will be coming in from overseas and will be refined. losing those jobs. the question is, have you taken a look as we all are concerned about the planet, have you taken a look at the regulations that are -- our refineries currently have versus what they are, and versus the newer refineries built in the world, such as china and the caribbean? have you actually looked at the difference in the regulations between what we have and what we have when we close those refineries what it will have in terms of the regulations impacting them? >> well, generally, yes, i think the program specialists have an understanding of the differences between our regulations and maybe other countries. of course the virgin islands we regulate and have regulated for

years and the virgin islands government. i have to say that those private sector decisions about refineries and their decisions to close i have not seen any of them pointing directly to regulatory burdens in the decision making. i think the administration is going to look carefully especially at the recent decisions and keep an eye on them and also hope that they work with local and regional parties to address any shortages that might cause. >> well, as i understand it, one of the main reasons that the refineries are closing in the philadelphia area, they're now going to refine that in nigeria rather than the united states. and it was in large part because the cost differential between the two. >> sir, again, it's a private sector decision. i don't -- i will not speak for them. i will tell you my understanding has been about supply, but i only know what i read of their decision making process. >> epa was recently criticized

in the magazine the economist for how it measures benefits from the expensive mac rules. i don't know if you saw the story or not. it was just recently here, february 18th issue. the article explains that when analyzing the cost of benefits of the rules, most of the benefits come from cobenefits. and the question that i have is why doesn't the epa take the time to analyze the public health benefits associated with most of the pollutants actually being regulated and wouldn't that make much more sense? >> i personally believe that the cobenefits and the economic benefits of those are valid and important. but to answer your question more directly in the case of mercury, for example, which is a neurotoxin, that the social science of economics simply isn't to the point where epa can put a number on the value of

lost i.q. points or some of the thingss we'd be asking to try t value. we have good science and data to do things like premature death from soot pollution or asthma attacks from smog forming pollutants. but mercury is admittedly more difficult. so we do the best we can on mercury, but we don't ignore the cobenefits as well. >> as you know, we passed legislation in the house to try and extend the time for these boiler mac rules to be put into effect to allow you more time. the federal court made the decision that they did in january. are you still -- are you at all interested in the house or senate moving such legislation for a delay to give you the time to do these right? >> we are certainly mindful of

the work that's been done here, sir, and i do hope that you know that we have been working in our reproposed rules. the cost of compliance went down by 50% mainly because we're taking into account the importance of bio mass in acknowledging that's important feed stock. we're looking at the boiler mac, that it is set for finalization in late spring of this year. >> see the red light on. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor. >> thank you. welcome. citizens across america value clean air and clean water. so i want to thank you and everyone at epa for what you're doing to protect our air and our water and for your partnership with states and local communities. now, two of the most important

partnerships with our local communities involve the state -- the clean water and safe drink water loan programs. these are the vital dollars that help with storm water infrastructure, replacing old pipes. waste water infrastructure that's not real exciting, but they are vitally important when it comes to keeping our neighborhoods clean and our water bodies clean all across the country. they're important job creators too and the recovery act gave us a nice shot in the arm to help create jobs while at the same time leaving with us a lasting legacy of important infrastructure improvements. the issue is that the needs all across the country outweigh the resources. how would you characterize the backlog right now in storm water, waste water infrastructure? what is the magnitude? >> independent estimates have

put it at around $300 billion i believe. >> $300 billion. i would guess in my home state of florida it's well beyond a single billion. it's probably much more than that. we have these aging water pipes, they need improvements. so i'm troubled that the budget request actually provides a hair cut. how do you explain this? >> tough choices, ms. castor. you know, we balance it by the fact -- because as you noted the recovery act gave a shot in the arm to the programs. it's about $18 billion during this administration put into water infrastructure programs and it is another cut. tough, tough choices. but we're at the point where we don't really have many places where we can cut except in the infrastructure investments. we are mindful we'd like to get

to a place where these are loan programs for the most part where there is a revolving almost self-sustaining point. but we are years away from that. >> well, i hope the congress will respond overall by giving a boost to these vital clean water and drinking water initiatives that are important partnerships for the local communities and find savings elsewhere in the budget. next i'd like to ask you about the good news out of the administration on more fuel efficient cars. i think this is great news for american families and businesses. it appears that you all are building on the success that the congress in 2007 passed the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years. that was since 1975. we boosted mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. i have to tell you, i have a member of the family who last

