joined by at least one member of your staff over your left shoulder who looks so familiar. >> my chief of staff as well as my acting director. >> i can barely see on both sides.

by the close of business on april 24 for the witnesses committee staff any questions from the committee members please respond to those raising questions by the close of this is on tuesday, may 8. thank you and the hearing is adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

two former agents who inspired the netflix series marcos on investigating colombian drug lord pablo escobar are part of an event on counterfeit medicines and illegally imported fentanyl. the partnership for safe medicines organized this event. >> welcome, everyone. my home state of texas. how are you all doing this morning?