year bought one of these fuel efficient cars. he's getting 50 miles per gallon and he really enjoys driving past these gas stations no matter what their signs have posted. can you summarize for us what the next steps are? what is the epa doing to work on even more fuel efficient vehicles? >> the -- as you noted, ms. castor, and thank you, the final rules for 2012 to 2016 light duty vehicles were finalized in april of 2010. we have proposed rules for light duty vehicles. those are cars, 2017 to 2025, those were proposed in november. we anticipate finalizing those later this year. we signed and published rules for heavy duty vehicles. those are large trucks. they were published in the

federal register in september. >> put it in the terms of the average american family and business. what does it mean? cash back in their pocket? >> absolutely. this means more money in your pocket and less trips to the gas station. it means that $1.7 trillion saved over the lifetime of the cars going all the way to 2025. 12 billion barrels of oil will never have to be imported into this country. for the average car owner, as the cars get more and more efficient, up to $8,000 in fuel savings over the life of the car. more than made up a little additional price up-front. we're very proud of it because we feel as though it's part of the president's approach which is we need to have energy, but we need to conserve the energy we have. it's positioned our automakers to compete with automakers around the world. >> i think it's making a real difference. thank you. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr.

walden, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to follow up on something that my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, had raised. regarding putting things on the website. and it's my understanding that you're an advocate for the policy and trying to open up our process, make it more transparent to the public, because that's who we both work at the end of the day. my understanding is that there are situations where groups file suit against your agency. and literally on the same day there are settlements entered into by your agency within those groups. i guess what we're trying to get here at is trying to make sure that the public has an awareness of that sort of litigation. and so when it's filed against your agency, are you willing to

notice that on your website in a very timely manner? this would be the notice of intent to sue. so you get a notice of intent to sue. >> yes, sir. >> so when you get those, is there a way you could just put those up on the website? so that the american taxpayers would know. would that be a hardship on the agency? >> it would require some minimal resources. we'd go happy to do it. i'm not aware of settling the same day. we usually when we receive a lawsuit we are almost always called by the press and we say we're reviewing it. >> but when you get the notice of intent to sue -- >> right, those are not actual lawsuits. those are 60-day notices. >> right. can you put those up on your website? >> i think so, absolutely, sir. i will look into the resources that are required to put that up. but it seems like a fair request. >> in this great world of our new technologies. people are interested in that,

obviously. >> my 16-year-old can probably figure it out. >> and fix the flashing clock -- oh, we don't have vcrs anymore. when you get into the settlement is there any noticing that can be done for the public to know about that? there's a concern that -- it can happen on the right, it can happen on the left. that you get a notice, you know, some day after you're gone and somebody else is there, it didn't seem fair that there was a notice to sue, and the public never sees that in a transparent way. >> i can assure you, sir, epa does not enter into sweetheart settlements. so if there is information that we can provide, when we enter into consent decrees, those are subject to public comment before the consent decree is lodged with the court. if there is an administrative

settlement, those are oftentimes discussed but not subject to public comment. >> but they could be made public? >> i do not know that, sir. but i do think that the agency needs to preserve its right to discuss and whether it's industry or environmental group. we get sued by state and local governments as well. we need to preserve our right to enter into discussion to try to avoid court costs. >> no, i don't think anybody disagrees with that. its ago just -- it's just when the taxpayers feel they may be shut out of any of that. and so you get a notice of intent to sue, they don't know that really happens. up less you make it public. >> usually the group suing us does. >> right. >> but they're the ones who initiate it. >> but not necessarily everybody else knows that's the thing with modern technology -- >> i don't see any concerns with notices that we receive up and i'm happy to look into that. >> okay. i return my time.

>> thank you. at this time i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator jackson, the house republicans have urged you not to issue pending proposed new source performance standards under the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution from new power plants. they argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and are not necessary. i could not disagree more strongly. climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face. although the standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, they are critical as a first step in tackling carbon pollution. they'll boost the economy by providing certainty to the power sector allowing investment decisions to be made and new generation to be built. you're an engineer, a practical problem solver. does it make any sense to pretend climate change isn't happening and hope we can deal with it later?

>> no, sir, it doesn't. >> denying the science and the facts i think is indefensible and putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. according to the highly regarded international agency, if the world doesn't change course on climate now within ten years we will have built enough high carbon energy infrastructure to lock our planet into an irreversible and devastating amount of global warming. administrator jackson, when building new infrastructure is precisely what these regulations are all about, isn't that right? >> well, that's right, sir. giving standards so people have certainty. that's an important part of the regulatory process. >> these new source performance standards would set limits for carbon pollution that would apply when we invest the billions of dollars in new power plant that will be around for half a century or more. that seems to be common sense.

the reality is that the market is already driving these choices. the development of huge low-cost natural gas supplies plus uncertainty about inevitable future carbon control requirements is deterring investments in new coal plants without carbon controls. but we're hearing the same old claims that epa's proposed regulations would drive up energy prices and destroy the u.s. economy. that's what republicans said in 2010 about the requirements for clean air act, new source review permits for carbon pollution. the carbon pollution permitting requirements have been in place for over a year now. is there any evidence that they're harming the economy? >> none, sir. none that i'm aware of certainly. i believe people are getting permits and applying for them and moving forward. and in certain jurisdiction

they're going forward. >> and in fact, and they're going forward in a more cost efficient manner. we' we're finding that climate change is already occurring, finding new threats to food supplies and human health from the rapidly warming planet. finding the time to avoid a disastrous degree of warming is rapidly running out and yet this republican congress does worse in fiddling while rome burns. they're actually trying to starve anybody else from -- and i want to commend your efforts to fight this fire and i urge you to take the steps for issuing carbon credits for the plamentds as soon as possible. the epa is responsible for protecting our land and water and the land and the administration's proposing to achieve the mission with a meager one quarter of 1% of the federal budget. this equals 81% of the agency's

fiscal year 2010 budget, 56% of the agency's fiscal year 2009 budget. clearly, the president's proposing funding level that the agency has to make difficult choices, cut funding for valuable programs and start funding at priority goals. i'd like to ask you about some of the primary -- some of the tough choices. in the 2013 budget, we have significant cuts to the drinking water program. just yesterday, the american water works association released a new assessment of state of drinking water infrastructure in this country. and they said in this report our drinking water infrastructure needs a $1 trillion investment over the next 25 years if we're to maintain current levels of water service. they conclude, the more we delay the harder the job will be done. administrator jackson, has the

agency determined that funding drinking water infrastructure is no longer important? >> certainly not. >> the state revolving loan funds for delivering drinking water is important for health? >> absolutely. >> i have other questions and the radon and others, but my time is over. i would like to submit the questions to you in writing and get a response in writing as well. >> thank you. at this time, recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you. when you were here last year and i asked for a list of concerns with pennsylvania and i haven't heard back. i would like you to be back in touch with us. but pennsylvania has made changes to regulations. i'm not sure if you've read pennsylvania's act 13 was just

passed into law. but it contains a number of provisions in there including ways to handle violations and a has a requirement that unconventional well requirement that unconvention an well operation must have dep approved water management plans and a host of other regulation changes that the governor signed into law. now, i would ask then as i don't know if you actually had a chance to read that, i hope so, but what concerns me is i'd still like to hear from you as if anything remains with pennsylvania. i won't put you on the spot to have memorized that but get back to me. would you be able to do that, ma'am? >> we're happy to -- just keep in mind, sir, we're in the middle of a two-year study that is specifically to look on the impact of fracking on drinking water. what i said is anything we learned from that study, the first audience will be the states because they're really on the front line of trying to protect their people and regulate the industries to keep them safe and responsible. >> given that you're still in

the middle of a study, a february article from the "pittsburgh post gazette," you began an investigation of -- late in september when an on-sight aon on-site analysis was done. i'm concerned a couple things. you're in the middle of enforcement action bus you have not yet completed a study. i have also question is there a statute that gives the epa authority to regulate oil and gas production or is it water? i'm confused here. >> certain aspects of production are regulated under a number of statute, the clean air act, the clean water act, general duty clause under the clean air act, there is spill prevention and containment regulations that are separate. there are a number of statutes. i cannot comment on the validity of -- >> not specifically to gas production. you're saying it has to do with the water and air on site.

>> it has to do with environmental impacts with certain operations that might be associated with the drilling. the actual drilling and the actual injection of fracking fluid are not -- are generally exempt from any other major law. >> as you go through, do you have petroleum engineers working on the study for you in reviewing these things in pennsylvania? >> yes, sir. the study in its scope was peer reviewed. we put together panels, had public meetings. >> i'm aware of that. i wonder if you on your own employ petroleum engineers that have expertise in this area. >> we can certainly get you the list of folks. the study is being done by the office of research and development. i believe there are engineers of all types involved in the study. >> i'd appreciate knowing that. >> as you know in fy 10 congress directed the epa to carry out a study on the relation between hydraulic fracture and drinking

water. i've been looking at your fy 13 budget and you want an i digsal $14 million to expand the scope to cover potential ecosystem issues pup spent $1.9 million in fy 10, 9.7 million in 2012, 2013 you want to spend another 14 million. what's the cost this hole study of $28.1 million and expanded beyond the original scope. a recent study linked grand water contamination to well site that used hydraulic fracturing but there's been a number of scientific concerns, among them that have to do with the ph level of the water involved there. are you familiar with that question about the ph values in that city? >> generally, yes. >> there wasn't going to be math today, don't worry. >> what did you say? >> there's no math questions involved. >> i would appreciate you get

back to me on this. i understand in the case of drilling there was some test drill wells drilled. this was not the actual water wells drilled but test wells drilled by epa. so it wasn't actually testing the water there. but there was a concern about a high recorded ph level of 11.5 in these monitoring wells. i'm sorry, it's around there. but the soda ash that's used in the drilling, i just sent out some confusing information. the soda ash used in the drilling has a very high ph level, this 11.5. i wonder also if you can get back to us if you're not aware today if even the process of drilling your monitoring wells that chemicals were added in that process which may have influenced that finding. >> two things. as far as the study, it really isn't an expansion of the congressionally mandated study. we're going to include additional scientific questions working with usgs with the department of energy. that's in response to the president's call that we not shy away from investing in good

science. we believe that will make the natural gas industry more robust if we look to answer these questions. as far as pavilion, i've spoken to the governor several times, we've agreed to review and move forward together on additional investigation. certainly the use of some caustic soda ash could raise ph. but we believe when you look at the blanks and duplicate samples that our work is valid. but we're also agreeing to move forward collaboratively to take additional samples. >> yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentlelady from california for five minutes. >> thank you for your testimony. i want to begin with a brief comment. i was disappointed with the decision toe eliminate beach act grants. without funding county environmental health officials will have to drop testing. we've seen 11 occasions when conditions were so bad officials

closed the stretch of shoreline to all contact, the possibility of cutbacks is not good news. we can't assume local jurisdictions will able to replace lost grant funding. epa needs to partner with you're local communities, not leave them out to dry. now on to questions. last year when you appeared before to us discuss the administration's 2012 budget request, you noted adaptation to changing high drological conditions is, quote, a significant issue faced by the initial's drinking water and waste water utilities. unfortunately the cost of these adaptation needs is not currently included in epa's infrastructure replacement cost estimates for water and waste water system. since that time epa's budget has further experienced cuts but data continues to accumulate demonstrating the scope of adaptation challenges faced by water systems. a report recently released by the johnson foundation concluded that our nation's drinking and

waste water infrastructure is not prepared to deal with extreme weather events including persistent drought and declining snow pack. more frequent occurrence of these events will strain water systems and impose drastic costs on local communities across the country. however, sin last year i've taken steps to address this issue by introducing the water infrastructure resiliency act and offer competitive matching grants to help local water systems. i'm pleased this legislation enjoys wide support in the water utility community. given these well documented challeng challenges facing the nation's water systems do you think the cooperative approach can become an effective first step to address this issue? >> thank you. although i can't speak on the specifics of this legislation, i think that you bring up a good point. adaptation and the issues it's

going to mean for our infrastructure are significant and will require a collaborative approach in terms of engineers as well folks who are interested in providing water but also folks who are interested in lowering costs and in community public health protection. >> and is there -- is there a structure within the budget to deal with this? >> i don't believe so. i don't believe we have anything in the current budget. >> so we'll have to be innovative in figuring out way tos cooperative -- >> we're happy to work with your staff. >> we're happy to do that, too. i want to turn to your work in advancing the sustainable communities initiative, which is something i commend and i was pleased to see the president again made this an important initiative, a priority in his budget. this funding helps empower local communities to plan more sustainable communities with more housing and transportation choices so families can live close to where they work, shop and go to school. this dramatically reduces

commuting times which is good to the only for economic growth but also energy depensd. do you see this sustainable development as an effective way for communities to help insulate themselves, even from the rising gas prices? >> yes. as communities choose. and it is a voluntary program, but for those communities who are choosing to look at thos issues of transportation, energy, water, efficiency and environment all together, they're finding win-win solutions. >> good. are there example just for the record of how this type of development impacts a community's energy independence? >> oh, absolutely. you know, it can be a large city like philadelphia where we're working with them. i should probably pick one in california. i apologize. they're in my mind because of a previous question. or it cab smaller community or rural community who are looking for potential new development as their economy improves and making choices about